Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. First the Heller verdict, now Joe Horn has been cleared... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two suspected burglars he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall. Link to comment
Lawman Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. Link to comment
Whip Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I thought you were talkin about this Joe Horn????? Link to comment
bakerzdosen Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I thought you were talkin about this Joe Horn????? He was innocent too... Link to comment
Marek Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. good riddance. Link to comment
Highway41 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Glad I was not on the Grand Jury. Bill Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Yup. Noting says "freedom to travel" more than being gunned down by a trigger happy neighbor who thinks you don't belong. Link to comment
Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 Yup. Noting says "freedom to travel" more than being gunned down by a trigger happy neighbor who thinks you don't belong. Did you forget they were burglars who actually rushed towards Horn as he stood lawfully on his own property? Link to comment
smiller Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Did you forget that he was in no danger and voluntarily chose to confront them (in a situation that easily could and did escalate to deadly force) over a property crime? I believe in gun ownership rights but this case is a pretty terrible poster child. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Did you forget they were burglars who actually rushed towards Horn as he stood lawfully on his own property? 1. How did he know? He didn't. 2. They didn't rush him. He rushed them as he went outside to shoot them (in defense of someone else's property) deliberately. Link to comment
rob1100r Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Mr. Horn did society a favor. Link to comment
Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 Did you forget that he was in no danger and voluntarily chose to confront them (in a situation that easily could and did escalate to deadly force) over a property crime? He did nothing illegal. He's said himself that he wishes he'd stayed inside that night, but he didn't break the law. Don't like it? Change the law. I believe in gun ownership rights but this case is a pretty terrible poster child. Can't disagree there, but I'd much rather the system side with the lawful party as it did here. I've seen cases of "mother leaves child in car" and "mother fails to properly belt child seat, child killed by air bag" not prosecuted because the mother has "paid enough". We know what the law says now, but with that fact ignored for a moment - has Joe Horn not paid enough? The criminals made their own beds. Link to comment
smiller Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Don't like it? Change the law. I'm afraid that bonehead actions like his will incent others to do just that. Link to comment
Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 Did you forget they were burglars who actually rushed towards Horn as he stood lawfully on his own property? 1. How did he know? He didn't. Horn heard them break glass and saw them climb through a window into his neighbor's home. Then they climbed out his neighbor's window with his neighbor's stuff. 2. They didn't rush him. He rushed them as he went outside to shoot them (in defense of someone else's property) deliberately. That is not what the detective who witnessed the event said. "The detective [who was an eyewitness -my note] confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," Link to comment
Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 Don't like it? Change the law. I'm afraid that bonehead actions like his will incent others to do just that. Only if this was a case where the TX law about using deadly physical force in defense of property applied. ed- the law on self defense is quite clear, and it's got very deep roots - it would take way more than Joe Horn to move a change on that. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Horn heard them break glass and saw them climb through a window into his neighbor's home. Then they climbed out his neighbor's window with his neighbor's stuff. One more lesson: never lock yourself out of your house unless your neighbors know you well. That is not what the detective who witnessed the event said. Horn charged them when he left his house. And, as the line just before what you quoted said, one was already moving away from Horn in a diagonal. I'll just note that unindicted doesn't equate to "didn't break the law." What more would a person expect from a grand jury filled with Texans? Link to comment
David Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Is this where Bill Murray steps in the puddle again? Link to comment
smiller Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 What more would a person expect from a grand jury filled with Texans? Congratulations..? Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Don't like it? Change the law. I'm afraid that bonehead actions like his will incent others to do just that. That would be my concern. I really like the way the laws about this sort of thing work in Texas, but it seems to me that this was a pretty extreme case...and exactly the sort of thing that leads the gun-grabbers to start requiring that every law-abiding person is a victim. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but I also think Mr Horn has very poor judgment. If he thought his neighbor was home and at risk, then that would be different, but going out of your way to confront two thugs with deadly force over property doesn't make much sense to me. Link to comment
smiller Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Is this where Bill Murray steps in the puddle again? No, this is where he complains about repetitious threads... Link to comment
David Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 If he thought his neighbor was home and at risk, then that would be different, but going out of your way to confront two thugs with deadly force over property doesn't make much sense to me. That's just because you moved from Texas to California. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. First the Heller verdict, now Joe Horn has been cleared...That's a disgrace, he should have been doing time. Link to comment
MotorinLA Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Yup. Noting says "freedom to travel" more than being gunned down by a trigger happy neighbor who thinks you don't belong. Did you forget they were burglars who actually rushed towards Horn as he stood lawfully on his own property? Were they crab-people? The fact that neither one of the burglars were shot from the front, makes it a little difficult to believe that they were running directly towards Joe Horn... Link to comment
Deadboy Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Shooting someone in the back doesn't exactly make you a hero....count me in the "glad I wasn't on the jury" camp. I actually know someone that had a similar situation happen (he was the shooter) and he was convicted but the judge suspended his sentence. I testified at the trial as a character witness for him...only difference was he only wounded one of the people he confronted...and he never left his property.... Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. First the Heller verdict, now Joe Horn has been cleared...That's a disgrace, he should have been doing time. For violating what law? Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 If he thought his neighbor was home and at risk, then that would be different, but going out of your way to confront two thugs with deadly force over property doesn't make much sense to me. That's just because you moved from Texas to California. LOL! Probably so. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 For violating what law? Surely Texas has anti-murder laws. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. First the Heller verdict, now Joe Horn has been cleared...That's a disgrace, he should have been doing time. For violating what law? "Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house, both shot in the back." Murder. Link to comment
Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 One more lesson: never lock yourself out of your house unless your neighbors know you well. You climb OUT your own windows? Horn charged them when he left his house. He was in his own yard. He wasn't doing anything illegal. They were criminals fleeing a crime. And, as the line just before what you quoted said, one was already moving away from Horn in a diagonal. Of course if they'd put their hands up we wouldn't be talking about it. What more would a person expect from a grand jury filled with Texans? 28 lbs of belt buckles? He was in fear for his life. A reasonable person in his position knowing what he knew at the time would be in fear for his/her life. He was entitled to defend himself using deadly force in the eyes of the law. That's my opinion. It was my opinion before the grand jury came back. It's now reinforced by the grand jury no billing this. I've always maintained that while lawful, leaving his home wasn't great judgment but poor judgment isn't illegal. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. First the Heller verdict, now Joe Horn has been cleared...That's a disgrace, he should have been doing time. For violating what law? "Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house, both shot in the back." Murder. Not by Texas law. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. First the Heller verdict, now Joe Horn has been cleared...That's a disgrace, he should have been doing time. For violating what law? "Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house, both shot in the back." Murder. Not by Texas law. And, as I said, that's disgraceful. Link to comment
Deadboy Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 He was in fear for his life. Really? Actually he was sitting safely in his home on the phone with the police until he decided to grab a gun and go outside... Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 He was in fear for his life. That's complete BS. If he was in fear for his life, he would have stayed inside and not told the operator he was going out. He was entitled to defend himself using deadly force in the eyes of the law. That's my opinion. It was my opinion before the grand jury came back. It's now reinforced by the grand jury no billing this. I've always maintained that while lawful, leaving his home wasn't great judgment but poor judgment isn't illegal. Again, a grand jury is not a decider of law. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Not by Texas law. And, as I said, that's disgraceful. Let's not confuse Texas law with the decision of the grand jury. Link to comment
Matts_12GS Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 What more would a person expect from a grand jury filled with Texans? More common sense and better football? 28 lbs of belt buckles? That too. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 He was in fear for his life. Really? Actually he was sitting safely in his home on the phone with the police until he decided to grab a gun and go outside... Yeah...I don't see how he could reasonably claim to be in fear for his life when he left the relative security and safety of his home to go outside in the dark away from cover or concealment to confront TWO (or more) probably-armed thugs on someone else's property. Link to comment
Fugu Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 The fact that neither one of the burglars were shot from the front, makes it a little difficult to believe that they were running directly towards Joe Horn... Plenty of cops have been acquitted after shooting criminals in the back. The same mechanics are at work here. As a cop you should know all about this. Are you trying to play dumb? Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Yeah...I don't see how he could reasonably claim to be in fear for his life when he left the relative security and safety of his home to go outside in the dark away from cover or concealment to confront TWO (or more) probably-armed thugs on someone else's property. Now I see. You're clearly confusing this with some other case. According to a transcript of Horn's 911 call, which he made about 2 p.m., the operator repeatedly urged Horn to stay in his house, but Horn said he did not believe it would be right to let the burglars get away. Link to comment
Fugu Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 He was in fear for his life. Really? Actually he was sitting safely in his home on the phone with the police until he decided to grab a gun and go outside... ....which was not illegal. Once he made that poor decision, he was confronted by two criminals who put him in reasonable fear for his life as defined in Texas (and many other states') law. The standard for what's reasonable use of force doesn't say anything about lawful citizens having to stay in their homes for it to apply. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Now I see. You're clearly confusing this with some other case. Me? How so? Fugu's the one saying he was in fear for his life...I'm calling BS on that. Link to comment
Fugu Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 Not by Texas law. And, as I said, that's disgraceful. You appear to be stuck thinking this was deadly force to protect property. It wasn't, contrary to what the media reports (because that's more interesting - new law by an evil Republican already causing problems...) It was self defense, and the TX law mirrors that of many other states, including the one you and I live in. The laws on that are quite old and have withstood many challenges. Link to comment
Fugu Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 He was in fear for his life. That's complete BS. If he was in fear for his life, he would have stayed inside and not told the operator he was going out. That's your opinion. You ever been in a similar pickle? What did you do? Again, a grand jury is not a decider of law. I didn't say that it was. I said I see it as reinforcing my opinion, which was formed well before the grand jury. Link to comment
Twisties Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Good month for the rights of citizens. First the Heller verdict, now Joe Horn has been cleared...That's a disgrace, he should have been doing time. For violating what law? "Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house, both shot in the back." Murder. Not by Texas law. And, as I said, that's disgraceful. +1 Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 That's your opinion. Of course it's my opinion. Whose would it be? You ever been in a similar pickle? What did you do? No. But I wouldn't have gone outside to murder two people like your hero. Link to comment
smiller Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 What I was taught with respect to Texas law on the matter was that was that you have a 'duty to retreat' if possible before employing deadly force, i.e. if you can extricate yourself from the confrontation then that option must be used before applying deadly defensive force, and you may not use deadly force to defend property only. That is not the case in one's home or land however, and in that case there is not only no requirement to attempt to retreat from a confrontation but a pretty wide latitude in use of force, including deadly force, and this does include defense of personal property. And in the case of a confrontation in your home there probably isn't going to be a lot of attention paid to whether an intruder is shot in the front, back, or big toe. So the question then is did this guy have a duty to retreat on his neighbor's property? Since he had been asked to watch it and had permission to be there apparently it was considered close enough to his own to come under that part of the statute, and in that case it is essentially open season for the reason described above. If they were on your property and committing a crime it doesn't really matter if they were a'comin or a'goin. The purpose of this is to allow one to defend one's home without fear of having the incident picked apart two years later in court. So whether one agrees with the law or not it is possible to see in a technical sense why the grand jury decided as they did under a strict interpretation of the statutes. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 That's your opinion. Of course it's my opinion. Whose would it be? LOL! You ever been in a similar pickle? What did you do? No. But I wouldn't have gone outside to murder two people like your hero. I think that's the root of it. Maybe he was in fear for his life...after he left his house to go confront two probably armed thugs who weren't on his property. Technically, he was probably within the law (which is why the case turned out the way it did), but I think we should use this as an example of what not to do, Mr Horn should be thankful that the law is so lenient, and those of us who are in favor of self-defense should hope that the gun-grabbers don't use cases like this against us. Link to comment
Fugu Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 You ever been in a similar pickle? What did you do? No. But I wouldn't have gone outside to murder two people like your hero. My hero. Cute. Bottom line is you have no idea what you would do. That's what's BS here. It's totally understandable that in your ignorance you think the way you do. Stop and consider how life has a wonderful way of reminding you that you really don't know squat. Apply it to this situation and hope you never find out. The decision to go outside was not a good one, but it wasn't illegal. That doesn't mean Horn abdicates his right to self defense. Link to comment
Lawman Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Here's the law..Joe Horn broke no law..I like the law.. § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Link to comment
Fugu Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 That's your opinion. Of course it's my opinion. Whose would it be? LOL! He's speculating as to what another man would have done if he was in fear for his life, stating it as though it's a fact. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.