Remember the Texan that murdered his neighbor's intruders?

[quote name='smoger']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?[/quote]

If enough people feel like the justice system fails often enough in doing it's job, that's exactly what will happen. You'll end up with a lot of "Punisher" clones.

But that has nothing to do with this event.

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.
Click to expand...

Did you listen to the call?

Two dudes with bags, looking suspicious (i.e. looking around to see if anyone was watching) breaking a window with a crowbar and quickly climbing inside, then 7 minutes later seeing them exit the window with arms full of stuff and full bags and running, what else could it be?

Now I am not defending John's actions, but those men couldn't possibly have been anyone you describe.
 
Perhaps they were filming a movie and Horn didn't notice the cameraman (cameraman could've been inside the house), or perhaps it was a low budget Blair Witch-esque film and the camera was on a hat or something. Perhaps the homeowner paid people to break into his home while he was away with his wife because there was something he hated that his wife loved, so he wanted to make it look as if it were stolen. Etc, etc. There are many (implausible, I know) situations in which Horn might have been mistaken.

Whether or not they were actually stealing is only a very, very small piece of it. There are so many aspects to this it's easy to lose focus. Whether or not he knew what they doing, whether or not he had full control of his weapon, whether or not he knew there were no innocent bystanders, whether or not they deserved death for their crime, whether or not they had rights, whether or not he was fit to make the decision we've delegated to the courts, etc. It's easy to get distracted and lose focus since there are so many reasons not to support vigilante justice. It seems the pro-Horn camp fails on all fronts but continues to support him. It's maddening.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Perhaps they were filming a movie and Horn didn't notice the cameraman (cameraman could've been inside the house), or perhaps it was a low budget Blair Witch-esque film and the camera was on a hat or something. Perhaps the homeowner paid people to break into his home while he was away with his wife because there was something he hated that his wife loved, so he wanted to make it look as if it were stolen. Etc, etc. There are many (implausible, I know) situations in which Horn might have been mistaken.
[/quote]

If is for children.

It seems the con-Horn camp succeeds on all fronts by continuing to trot out what if scenarios and the race card.

If one throws reality out the window, it is impossible to fail.

I would get upset, but it's just an Internet forum.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Whether or not they were actually stealing is only a very, very small piece of it.[/quote]

Actually it's the key point of the situation. Mr. Horn fired on the criminals in an attempt to stop them while they were in the midst of committing a crime.

[quote name='Koggit']It's easy to get distracted and lose focus since there are so many reasons not to support vigilante justice. [/quote]

This was a man doing his neighbor a favor by protecting his property while he was away, not a case of vigilante justice.
 
Texas law might be on John Horn's side, but he's still a douchebag for killing someone over material possessions. Sorry, but an act of burglary is not reason enough to shot two people in the back. Especially, when your life is not being threatened in any way. Horn should have stayed inside and let the police do their job.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If is for children.

It seems the con-Horn camp succeeds on all fronts by continuing to trot out what if scenarios and the race card.

If one throws reality out the window, it is impossible to fail.

I would get upset, but it's just an Internet forum.[/QUOTE]

It's not about what-if scenarios, the possibilities are only outlined to illustrate the risk involved, because risk is part of why vigilante justice is wrong. If I raced through a school zone at 8 a.m. at 150 MPH and didn't hit anybody, would you defend the act? After all, only reality matters, right? I didn't hit anyone, so I did nothing wrong. That's the Joe Horn argument. This time he was not mistaken, his judgment happened to coincide with that of most of society, and he didn't accidentally harm others. But our law cannot be bound to only punishing damages -- we have to deter risk. You can't legalize attempted murder, assault, etc, all the other near crimes. Just because everything turned out okay doesn't mean the action was okay. Society would fall apart if we only punished action that yielded detrimental results, instead of action that can yield detrimental results. This is what I meant about either misunderstanding or not supporting the foundation of our legal system. Law is to maintain order. By letting people go free based solely on the result, we will lose order.

[quote name='CannibalCrowley']Actually it's the key point of the situation. Mr. Horn fired on the criminals in an attempt to stop them while they were in the midst of committing a crime.[/QUOTE]

Mr. Horn believed they were stealing. Again: Whether or not they were actually stealing (whether he believed correctly) is only a very, very small piece of it. Don't twist my words; I stated it clearly the first time.

[quote name='CannibalCrowley']This was a man doing his neighbor a favor by protecting his property while he was away, not a case of vigilante justice.[/QUOTE]

A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his or her own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient.

Criminal justice is the system of practices, and organizations, used by national and local governments, directed at maintaining social control, deter and controlling crime, and sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties.

(both copy-pasted from wiki)

This is vigilante justice.

It's hard to believe you guys are grasping for such distant straws now...
 
[quote name='doctorfaustus']Texas law might be on John Horn's side, but he's still a douchebag for killing someone over material possessions. Sorry, but an act of burglary is not reason enough to shot two people in the back. Especially, when your life is not being threatened in any way. Horn should have stayed inside and let the police do their job.[/quote]

Agreed, but he got away with it (excluding court and attorney fees).

The criminal justice system, something we have decided upon as a society, says he was innocent.

To go against that court's decision would smack of vigilantism.

And isn't it better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned?
 
[quote name='doctorfaustus']Texas law might be on John Horn's side, but he's still a douchebag for killing someone over material possessions. Sorry, but an act of burglary is not reason enough to shot two people in the back. Especially, when your life is not being threatened in any way. Horn should have stayed inside and let the police do their job.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly my take on it. And it makes me sick that he can get away with it due to texas laws and that particular grand jury.

Makes more more sick that people here have no problems with burglars who posed no thread to Horn being shot in the back.

Lethal force should always be a last resort when there is clear danger to your own or another person's physical well being. It should never be used for what is clearly a property crime and poses no threat to a person. Now if he'd shot them as they were breaking in, there's less of a problem as the family could be home and they could be planning more than just stealing shit. But when they're just leaving with property shooting them in the back is 100% unacceptable and he should be in jail for voluntary manslaugher if not 2nd Degree murder.

Human beings just suck these days, particularly conservative Americans.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Unfortunately it is usually both the guilty going free and innocent being imprisoned.[/quote]

Only if you're a minority or can't issue a good enough bribe.
 
FoC, I enjoy your presence here in vs. as you usually have an interesting point of view stated articulately, but in this case I'm just gonna have to pass on participating in any sort of discussion with you. In my eyes, you've made it clear that rather than debating the merits of any one point, you'll just skip around once the past statement is discredited, without changing or defending your belief.

If you have any firm reasoning behind your belief, I'd be willing to discuss it. I'm not going to play debate tag.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Only if you're a minority or can't issue a good enough bribe.[/QUOTE]

hardy har har.
 
[quote name='Koggit']If I raced through a school zone at 8 a.m. at 150 MPH and didn't hit anybody, would you defend the act? After all, only reality matters, right? I didn't hit anyone, so I did nothing wrong. [/quote]

Actually, you probably committed an illegal act by breaking the speed limit and driving recklessly. Meanwhile, Mr. Horn stopped a crime and protected an innocent man while staying within the confines of the law.

[quote name='Koggit']But our law cannot be bound to only punishing damages -- we have to deter risk. You can't legalize attempted murder, assault, etc, all the other near crimes.[/quote]

Both of the crimes you've specifically mentioned are crimes that cause damage, they certainly aren't "near crimes".

[quote name='Koggit']Law is to maintain order. By letting people go free based solely on the result, we will lose order.

Mr. Horn believed they were stealing. Again: Whether or not they were actually stealing (whether he believed correctly) is only a very, very small piece of it. Don't twist my words; I stated it clearly the first time.[/quote]

Where do you get the idea that the result was the key factor in Mr. Horn not being charged? The statute says nothing about the result. The term "reasonably believes" is used quite a few times.

[quote name='Koggit']A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his or her own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient.[/quote]

Mr. Horn did not enact his own form of justice, he protected an innocent party by legally stopping a crime.
 
[quote name='Koggit']

A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his or her own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient.

[/QUOTE]

By what you just said there, the American revolution was nothing but vigilantism. And if your sticking to that definition, then it seems you now are inadvertently showing that being a vigilante is usually, but not always, bad.

(The next two paragraphs are no longer talking about this particular case)

You make good arguments. And I understand what you are saying. But you are approaching a dangerous extreme, making it sound like no matter what the cost, or situation, the criminal justice system must always be relied upon for defense and justice.

Surely you can think of situations in which the criminal justice system, due process, and response from authorities really ARE insufficient? Surely you would not always chose to be a victim before choosing action, as long as the system prevails? It almost sounds as if you are selling an ideology that insists on blind faith in the system over all else, which I find a bit scary.

The system you so lovingly insist on relying upon has functioned properly in this case. Just like the same system you speak of decided gays should not participate in marriage in California, which you also disagreed with. You disagreeing with it's function to such a degree in these cases is proof that you actually don't believe the system really always works in providing justice or protection. So the question is; is it always important to ignore unsatisfactory results of the system? Or is it sometimes important to take action when the system, to your eyes, fails it's stated purpose?


[quote name='dmaul1114']
Human beings just suck these days, particularly conservative Americans.[/QUOTE]

I am a disappointed to see you sink so low as to make this a partisan issue and succumb to auto-attaching entire groups of people or ideologies to it. I have come to think you were better than that.

This case is not a "conservative" case. I have showed this case to a few of my very liberal friends that thought John did right. One, that now lives in Finland because America is too conservative for him, even said "Wish I had neighbors like him".
 
[quote name='Koggit']FoC, I enjoy your presence here in vs. as you usually have an interesting point of view stated articulately, but in this case I'm just gonna have to pass on participating in any sort of discussion with you. In my eyes, you've made it clear that rather than debating the merits of any one point, you'll just skip around once the past statement is discredited, without changing or defending your belief.

If you have any firm reasoning behind your belief, I'd be willing to discuss it. I'm not going to play debate tag.[/quote]

My biggest problem with the case is the failure of the authorities to control the situation.

(Note: I don't have speakers at work. I can't hear the phone call. I can't assess his frame of mind.)

1. The 911 dispatcher should have threatened Horn with jail time if he didn't remain indoors.

2. The detective on the scene may have been establishing a perimeter (by himself) or waiting for a good time to pounce on the criminals. If the detective wanted to utilize Horn in some fashion or not, the detective should have relayed that information to Horn through the 911 dispatcher.

3. The district attorney couldn't cobble ANY charges against Horn. Really? An average DA could get an indictment on a toaster for jaywalking.

Horn did his civic duty by informing the authorities. The authorities should have done their jobs by controlling Horn and capturing the criminals.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I am a disappointed to see you sink so low as to make this a partisan issue and succumb to auto-attaching entire groups of people or ideologies to it. I have come to think you were better than that.

This case is not a "conservative" case. I have showed this case to a few of my very liberal friends that thought John did right. One, that now lives in Finland because America is too conservative for him, even said "Wish I had neighbors like him".[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I just need to stay out of this forum as I can't stand about 90% of the people that post here, and the arguments are pointless as no one ever concedes shit.

But you're right, it's not a conservative vs. liberal issue--at least not purely (though I'm sure you'll find more defenders of Horn among conservatives on average due to attitudes toward crime and guns etc.).

It's a decent human being issue. Anyone that thinks it was reasonable for him to shoot burglars, who had committed a non-violent property crime, in the back when they were fleeing someone else's house and posed no danger to him is a horrible excuse for a human being. Far lower on my "worthless sacks of shit" scale than non-violent criminals.

To have such a low regard for human life to think it reasonable to shoot someone in the back merely for stealing property is just fucking appalling to me. I have a hard time dealing with people who think it's ok to kill people for murder, rape etc., but much less for just stealing property. Even cops can't legally shoot fleeing suspects in the backs unless they have probable cause that the person poses clear and immediate danger to other people (i.e. they know for sure that they are armed and dangerous). So it's even more absurd for it to be ok for citizen to do so.

And the sad thing is that it's probably a majority of people in this country who are either ok with this or don't care about it much one way or the other. fuck this county. I used to be pretty resistant to my Taiwanese girlfriend wanting me to move back home with her eventually. Shit like this, 8 years of Bush etc. have pretty much broken down any resistance I had to moving away!
 
[quote name='Koggit']

And if a cop was already there?[/quote]

Y'know what, that's news to me. I had no clue an officer was already at the scene.

This must be info that came out later on, perhaps at the trial. The information I have came from an independent website, the 911 call, and also straight from Joe Horn's mouth in a radio interview about a few days or so after the incident took place.

In the radio interview, Horn did mention that he was pretty fed up with all the robberies going on in his neighborhood, and how thieves in general kept using his backyard to cut across.

But, was Horn doing the right thing by taking the law into his own hands? For me, that's a Yes & No answer. I'm glad he had the courage to confront the criminals, but I don't think he exhausted all his options before resorting to lethal force.

But yeah Koggit, if a cop was already there, the last thing he should be doing is whipping out a shotgun.

BTW, while i wrote this response, i did some google searching. It's a DAMN, DAMN SHAME that some white supremacist websites are taking this story and chalking it up as victory for their "raza".
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']1. The 911 dispatcher should have threatened Horn with jail time if he didn't remain indoors.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's just what we need. The government threatening its citizens.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']1. The 911 dispatcher should have threatened Horn with jail time if he didn't remain indoors.[/quote]

So the dispatcher should have performed an illegal act in order to prevent Mr. Horn from performing a legal act?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']3. The district attorney couldn't cobble ANY charges against Horn. Really? An average DA could get an indictment on a toaster for jaywalking.[/quote]

The grand jury in this case decided that there wasn't enough evidence of a crime to bother with a trial. If the DA tried to trump up other charges, he would likely have been removed from office in a rather short period of time.

District attorneys are elected/appointed to represent the government. A responsible DA should do his best to ensure that criminals are prosecuted while protecting the interests of the victims. A DA who does "get an indictment on a toaster for jaywalking" is doing nothing of the sort. In fact, by acting outside his bounds he would as much a vigilante as people are accusing Mr. Horn of being.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']So the dispatcher should have performed an illegal act in order to prevent Mr. Horn from performing a legal act?
[/quote]

Would it had been illegal for the dispatcher to order Mr. Horn to stay indoors so that the trained police officer on the scene could have concluded the situation with less than two corpses?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Would it had been illegal for the dispatcher to order Mr. Horn to stay indoors so that the trained police officer on the scene could have concluded the situation with less than two corpses?[/QUOTE]

there is a huge difference in threating someone with jail time and ordering someone
 
[quote name='fart_bubble']there is a huge difference in threating someone with jail time and ordering someone[/quote]

(Don't let level1online see this.)

In some states (probably not Texas) and the military, it is against the law to fail to obey a lawful order.

If Texas has a similar law on the books, it would play out like this.

Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, we have an officer on the scene. Remain in your home.

Horn: fuck that. I'm gonna get 'em! BRONSON!

Dispatcher: If you exit your home, you will be charged with .

Horn: But I already screamed Bronson! OK. I'll stay inside.

...

Something I don't get about the Houston Chronicle article, how do you shoot the back of somebody charging you?

EDIT: Was Horn in the National Guard or Reserves?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

And the sad thing is that it's probably a majority of people in this country who are either ok with this or don't care about it much one way or the other. fuck this county. I used to be pretty resistant to my Taiwanese girlfriend wanting me to move back home with her eventually. Shit like this, 8 years of Bush etc. have pretty much broken down any resistance I had to moving away![/QUOTE]

Well, I appreciate your well thought out articulate response this time. We don't agree on much, but I do enjoy reading what you think when you really give it thought.

I empathize with your frustration, even though I'm frustrated with this country for much different reasons. I've actually spent the past couple of months researching places to immigrate to in South America. Start a new life. I've come to realize this country intends to go down a path I don't really want to be part of, and the upcoming elections likely won't make any difference. It's just interesting that you and I come to similar feelings based on much different evidence.
 
CannibalCrowley, I'll make a couple quick points but you're not worth an articulate response.

1) Read 9.41, 9.42 and 9.43 of the Texas penal code. A large part of your claim rests on the assumption that Horn acted within the scope of the law, which he did not.

2) Reread the thread, it's obvious you didn't get it the first time. Never did I claim the result mattered. In fact, my contrast of action/result was in response to pro-Horners who were justifying his action by justifying the result. My entire point, which you somehow got completely backwards, is that approving of a result should not extend to approving the action.

3) Look up the definition of assault & look up the definition of attempted murder. I can pull my fist back and threaten to punch you (never hurting you), that'd be assault. I can aim a gun at your head, shoot and miss (never hurting you), that'd be attempted murder. In both cases there's no damage, but the action must be illegal and there must be punishment to deter such dangerous action from being taken. Vigilante justice is extremely risky. Sometimes the results are acceptable, but it can't be allowed, even when nothing bad comes of it.

[quote name='thrustbucket']By what you just said there, the American revolution was nothing but vigilantism. And if your sticking to that definition, then it seems you now are inadvertently showing that being a vigilante is usually, but not always, bad.

(The next two paragraphs are no longer talking about this particular case)

You make good arguments. And I understand what you are saying. But you are approaching a dangerous extreme, making it sound like no matter what the cost, or situation, the criminal justice system must always be relied upon for defense and justice.

Surely you can think of situations in which the criminal justice system, due process, and response from authorities really ARE insufficient? Surely you would not always chose to be a victim before choosing action, as long as the system prevails? It almost sounds as if you are selling an ideology that insists on blind faith in the system over all else, which I find a bit scary.

The system you so lovingly insist on relying upon has functioned properly in this case. Just like the same system you speak of decided gays should not participate in marriage in California, which you also disagreed with. You disagreeing with it's function to such a degree in these cases is proof that you actually don't believe the system really always works in providing justice or protection. So the question is; is it always important to ignore unsatisfactory results of the system? Or is it sometimes important to take action when the system, to your eyes, fails it's stated purpose?[/quote]

I've already said I approve of the result of Horn's actions; even if the criminals had been caught, they'd have just been deported (as they had previously been, on other charges) and they'd just come back and continue their life of crime yet again. Because of that, based on my own personal standard of justice, I find the result obtained by Horn's actions to be more just than if he had obeyed the law and allowed these men to be deported. I don't think they deserved death, but I think that punishment was more fitting that what our system would've done (deport).

However, I do not believe his actions should be allowed. Even if I condone the result he achieved in this situation, under these circumstances, we can't allow him to break our laws, especially with regard to protecting life. It's sort of what I was touching up on in the piracy thread: some crimes (that even I commit) may be justifiable but they shouldn't go unpunished. Allowing them to go unpunished undermines our system, which although imperfect, is infinitely more just on a large-scale than allowing vigilantes to do as they please.

So, to answer your question a little more directly, I can occasionally condone vigilante justice and believe it sometimes achieves (my) justice in ways our system cannot, but I do not believe our courts should allow it to go unchecked as they have in this case, because it undermines the superior system of law our nation has established. Regardless of imperfections in our system, it's more fair than vigilante justice on a large-scale, you no longer have to worry about the vigilantes making a mistake (live next to Joe Horn -- do you want your son shot as he sneaks in through a window late at night coming home from a party?) or deciding on the wrong punishment (who's to say Joe Horn won't shoot you for jaywalking?). For our current system to operate effectively, vigilante justice cannot be allowed. It's one or the other, and I definitely choose our current, imperfect system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Koggit']



However, I do not believe his actions should be allowed. Even if I condone the result he achieved in this situation, under these circumstances, we can't allow him to break our laws, especially with regard to protecting life. [/QUOTE]

I liked your post. But this is where I get hung up. Like it or not, he didn't break a law. Texas law states that you may use deadly force on someone in the act of certain crimes, most of which are about protecting property. Burglary is one of them. That's why this was even up for debate to begin with.

It likely couldn't happen in any other state, because to my knowledge, no other state has that particular law.

But technically, he didn't break laws. At most, he just bended the law, since he wasn't technically protecting his property.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In some states (probably not Texas) and the military, it is against the law to fail to obey a lawful order.[/quote]

You forgot the last part: "from a police officer". 911 dispatchers are non-sworn personnel, they are not police officers.

[quote name='Koggit']1) Read 9.41, 9.42 and 9.43 of the Texas penal code. A large part of your claim rests on the assumption that Horn acted within the scope of the law, which he did not.[/quote]

A - The grand jury disagreed with you.
B - In your opinion, in what way was he outside the bounds of the law?

[quote name='Koggit']Look up the definition of assault & look up the definition of attempted murder. I can pull my fist back and threaten to punch you (never hurting you), that'd be assault. I can aim a gun at your head, shoot and miss (never hurting you), that'd be attempted murder. In both cases there's no damage, but the action must be illegal and there must be punishment to deter such dangerous action from being taken. [/quote]

There are more types of harm than physical. Both of the situations you presented would result in some form of emotional harm.

[quote name='Koggit']CannibalCrowley, you're a dumbass. [/quote]

You've sunk to name calling already?

[quote name='thrustbucket']At most, he just bended the law, since he wasn't technically protecting his property. [/quote]

Sec. 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code concerns protection of a third person's property.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I liked your post. But this is where I get hung up. Like it or not, he didn't break a law. Texas law states that you may use deadly force on someone in the act of certain crimes, most of which are about protecting property. Burglary is one of them. That's why this was even up for debate to begin with.

It likely couldn't happen in any other state, because to my knowledge, no other state has that particular law.

But technically, he didn't break laws. At most, he just bended the law, since he wasn't technically protecting his property.[/QUOTE]
This is really the only part that I truly have a problem with. I said before what I thought about the actual act, but this is really a case that should have been decided by twelve jurors. Mr. Horn should have faced a jury.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']You forgot the last part: "from a police officer". 911 dispatchers are non-sworn personnel, they are not police officers.[/quote]

In this case, you're right.

In the future:

1. The dispatchers could be upgraded to police officers or deputized before going on duty. (I know it is a little farfetched.)

2. A police officer could be conferenced in to give the order to the person in Horn's shoes.

3. Most importantly, Texas could put a law on the books requiring citizens to obey orders. Currently, only military personnel have that restriction in Texas.
 
[quote name='speedracer']This is really the only part that I truly have a problem with. I said before what I thought about the actual act, but this is really a case that should have been decided by twelve jurors. Mr. Horn should have faced a jury.[/quote]

If it couldn't pass a grand jury, it certainly wouldn't pass a trial jury.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If it couldn't pass a grand jury, it certainly wouldn't pass a trial jury.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there's a chance he would have been found guilty. A hung jury would be the best case scenario for the state. But there is the rare issue* that needs to go to trial. I think this is one of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In this case, you're right.

In the future:

1. The dispatchers could be upgraded to police officers or deputized before going on duty. (I know it is a little farfetched.)

2. A police officer could be conferenced in to give the order to the person in Horn's shoes.
[/QUOTE]

1) Yeah because a disembodied voice on the phone should be given that power :roll:

2) You do know that majority of police stations are under-funded, right? So how do you think that a city could afford to put a cop on that duty? A lot of places can't afford to fully staff their foot and patrol squads. And before you say, why can't they just have one of those cops. Over time pay has to come from somewhere and frankly I would rather have them on the street and sitting there just in case something like this happens again.
 
The biggest difference i see here is between doing what's legal and what's right. According to Texas law, apparently the man did nothing wrong in shooting these two in the back. However, as i stated before, that doesn't necessarily make it right. If these two men had been a threat to him, i could understand him shooting them, I'd even defend him for it, but from what i understand, these two men weren't even armed. How a state passed such a law that allows someone to shoot unarmed men in the back is beyond me.

If he absolutely had to do something, firing a warning shot to hopefully stop them would be the only thing i could condone. Because really, the stuff that these two were stealing could be replaced, thats what home owners insurance is for. These two men are now dead thanks to this guy, all because he felt some sense of duty to protect his neighbor's stuff i assume.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I still really want to hear the story from the Police Officer on the scene that witnessed it all go down.[/quote]

Me too; but I have the feeling that his story won't go much further than the grand jury .

[quote name='speedracer'] Mr. Horn should have faced a jury.[/quote]
He did, and he did so with a burden of proof much lower than reasonable doubt.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']1. The dispatchers could be upgraded to police officers or deputized before going on duty. (I know it is a little farfetched.)[/quote]

That would greatly reduce the number of potential dispatchers.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']2. A police officer could be conferenced in to give the order to the person in Horn's shoes. [/quote]

That would open the police department to a whole lot of liability. By

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']3. Most importantly, Texas could put a law on the books requiring citizens to obey orders. [/quote]

Obey orders from whom exactly? They already have to obey orders from police officers, who specifically would you add to the list?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Currently, only military personnel have that restriction in Texas.[/quote]

What regulation requires military personnel in Texas to do what a 911 dispatcher says?

 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']
That would greatly reduce the number of potential dispatchers.

That would open the police department to a whole lot of liability. By

Obey orders from whom exactly? They already have to obey orders from police officers, who specifically would you add to the list?


What regulation requires military personnel in Texas to do what a 911 dispatcher says?
[/quote]

I don't see how deputizing dispatchers for their duration of their shift reduces their numbers. Please explain.

If the police officers and departments can't handle being sued, they can work for McDonald's. Somebody else will handle the "tewwible stwess" of controlling civilians in difficult situations.

I couldn't find a law on the books in Texas to obey a lawful order for civilians. I wouldn't mind being wrong.

Texas Code of Military Justice does require military personnel to obey a lawful order from a superior. After looking at it again, it probably couldn't be used against military personnel in this situation.

Then again, laws can be repealed and rewritten.
 
That's fine but someone should shoot that fat ass in the back for shooting the others as well. Fair is fair.
 
[quote name='porieux']That's fine but someone should shoot that fat ass in the back for shooting the others as well. Fair is fair.[/quote]

To be completely fair, somebody would have to put another person's property in his hands and have him walk across a different person's lawn.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']To be completely fair, somebody would have to put another person's property in his hands and have him walk across a different person's lawn.[/QUOTE]

Apparently it is ok to 'bend' the law a bit in matters of life and death, so meh, no need.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I don't see how deputizing dispatchers for their duration of their shift reduces their numbers. Please explain. [/quote]
The state of Texas isn’t going to just deputize all 911 dispatchers. They would have to be screened and inevitably some will not meet the requirements.



On top of this you’ll also have the extra costs involved including:


  • Cost to screen all current and future dispatchers
  • Someone will have to be there to deputize them.
  • Adding a sizable step to the shift change process will add costs.


[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If the police officers and departments can't handle being sued, they can work for McDonald's. Somebody else will handle the "tewwible stwess" of controlling civilians in difficult situations. [/quote]

Since the money police departments pay when sued comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, I think people in the area are glad when their police don’t expose themselves to massive amounts of liability.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I couldn't find a law on the books in Texas to obey a lawful order for civilians. I wouldn't mind being wrong. [/quote]

It looks like “failure to obey” type charges are made under Section 38.15. Interference With Public Duties.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Then again, laws can be repealed and rewritten. [/quote]

If the people want them to be changed that is; but Texans seem to be content with their current set in this arena. I can’t say I blame them, especially with the long time of response for police in rural areas.


 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']
The state of Texas isn’t going to just deputize all 911 dispatchers. They would have to be screened and inevitably some will not meet the requirements.

On top of this you’ll also have the extra costs involved including:


  • Cost to screen all current and future dispatchers
  • Someone will have to be there to deputize them.
  • Adding a sizable step to the shift change process will add costs.

Since the money police departments pay when sued comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, I think people in the area are glad when their police don’t expose themselves to massive amounts of liability.
[/quote]

I don't understand why there would be additional screening costs to go from dispatcher to deputy. What was the screening process when a sheriff assembled a posse a hundred years ago? The deputization process can be automated. (I said posts ago it was a little farfetched.) A dispatcher logs into a machine. A screen pops up asking the dispatcher to accept the terms and conditions of being a deputy. If the dispatcher doesn't accept, they are excused from their duties (and eventually fired). If the dispatcher does accept, instant deputy.

I don't see how a police department opens itself up to being sued in this particular case. What would Horn sue the cops for if the cop on the scene ordered Horn to stay indoors? He violated my civil right to shoot two people in the back while they were trespassing. Huh?

In a situation where cops are minutes away from the scene, I could understand Horn detaining and killing the two burglars a little more.

In this situation, a cop was there and failed to take control of the situation.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I don't understand why there would be additional screening costs to go from dispatcher to deputy. What was the screening process when a sheriff assembled a posse a hundred years ago? [/quote]

See “emergency vs non-emergency”.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The deputization process can be automated. (I said posts ago it was a little farfetched.) [/quote]

You’ve had to change the law to allow machines to deputize people, eliminate the requirement for witness, and eliminate the oath. Not only would it take a long time to accomplish, it would be very difficult to persuade the public (including current officers) to agree.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I don't see how a police department opens itself up to being sued in this particular case.[/quote]

The police don’t normally have a duty to protect; but that changes the moment they start giving orders. You’re talking about an officer taking responsibility for the safety of the persons and property on-scene in a location that may be miles away. If anything happens the officer would be powerless to stop it, yet still be fully responsible due to taking charge of the scene remotely.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What would Horn sue the cops for if the cop on the scene ordered Horn to stay indoors? He violated my civil right to shoot two people in the back while they were trespassing. Huh? [/quote]

No one; but the officer would be responsible for stopping the burglars and recovering the property since he prevented a private citizen from doing the same.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In a situation where cops are minutes away from the scene, I could understand Horn detaining and killing the two burglars a little more. [/quote]

The police are usually at least minutes away, even in the city and suburbs. In the country those minutes can stretch into an hour or more.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In this situation, a cop was there and failed to take control of the situation.[/quote]

And yet, the courts have ruled that committing said failure is within the rights of police officers. He can sit and watch all he wants, it’s only when he takes charge of the situation that he begins to incur liability.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I still really want to hear the story from the Police Officer on the scene that witnessed it all go down.[/QUOTE]

The DA had every opportunity to call any and all witnesses at the grand jury proceeding (except the deceased, of course). Unfortunately for him, they denied the indictment based on the evidence presented. Perhaps the jury pool of ordinary Texans know the scope and meaning of police protection in Texas better than we do while sitting behind our computer screens everywhere else.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Perhaps the jury pool of ordinary Texans know the scope and meaning of police protection in Texas better than we do while sitting behind our computer screens everywhere else.[/quote]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5291506&page=1

Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"


Dispatcher: "That's all right."

Jury: :roll:
...

I would like to argue with CC that police are there "to protect and serve", but "The mission of the Houston Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in the City of Houston by working cooperatively with the public and within the framework of the U.S. Constitution to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear and provide for a safe environment."

http://www.houstontx.gov/police/mission.htm

I wonder what would have happened if a well-regulated militia (say 6 or 7 able bodied men from the neighborhood wielding small arms) happened upon the two burglars during a routine patrol. Surely, this matter could have been resolved with less than 2 corpses.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5291506&page=1

Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"


Dispatcher: "That's all right."

Jury: :roll:
...

I would like to argue with CC that police are there "to protect and serve", but "The mission of the Houston Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in the City of Houston by working cooperatively with the public and within the framework of the U.S. Constitution to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear and provide for a safe environment."

http://www.houstontx.gov/police/mission.htm

I wonder what would have happened if a well-regulated militia (say 6 or 7 able bodied men from the neighborhood wielding small arms) happened upon the two burglars during a routine patrol. Surely, this matter could have been resolved with less than 2 corpses.[/quote]

:roll: :lol:

surely!

just like in Michigan and Montana!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']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]

I was wondering something given what you said about Oregon. Is there ANY sensible state I can go to in the Union that supports: Pro-Choice, Gay Marriage, Gun Rights like Texas and is Anti-Death Penalty? Seriously where the fuck is a Libertarian style state like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top