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.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

...and I agree, I haven't seen so much as a blip about this situation in Texas either. Most discussions end with "well, shouldn't have robbed their house."

Amen

[EE-BO]

To third what srmom and TexasWSP said- this is just a nonissue down here.

That said, I have had some friends from up north ask me about it and express astonishment with the Texas laws. These are intelligent and educated people, and so it is really about a completely different mindset. I find the idea there are states in the US where I could not shoot someone who broke into my home equally ridiculous. So I am not being any more open-minded than my buddies in NY and Chicago.

My personal philosophy and defense of this law is this- When a person illegally enters my homestead, they are invading my privacy and sense of security in a way that goes far beyond something like mugging me on the street. And they are putting my family at risk as well. Home and family are the core of anyone's existence- whether you live in an apartment with a goldfish or on a family estate with 40 relatives within spitting distance.

And so on that basis, I feel totally justified in shooting first and asking questions later if I think it is warranted.

From a general societal perspective, I wonder (I have no idea) what the home break-in stats are in states like Texas versus states which do not have laws like ours. It would be interesting to know if the Texas law is also a true deterrent in addition to being in line with how most people down here think.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

From a general societal perspective, I wonder (I have no idea) what the home break-in stats are in states like Texas versus states which do not have laws like ours. It would be interesting to know if the Texas law is also a true deterrent in addition to being in line with how most people down here think.

You can look at the UCR and similar reporting agencies of crime stats for comparisons. Even if Texas does have less burglaries, it isn't necessarily because of this law. Only a longitudinal study of crime statistics, and additional factors, before this law and after this law was implemented could find this. My educated prediction is that a study would not conclude this law is a deterrent.

With laws such as this people need to be honest about the (desired) effect. It's a very retributive law.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

This discussion isn't about agreeing. It is about discussing.