Remember the Texan that murdered his neighbor's intruders?

So he actually shot them both in the back? In the old thread I thought it was only one of them. I don't think all the info was in yet then though.

Anyway, not surprising.
 
EXCELLENT.

Now maybe crooks will think f'ing twice about going inside someone else's property to STEAL. And in some cases they don't just steal, they MURDER or RAPE, too ...
 
Vigilante justice is not okay. To disagree is to either not understand or not support the very foundation of our legal system. Joe Horn is not judge, jury and executioner -- regardless of whether or not his judgment may have coincided with that of the general public.

This man is a murderer. It sickens me to see how many are daft enough to support him.
 
[quote name='jlarlee']IMO if you are in the middle of breaking the law you lose your rights[/quote]


I will remember that when you litter(goes to get shotgun ready)
 
Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.
Click to expand...

...Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.
Click to expand...

No, nothing suspicious there. Guy's a saint.
 
They were scum. I applaud Mr. Horn for having the courage to stand up to the degenerate evil elements of society.

Plus it's Texas (pansy-ass illegal immigrant coddling California laws don't apply!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html

The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the “actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.”


He was up against 2 dangerous criminals in the act of a crime. It's a 2 on 1 situation against 2 younger, faster, and stronger adversaries; he has no clue if they are armed or not. Simple logic of self preservation says that you either hide or if you choose to confront, you shoot fast. It's not like there's lots of time to think in a situation like that... and if you think to much, you'll likely end up dead.

Burglars should know that if they choose to break the law, there will be a high probability that they will be shot on the spot (obviously I mean violent crimes against person or property... invoking littering is glib).
 
[quote name='BigT']The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the “actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.”[/QUOTE]

Does not apply.

[quote name='Texas Penal Code 9.43']A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.[/quote]
 
[quote name='BigT']They were scum. I applaud Mr. Horn for having the courage to stand up to the degenerate evil elements of society.

Plus it's Texas (pansy-ass illegal immigrant coddling California laws don't apply!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html

The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the “actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.”


He was up against 2 dangerous criminals in the act of a crime. It's a 2 on 1 situation against 2 younger, faster, and stronger adversaries; he has no clue if they are armed or not. Simple logic of self preservation says that you either hide or if you choose to confront, you shoot fast. It's not like there's lots of time to think in a situation like that... and if you think to much, you'll likely end up dead.

Burglars should know that if they choose to break the law, there will be a high probability that they will be shot on the spot (obviously I mean violent crimes against person or property... invoking littering is glib).[/quote]


he wasnt up against anyone, they were fleeing. It takes great courage to shoot two men in the back and i see you hold him in high esteem. He also had a lot of time in the situation as it was all recorded by 911. It was def a thought out shooting. The only time he was in danger was when he left his house to shoot the men.
 
Forgive me for not being familiar with this story but I came in here expecting there to be some sort of twist......"Texas man shoots suspected intruders at neighbors house only to find out the "intruders" were just his neighbors who had accidentally locked themselves out of the house."

I have no problem shooting intruders but shooting people as they are running away......that dog won't hunt.
 
I have mixed feelings on this.

I don't really agree with his decision to shoot these scum. It was unwise, and he should probably get some sort of punishment, but certainly not for murder.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of a circumstance where a criminal can be killed in the act of committing a serious felony, by anyone, and consider it full on murder.



Edit: Now watch the American Criminal Liberties Union go apeshit and drag this out for half a decade.
 
My use of "murder" was flamebait more than anything, I don't consider it full-on murder either. I think the world is better off with these two men dead (if the cops had found them they'd just be deported, then they'd come back here), but I also think Joe Horn should be in prison for acting above the law.
 
the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
Click to expand...
It wasn't his property in danger. It was his neighbor's.

The problem is that while we all agree that the dudes he blew away were scum bags, he said to the 9-1-1 operator at least 5 times that he was going to kill the men when they came out of the house. And in the back no less?

That's premeditated murder guys. Sorry.
 
LOL@"get off my lawn" usertext

I think you're reading the statute wrong, but it doesn't matter because it doesn't apply. The part you quoted just means 9.41 and 9.42 give the terms for justification in force for protecting your own property -- 9.43 gives the terms for when those rights extend to the property of others. The reason it doesn't apply is because neighbors aren't covered under 2c, it fails the second prong.

Like I said though, it doesn't matter. He, illegally, killed two people.
 
I don't think anyone disagrees that the intruders should have been severely punished, even shot (although not fatally IMO).

The problem is that it was vigilante justice from a redneck that seemed borderline racist over robbery and it was deemed perfectly alright. This isn't shooting a guy that's about to slit a child's throat. This isn't blowing away some guy in the act of attempted rape. This was some guy almost orgasming at the thought of being able to kill two illegals just because they broke into a friend's house. You don't reward behavior like that and not expect to open Pandora's Box.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It wasn't his property in danger. It was his neighbor's.

The problem is that while we all agree that the dudes he blew away were scum bags, he said to the 9-1-1 operator at least 5 times that he was going to kill the men when they came out of the house. And in the back no less?

That's premeditated murder guys. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

It was my understanding that they actually either were on his property or crossing his property when he shot them.

I've actually been told by law enforcement folks that if someone is on your property, and you at all feel threatened, you can kill them and usually get away with it if you can prove there was some type of threat. (I am assuming that's an extremely simplified version of the law, but that's usually the version cops deal with on their own)

Obviously there are extenuating circumstances here, as the criminals were running, and happened to touch his property. But I almost get the feeling that the Grand Jury viewed this like an american gladiator game in a way, as they crossed his property, they suddenly became "free game".

Not saying I agree, just some random observations...
 
[quote name='Koggit']Absolutely unbelievable.[/quote]

It's fucking Texas, nothing in unbelievable.

Lincoln was wrong, he should have let the fuckers leave.
 
hmm. How is this possible?

The robbers crawling out of a window don't seem to have Capability, Opportunity, nor Intent How the hell does this guy get away with using deadly force?
 
[quote name='homeland']hmm. How is this possible?

The robbers crawling out of a window don't seem to have Capability, Opportunity, nor Intent How the hell does this guy get away with using deadly force?[/QUOTE]

Defense of property?

I'd like to read the full ruling, but I'm too tired to look it up.
 
Any other state in the union and Joe Horn would be going to prison for the rest of his life.
 
If it was me, I would've shot a warning shot right next to their feet. That's universal code for "don't f*cking move."

That way, there's no need to harm them physically and open yourself up to getting the shit sued out of you.

Basically after that, I'd just wait for the cops to arrive.

 
[quote name='level1online']If it was me, I would've shot a warning shot right next to their feet. That's universal code for "don't f*cking move."

That way, there's no need to harm them physically and open yourself up to getting the shit sued out of you.

Basically after that, I'd just wait for the cops to arrive.

[/quote]

Not sure that would work with a shotgun...
 
[quote name='level1online']If it was me, I would've shot a warning shot right next to their feet. That's universal code for "don't f*cking move."[/quote]

That would've been a better decision, but again something that would only work in Texas, anywhere else and it's a 3 year sentence minimum (illegal discharge of a firearm).

~HotShotX
 
A key thing to remember is that a police officer watched the shooting from the safety of his car. Not only did this give a credible witness; but it showed us how an officer is likely to react.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']A key thing to remember is that a police officer watched the shooting from the safety of his car. Not only did this give a credible witness; but it showed us how an officer is likely to react.[/quote]

WTF?

Before, the 911 operator (a paid public servant) doesn't tell the man to cease and desist under penalty of law.

Now, a police officer (a paid public servant) on the scene chooses to sit on the sidelines.

I can't really see how you can convict a guy for taking the law into his own hands when the people with the duty to uphold the law chose to hit the snooze button.

Somebody tell me CC is making this up.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I can't really see how you can convict a guy for taking the law into his own hands when the people with the duty to uphold the law chose to hit the snooze button.

Somebody tell me CC is making this up.[/quote]

I wish I was.

From the Houston Chronicle:

A plainclothes Pasadena officer witnessed the shooting from his patrol car in front of Horn's house.
Click to expand...
 
What the fuck? The detective being there is reason not to take the law into your own hands. fucking idiots, I swear to god...

Mr. Horn can't really be blamed for that aspect, since he didn't know the cop was there... but what if the detective were black? He'd probably be dead too, after Horn assumed he was the get away driver.

There are many reasons people are NOT allowed to take the law into their own hands. In this situation, justice was served. I fully believe that. But that's not always the case. Mr. Horn's actions were extremely reckless. If he had been mistaken about what they were doing, or misfired, or caught an innocent person in the spread, etc, etc, there are so many opportunities for things to go wrong. What if these guys turned out to be starving born & raised Americans, this was their first crime, and they were only stealing enough to buy a loaf of bread. Would they have deserved death? That decision cannot be left to one random citizen. Mr. Horn does not have the right to make all these decisions. It's dangerous. What if he was speeding at 200 MPH down the highway but didn't wreck. Is it okay just because nothing bad happened? NO. It's illegal and he has to be punished because something very bad COULD have happened.

A man who acts on his own accord with disrespect for the law is a threat to society. We have laws to protect society from individuals who believe they should be allowed to take risks that they should not. We don't allow people to drive 200 MPH because bad things could happen, we don't allow people to administer vigilante justice because bad things could happen. Regardless of whether or not something bad happened, what he did is illegal and he needs to be punished. To not understand that, really, is to not understand why we have laws. How do you expect to maintain order if you only decide to punish those who actually cause harm?

[quote name='level1online']If it was me, I would've shot a warning shot right next to their feet.

Basically after that, I'd just wait for the cops to arrive.[/QUOTE]

And if a cop was already there?
 
[quote name='Cheese']Any other state in the union and Joe Horn would be going to prison for the rest of his life.[/QUOTE]

I really don't buy that. There are at least half a dozen other states that are very gun friendly and usually side on the "defender" when someone gets shot. I'm happy to live in one of them.

Someone was telling me about another case, and damned if I can't find the actual source or a link for you guys. I am pretty sure it happened in Oregon (polar opposite of Texas by many counts). This young couple was held up in an apartment building. The guy was packing but just gave the robbers their money, since it isn't smart to try and do a quick draw with a gun pointed at you, obviously. After they gave the robbers their money, the robbers took off down stairs. The guy ran downstairs after them to get their license plate number as they got in their car. The robbers saw him and opened fire. The man returned fire, killing both robbers. Apparently the man is now on trial for murder or something now. Damn it, I'll keep looking for the link. But I thought it was interesting how a liberal state handles such matters vs Texas.

Oh and koggit, I appreciate what you have to say about vigilante justice. However, I am wondering how you feel about Cop vigilante justice. I really don't think many people know just how often it happens. Cops get really really really sick of the justice system spitting trash back out on the streets and many veteran cops will shoot first and make up stories later. Happens all the time in bigger cities, but they rarely get caught because we trust cops to tell us what "really happened".
 
[quote name='Koggit']What the fuck? The detective being there is reason not to take the law into your own hands. fucking idiots, I swear to god...
[/quote]

It changes a bit if the cops are derelict in their duties. The cop on the phone should have defused Mr. Horn. The cop on the scene should have been taking control of the situation and conferencing with Mr. Horn.

[quote name='Koggit']
Mr. Horn can't really be blamed for that aspect, since he didn't know the cop was there... but what if the detective were black? He'd probably be dead too, after Horn assumed he was the get away driver.
[/quote]

You're making a big assumption. The detective could have been conferencing with Mr. Horn or turned on his lights and siren to announce his presence. Instead, the detective avoided his duties.

[quote name='Koggit']
There are many reasons people are NOT allowed to take the law into their own hands. In this situation, justice was served. I fully believe that. But that's not always the case. Mr. Horn's actions were extremely reckless.
[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote name='Koggit']
If he had been mistaken about what they were doing, or misfired, or caught an innocent person in the spread, etc, etc, there are so many opportunities for things to go wrong.
[/quote]

Agreed. He gambled and everything turned out well for him.

[quote name='Koggit']
What if these guys turned out to be starving born & raised Americans, this was their first crime, and they were only stealing enough to buy a loaf of bread. Would they have deserved death?
[/quote]

Yes. Whether they were good people resorting to crime to feed themselves or not is irrelevant. They chose to commit a crime instead of begging people for money, seeking aid from a church/food bank or offering to perform menial tasks (mowing lawns, painting, etc.) for people.

Nobody starved to death working at McDonald's.
 
This was intersting until the race card came out again. Sure he would have shot the cop given his skin color. why wait until tonight to kill all the non white races then. Give me a break.
 
After listening to the 911 call it only gets more disturbing. The use of deadly force isn't to kill someone its to stop the threat. You don't shoot to kill or say "i'm going to kill them" you shoot to protect yourself. How much of a threat were these people with their backs turned to him?
 
Typical, redneck, conservative Texas bullshit.

There's no reason to shoot burglars (and they were buglars, not robbers get your shit straight people) who are fleeing a neighbors house. Maybe fire a warning shot in the air or something if you want to try to get them to stop until the cops get their. But shooting people in the back fleeing from a burglary? That should at least be voluntary manslaughter.

Lethal force is only to be used in a last resort situation--even by law enforcement, much less citizens, much less a citizen who wasn't even the victim.

I really hate this gun happy, conservative shithole of a country some times. :bomb:
 
[quote name='homeland']After listening to the 911 call it only gets more disturbing. The use of deadly force isn't to kill someone its to stop the threat. You don't shoot to kill or say "i'm going to kill them" you shoot to protect yourself. How much of a threat were these people with their backs turned to him?[/QUOTE]

I don't think the question of whether they were a threat to him were pertinent in the trial, or the grand jurry decision.

I believe in some states you actually can shoot someone for trespassing and/or burglary, even in the back. The only shady part of this story, as far as Texas law is concerned, is that it wasn't his property (although they did cross his lawn in retreat, I think).

The more I think about this, I don't think any Jury in America would have convicted John of murder, at the most maybe manslaughter, if it happened on the left coasts.

It would be interesting to get some more legal analysis from one of our many Attorney's on this forum that might be familiar with Texas law.
 
The best part is that there will be no BS civil suit because the two thieves were illegal immigrants.

These illegal immigrants are last week's version of the Six Flags kid who tried to stop a rollercoaster with his head. The only difference is that in this case there's a flesh-and-bone person that special interest groups can use as a scapegoat.

The main lesson here is that if you're a resident of Columbia, don't hop the border illegally and start robbing houses in Texas.

more_you_know1.jpg
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't think the question of whether they were a threat to him were pertinent in the trial, or the grand jurry decision.

I believe in some states you actually can shoot someone for trespassing and/or burglary, even in the back. The only shady part of this story, as far as Texas law is concerned, is that it wasn't his property (although they did cross his lawn in retreat, I think).

The more I think about this, I don't think any Jury in America would have convicted John of murder, at the most maybe manslaughter, if it happened on the left coasts.

It would be interesting to get some more legal analysis from one of our many Attorney's on this forum that might be familiar with Texas law.[/quote]


My point is, only under the most extreme cases should one use deadly force. You should only have to use the amount of force to protect oneself. Deadly force shouldn't be allowed just because someone stepped onto your grass or is running away with your tv. Would love to know how this story would go if they were 2 white suburban teenagers.

Just another example how we can no longer claim that we are a Country of justice.
 
[quote name='camoor']

The main lesson here is that if you're a resident of Columbia, don't hop the border illegally and start robbing houses in Texas.
[/QUOTE]
:rofl:
Oh shit dude, I almost spit my Indy Whopper out.
 
[quote name='homeland'] Would love to know how this story would go if they were 2 white suburban teenagers. [/quote]

Why the race card? This issue had nothing to do with race and the 911 call showed no evidence of racism.

If it were two white teenagers it would have gone down the same except the kids families would be suing in a civil suit, because they would likely be citizens.

Just another example how we can no longer claim that we are a Country of justice.
Click to expand...

It never has been, my friend.
 
[quote name='homeland']Would love to know how this story would go if they were 2 white suburban teenagers.

[/quote]

It was documented well in the last Hardy Boys book, "The Hardy Boys Commit a Felony in Texas."
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It was documented well in the last Hardy Boys book, "The Hardy Boys Commit a Felony in Texas."[/QUOTE]

And all this time I thought that felony was going to be sadomy.
 
I sounds like he might have provoked them into coming onto his property. No law allows you to lure people onto your property to kill them.

what I found interesting is that Horn's own attorney doesn't really back up his story.

Horn's attorney Charles Lambright said his client shot in self-defense after going outside to look for a license plate number and being surprised by the burglars
Click to expand...

All in all I think it is a case of a jury doing what "seems" right as opposed to listening to the actual facts in the case. I've served on a few jury and have seen this happen.


I do think fatherofcaitlyn is ironically making his own huge assumption that the cop was doing nothing. Police aren't trained to storm into situations guns blazing. You've watched too many episodes to TJ Hooker. Many time they set a perimeter. Sure cops screw up but I think you are off base
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Someone was telling me about another case, and damned if I can't find the actual source or a link for you guys. I am pretty sure it happened in Oregon (polar opposite of Texas by many counts). This young couple was held up in an apartment building. The guy was packing but just gave the robbers their money, since it isn't smart to try and do a quick draw with a gun pointed at you, obviously. After they gave the robbers their money, the robbers took off down stairs. The guy ran downstairs after them to get their license plate number as they got in their car. The robbers saw him and opened fire. The man returned fire, killing both robbers. Apparently the man is now on trial for murder or something now. Damn it, I'll keep looking for the link. But I thought it was interesting how a liberal state handles such matters vs Texas.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure he'll prevail in court. It would've been better to have the case dismissed before trial (are you sure it wasn't?) but otherwise IMO the situation was handled well (and within the scope of the law).

[quote name='thrustbucket']Oh and koggit, I appreciate what you have to say about vigilante justice. However, I am wondering how you feel about Cop vigilante justice. I really don't think many people know just how often it happens. Cops get really really really sick of the justice system spitting trash back out on the streets and many veteran cops will shoot first and make up stories later. Happens all the time in bigger cities, but they rarely get caught because we trust cops to tell us what "really happened".[/QUOTE]

I'm totally against it. I believe all laws should be adhered to, particularly in regard to acts that can end lives.

Perhaps this goes back to what you were saying about atheists and the death penalty: perhaps conservative states are, by and large, more okay with cappin' folks since they are generally more religious, more likely to believe in an afterlife. If I believed our life on Earth was only the beginning of our eternal lives, I probably wouldn't feel so strongly about the need to strictly adhere to laws preventing death.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes. Whether they were good people resorting to crime to feed themselves or not is irrelevant. They chose to commit a crime instead of begging people for money, seeking aid from a church/food bank or offering to perform menial tasks (mowing lawns, painting, etc.) for people.[/QUOTE]

You're so obviously missing the point. Seriously, I'm so tempted to not respond because I think you have to be doing it intentionally, but on the crazy chance you're actually that thick-headed... let's start with my full quote, which you truncated:

[quote name='Koggit']Would they have deserved death? That decision cannot be left to one random citizen. Mr. Horn does not have the right to make all these decisions.[/QUOTE]

Note a single person does not have the right to make this decision. We have decided, as a society, on our criminal justice system. You believe they should die, Mr. Horn believes they should die, etc, whatever, it means jack shit. It does not matter what your opinion on their punishment is. I'm...

Actually, you know what? I refuse to go on with this. I refuse to teach this lesson. It's common fucking sense. If you don't have it, then by your logic you should probably kill yourself, since I think society is better off without you and you believe one man's opinion is enough to end a life.

Edit: Not actually angry at you or anything. I was just riled up because I find what Horn did egregiously despicable and the defense (near fanfare) he receives is frustrating. I have nothing against you at all, but am leaving what I wrote because I find it (particularly the last sentence) helps illustrate part of why the decision was not his to make.
 
Koggit, i just want to say that everything you've said in this thread is 100% correct. What's next? Gun nuts trolling around all day in their cars looking for crimes so they have a chance to shoot a real person?

Even if the cops had been there, these men wouldn't have received the death penalty for simple burglary, nor should they. And then there's the whole "what if" factor. What if they were contractors doing an inspection on his property? What if they were relatives or friends poking around trying to see if someone was home? Or perhaps movers, or traveling salespeople. Theres a million cases in which an innocent person could have died, and I wonder how long it will be before a Joe Horn copycat stumbles onto one of those situations.

Glad I don't live in Texas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top