Joe Horn

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

So you can say with certainty that you knew how he really felt?

Is it necessarily about knowing with certainty how he really felt?

Another instance:
If a police officer shoots an unarmed assailant in the head, or shoots a fleeing assailant, what potentially happens to the officer in some jurisdictions? If the officer claims to have felt threatened or to have been defending her/himself, what is the evidence that can be used to support and refute this claim? Of course, psychologists can be employed but they'd look at the circumstances. They wouldn't hire a mind reader. Even if the officer did feel threatened, the threat has to be reasonable and the actions have to be seen as justified.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Is it necessarily about knowing with certainty how he really felt?

Another instance:
If a police officer shoots an unarmed assailant in the head, or shoots a fleeing assailant, what potentially happens to the officer in some jurisdictions? If the officer claims to have felt threatened or to have been defending her/himself, what is the evidence that can be used to support and refute this claim? Of course, psychologists can be employed but they'd look at the circumstances. They wouldn't hire a mind reader. Even if the officer did feel threatened, the threat has to be reasonable and the actions have to be seen as justified.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter about feeling threatened in this situation. If a cop is holding an assailant at gun point and he refuses to obey his commands......he can shoot him, given he goes through the necessary steps to reach that last-resort tactic.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

given he goes through the necessary steps to reach that last-resort tactic.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I knew with certainty that was the portion of my statement that you would highlight and comment on. If memory serves me, Horn operated within his limits. Is that not correct? He said he felt threatened, stated why he shot them, and had an undercover cop attest to the situation that played out. End of story.

I'm not feeling that the comparison between a cop and Horn works. I don't think a cop has to feel threatened to shoot someone. If a cop tells you to do something, especially after you just committed a fairly serious crime, and you disobey and run.......you are running a great risk of getting shot.

...and Kevin, I am going to assume that cops follow the right procedures more times than not.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

I knew with certainty that was the portion of my statement that you would highlight and comment on. If memory serves me, Horn operated within his limits. Is that not correct? He said he felt threatened, stated why he shot them, and had an undercover cop attest to the situation that played out. End of story.

I'm not feeling that the comparison between a cop and Horn works. I don't think a cop has to feel threatened to shoot someone. If a cop tells you to do something, especially after you just committed a fairly serious crime, and you disobey and run.......you are running a great risk of getting shot.

...and Kevin, I am going to assume that cops follow the right procedures more times than not.

Brother,
No one here, TTBOMK, was on the GJ.
I have heard the 911 tapes over and over and over.
And the first thought I had from the very first one is still in my mind:
He had it in his head that he was going to shoot & kill someone as he place the call.
He was safe inside his own house.
What did he do? He got a shot-gun, loaded it, went out side, told the two they were dead and then fired into their backs.
Just MPOV and VHO.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Just MPOV and VHO.

Not just yours.

Texas law has "spoken" but this discussion doesn't end there.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Not just yours.

Texas law has "spoken" but this discussion doesn't end there.

Thankfully Texas law agrees with my POV. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Either you think that Joe made the right decision to go outside and confront the thieves or you think that Joe Horn should have hidden in his house and let the crooks get away. I wouldn't have done what Joe Horn did but I admire him for having the courage to do it.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Brother,
No one here, TTBOMK, was on the GJ.
I have heard the 911 tapes over and over and over.
And the first thought I had from the very first one is still in my mind:
He had it in his head that he was going to shoot & kill someone as he place the call.
He was safe inside his own house.
What did he do? He got a shot-gun, loaded it, went out side, told the two they were dead and then fired into their backs.
Just MPOV and VHO.

1. I don't know what all of these abbreviations mean.

2. The report and eyewitness account by the police officer, if I read it correctly, states that the illegal Colombian criminals ran at him and then veered off as he shot them. Again, if two burglars run at me after robbing the house next door.....they are getting shot.

3. Who cares if he was "safe inside his house"? He protected his neighbor's home and took two pieces of trash off my Texas streets. Congratulations for not doing nothing.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

If memory serves me, Horn operated within his limits. Is that not correct?

If a cop tells you to do something, especially after you just committed a fairly serious crime, and you disobey and run.......you are running a great risk of getting shot.

No and cops especially can't shoot to kill, just because.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

No and cops especially can't shoot to kill, just because.

So no?.........Joe Horn didn't operate within the limits of the law here in Texas? Didn't we establish that he did?

I don't think he shot them "just because". Apparently you do. I think he shot them because they ran at him and he robbed his neighbor's home.

Furthermore, your original post asked about a cop shooting a fleeing assailant and what the outcome would be......not shooting someone "just because". Pretty sure there is a huge difference.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

operate within the limits of the law here in Texas?

You're talking about Texas law. I'm not.

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

I don't think he shot them "just because". Apparently you do. I think he shot them because they ran at him.

It is often the case that cops can't shoot alleged assailants in the back or shoot to kill when there is no clear and present threat. That's what my original post addressed.

Horn shot and killed "just because" he wanted to and felt that he could. If they ran from him then they were no longer his problem. They weren't his problem in the first place but especially if they were running.

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Furthermore, your original post asked about a cop shooting a fleeing assailant and what the outcome would be......not shooting someone "just because". Pretty sure there is a huge difference.

No, I provided a rhetorical question about cops shooting alleged assailants who present no clear and present threat, whether they are unarmed or fleeing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter about feeling threatened in this situation. If a cop is holding an assailant at gun point and he refuses to obey his commands......he can shoot him, given he goes through the necessary steps to reach that last-resort tactic.

Which always happens. Just ask the cops.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Which always happens. Just ask the cops.

I assume this is sarcasm.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I assume this is sarcasm.

Of course.