Remember the Texan that murdered his neighbor's intruders?

[quote name='Sarang01']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?[/QUOTE]

New Hampshire might come close.

But it's nearly impossible to find a gun supporting state that's also anti-death penalty.
 
[quote name='camoor']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]

QFT.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']New Hampshire might come close.

But it's nearly impossible to find a gun supporting state that's also anti-death penalty.[/QUOTE]

Gah where are the people like me so we can all flood a state and fix it by changing all the laws accordingly on these issues?

Yeah and luckily you didn't say Connecticut as then I'd have to deal with that DINO Joe Lieberman. So you think a Libertarian like Ron Paul might be able to get elected in New Hampshire, minus the Pro Life view. I think anyone who can objectively look at Pro Life and still vote on it is delusional and is not grounded in real life. Abortions will happen even if illegal, just very few safe one's for the majority of people. I consider myself Pro Life for the most part but when putting this into reality I'm Pro Choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='BigT']he has no clue if they are armed or not.[/QUOTE]

So I'm walking across the street around some parked car with my hand in my pocket. The dude inside the car doesn't know if I'm armed or not, and he thinks I'm going to whip out a gun. He shoots me. I die.

FATALITY

Then he gets cleared of all charges. Yeah, that makes sense. Granted, I'm not breaking into anything in that scenario, but that's what's coming next.
 
[quote name='Chuplayer']So I'm walking across the street around some parked car with my hand in my pocket. The dude inside the car doesn't know if I'm armed or not, and he thinks I'm going to whip out a gun. He shoots me. I die.

FATALITY

Then he gets cleared of all charges. Yeah, that makes sense. Granted, I'm not breaking into anything in that scenario, but that's what's coming next.[/quote]

Or it could go like the next time you're just sitting in your house, some guy comes and shoots your knees a couple times. As you crawl away, hoping to reach some form of safety, he shoots you again in the arms. A couple hours of torture later and you're dead. Afterwards, he goes and finds your girlfriend/wife and has sex with her. And then he gets away with it scot-free. Damn.

This is clearly what the country is coming to. What a slippery, slippery slope we have here. :(
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']

This is clearly what the country is coming to. What a slippery, slippery slope we have here. :([/QUOTE]

The slippery slope goes both ways. There are a myriad of stories about robbers or burglers or intruders that have sued people that have attacked them while trespassing and committing crimes.

I guess in the more conservative states, the defenders win more, because vigilante justice is seen as a virtue. In the liberal states, the perps win more because there are so many defenders of criminals and empathizers of criminal behavior. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']New Hampshire might come close.

But it's nearly impossible to find a gun supporting state that's also anti-death penalty.[/QUOTE]

There are 14 states without the death penalty.

Care to tell me what a "gun supporting state" is, what its logical opposite might be, and examples of states that fall under both categories?

I kinda get that "gun supporting state" is like saying "car supporting state" - you're falsely creating a category that all possible groups fall in. Even DC now.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn'](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.[/quote]

Death Wish is a great movie - it's totally the type of revenge flick that Tarantino was emulating in "Grindhouse".

If you really examine the film, I think it's questionable whether Bronson did anything legally wrong beyond carrying a concealed weapon (which should not be illegal IMO). Bronson had every right to walk in all public areas of the city (even the slums) and the muggers threatened him with lethal force (bats, knives, guns) before he responded in kind (he was even stabbed at one point). The police know this and yet still throw everything they can into catching Bronson over the thugs that are ruining the city.
 
I've heard from a few old-timers that the paradigm used to be like this:

concealed carry = bad, dishonorable, deceptive, criminal

open carry = good, honorable, responsible

-what happened to that time in history? what changed?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']There are 14 states without the death penalty.

Care to tell me what a "gun supporting state" is, what its logical opposite might be, and examples of states that fall under both categories?

I kinda get that "gun supporting state" is like saying "car supporting state" - you're falsely creating a category that all possible groups fall in. Even DC now.[/QUOTE]

This might get you started on understanding which states most would consider "gun friendly". A map of states that issue concealed carry permits:

all_usa_map.gif


Obviously there are "gun friendly" states that don't have the death penalty.
 
So (gun ownership) - (conceal/carry) = gun unfriendly?

Hmm. I disagree, obviously.

Conceal carry = gun intimate, perhaps. What do you think? ;)
 
The reason I feel that conceal carry states are "gun friendly" is mostly from personal experience.

I have been pulled over twice in states other than my own when I had a gun under my seat (I almost always carry on long trips). Of course, I immediately told the cops I was carrying, and they would inspect my gun and even call in the serial number to see if it was stolen. Both cops told me they wish more people carried guns on their long drives.

Additionally, just talking to police officers about the subject. I've yet to meet a police officer who expressed any disdain for people carrying guns in public. But usually they have very strong feelings on the matter in the pro-gun pro-concealed area.

To answer your question, yes I would certainly say a state that allows gun ownership but not concealed carry is less gun friendly than those that allow both.
 
I think we could all agree that there are different levels of "gun friendliness" from state to state.

But Myke is right that all states are gun friendly, particularly compared to Europe. They're are just different degrees of gun friendliness.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

But Myke is right that all states are gun friendly, particularly compared to Europe. They're are just different degrees of gun friendliness.[/QUOTE]

Compared to Europe, of course.

But I would be very careful about carrying in California or New York.
 
[quote name='Chuplayer']So I'm walking across the street around some parked car with my hand in my pocket. The dude inside the car doesn't know if I'm armed or not, and he thinks I'm going to whip out a gun. He shoots me. I die.

FATALITY

Then he gets cleared of all charges. Yeah, that makes sense. Granted, I'm not breaking into anything in that scenario, but that's what's coming next.[/QUOTE]

well now youre just being silly
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Compared to Europe, of course.

But I would be very careful about carrying in California or New York.[/quote]

Or DC. DC cops have a "zero tolerance" policy - meaning they can pretty much find a reason anywhere anytime to lock you up even if you do nothing other then look at them cross-eyed. I've seen people thrown violently on car hoods getting shiny new bracelets for simple speeding, I can only imagine what happens if they find a gun on you - the local politicians are none too happy about this ruling and I'd bet they would like nothing better then to make an example of the citizen who tried to exercise his rights as guaranteed by the constitution. These are people who declared a war on commuters to the city (you know, the ones who come in to work and spend money) and managed to spend the most money on the worst education system in America, so don't look for anything they do to make sense.
 
Poor guys. They were just here illegally to feed their family.

Not saying what the good ol' boy did was 100% correct, but those who say what he did was in the wrong completely seem to ignore what the two upstanding gentlemen were doing to get shot.


Welcome to the entitlement generation.
 
[quote name='howlinmad']Poor guys. They were just here illegally to feed their family.[/quote]

what?

Not saying what the good ol' boy did was 100% correct, but those who say what he did was in the wrong completely seem to ignore what the two upstanding gentlemen were doing to get shot.
Click to expand...

what?

Welcome to the entitlement generation.
Click to expand...

WHAT?
 
Really. No one is saying those people were entitled to anything. They were entitled to get arrested (by the cop on the scene) and deported/prosecuted.

Shooting fleeing burglars in the back should never be considered as a reasonable thing to do (regardless of it's legality). Lethal force should only be used when you are in clear danger--and shooting people who are running away in the back is pretty fucking far from being in clear danger.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Shooting fleeing burglars in the back should never be considered as a reasonable thing to do (regardless of it's legality). Lethal force should only be used when you are in clear danger--and shooting people who are running away in the back is pretty fucking far from being in clear danger.[/quote]

He gave fair warning (a variation on the ol' "stop or I'll shoot")

What if you're defending your own property?

What if you're a cop?

What if you're a cop working undercover with your mom?

B0000VV5BM.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Really. No one is saying those people were entitled to anything. They were entitled to get arrested (by the cop on the scene) and deported/prosecuted. [/quote]

One was already deported before, lot of good it did.

Price of a one way ticket to Columbia? About $700

I wonder how much the average price of prosecuting similar crimes is in Houston for tax payers.

Price of two 12 guage shotgun shells = About .85 cents. And good ol Joe was kind enough to cover that cost for us.






:) Sorry, couldn't help myself.
 
Honestly nothing happens on its own. Its all God. It was time for those criminals to go, and Joe Horn was the man that pulled the trigger. At first, people where making it a race thing. A whiteman killed two minorities, there was even a protest by the "brothers" against "whitey". It was stupid to look at it from that point of view. My city has not been the same, but I agree with them dropping the charges against poor ol Joe. Those guys broke the law and were judged by God. Now they are burning in hell until all damnation. Not even God was happy with that, because he doesnt rejoice when a evil man dies, but he delights when that evil man lives. its sad, but it had to happen for a reason, now thieves will know that you can and will get shot leaving the scene of the crime by anyone. Again, through the grace of God, Joe didnt get any charges filled against him. Why cant it just be accepted as a work of God? If you did, things would make sence.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']One was already deported before, lot of good it did.

Price of a one way ticket to Columbia? About $700

[/QUOTE]

They can even do FedEx next day now.
 
[quote name='howlinmad']They can even do FedEx next day now.[/QUOTE]

I'm not totally opposed to deportations through FedEx overnight, but only if we get bulk rates.
 
joke account.

EDIT: not you, howlin. sleazy. Though your rapid firing off of conservative one-liners suggests you're either a knee-jerk reactionary, or simply aren't paying attention. But not a joke account.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of people posting in this thread have no compassion period. Like I said earlier, people that have no qualms with this just aren't decent human beings IMO. Such callous disregard for life is far worse than the criminals crimes of illegal immigration and stealing shit IMO. Lethal force is a last resort only to be used to protect the physical safety of one's self or other people. Not to keep people from running off with possessions that are easily replaced and probably covered by home owner's insurance.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']A lot of people posting in this thread have no compassion period. Like I said earlier, people that have no qualms with this just aren't decent human beings IMO. Such callous disregard for life is far worse than the criminals crimes of illegal immigration and stealing shit IMO. Lethal force is a last resort only to be used to protect the physical safety of one's self or other people. Not to keep people from running off with possessions that are easily replaced and probably covered by home owner's insurance.[/QUOTE]

In other words, how many bullets should the RIAA be entitled to put in you for that last album you stole?
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']You need to look up the definition of murder.[/QUOTE]

As a criminal defense attorney, I know the definition pretty well. (Of all degrees actually.)

This scenario was definitely murder, as evinced by Horn's repeated statement "I'ma kill em!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After reading the first few pages of this thread and then skimming through the next few, I figured I'd post.

Personally, I'm not sure how anybody can defend what this man did. You see two individuals robbing your neighbor's house. If it's clear that they're unarmed, and you don't have any reason to believe that you're in any danger, then you don't shoot them in the back. You call 911 (which this man did), and hope the police do their job. Maybe you take out your gun, get your ass outside, and wait for them. If they're smart, they'll drop when they see a crazy, gun-toting SOB pointing the death instrument at them. When it comes to neighbor's property, unless you believe the people are in danger, then you don't go on some crazy killing spree.

Now, if it were MY property, that's an entirely different story. If you think you have the right to break into my house, take the things that I've worked hard to buy, and care so little about the emotional impact that being in a house with (potentially) armed individuals will have on my family and/or myself (whether they're actually there or not), you better be a fast SOB. Once you cross my doorstep, your rights under US law are gone, and my law begins. You WILL die. You WILL take responsibility for your actions (which US law claims to have you do, yet fails miserably). And you WILL NOT continue to live off of my tax money. End of story.

Point? Don't shoot people on your neighbor's property unless you have have sufficient reason (e.g. You feel that your neighbors are in immediate danger, you feel you are in immediate danger, etc.). If your neighbors are home and kill the SOB's? Good for them. Honestly, they'll get what they deserve, from who they deserve. But as it is not your house or your family, you should not be delivering justice. If it's your property, then go for it. As far as I'm concerned, if somebody is stupid/selfish enough to enter another person's home, take their things, and/or cause distress that person and their family, they deserve what they get. But it's only acceptable if they're getting it from whoever deserves to be giving it.

And yes, I'm sure someone will rant about how my logic is flawed. Or how I'm a douchebag. Or how I'm just trying to find a way to justify going above US law. Here's my response: I don't care. Think what you'd like. Just don't be offended when I break into your house, scare the shit out of you and your family, and take your stuff ;).
 
[quote name='pittpizza']As a criminal defense attorney, I know the definition pretty well. (Of all degrees actually.)[/QUOTE]

the state of texas would disagree
 
[quote name='joshythegreat18']After reading the first few pages of this thread and then skimming through the next few, I figured I'd post.[/quote]
Cool. But you got a couple things wrong.

If it's clear that they're unarmed,
Click to expand...
It wasn't clear. It's never clear. It's pretty easy to hide a weapon. Unless naked... even then.

unless you believe the people are in danger, then you don't go on some crazy killing spree.
Click to expand...
They were on his property when he shot.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It wasn't clear. It's never clear. It's pretty easy to hide a weapon. Unless naked... even then.[/quote]

I meant in general, but yeah, I see what you mean. It would be pretty hard to tell.


[quote name='thrustbucket']They were on his property when he shot.[/quote]

Yeah, but at least from what I took from it (and I admit, I didn't read the article yet), they were barely on his property, or ran across his lawn. It wasn't like they broke into HIS house (unless they did, in which case, my bad). If somebody robs my neighbor and runs across my lawn, thats one thing. If they run across my lawn into my house, that's another.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
It wasn't clear. It's never clear. It's pretty easy to hide a weapon. Unless naked... even then.
[/QUOTE]

But it doesn't matter if they're armed when they're backs are to you as they are running away. They clearly posed no threat to him or any one on his property. He did the right thing by dialing 911. He did the wrong thing by shooting fleeing criminals in the back.
 
The way he described it in the police interview video posted, it sounds like he came out his door and was startled that they were practically in his face coming at him. When they saw him, it sounds like they were startled to, perhaps jumped, and intended to run away. But that all happened in a matter of less than 2 or 3 seconds. By the time the brain tells your arms to bring up the shotgun, aim, and fire, all in one preprogramed action, it's very possible your targets have their back to you at that point. To argue that you have to make damn sure that they are facing you when you pull the trigger in tense quick situations like that gets a little silly.

Now I know we all like to think we would make a different decision, but don't be so sure. Have a shotgun in your hand, round a corner (like the video showed) and have two criminals "jump" that you didn't expect to see so close to you. Now you'd like to think that you could pause for a second and consider your options, but when the adrenaline is high and the survival instincts kick in, many things can happen.

The assumption that is widely spread around this board that the perps were actually RUNNING AWAY from him when he aimed and fired at them, is unfortunately not backed up by any of the evidence. Bullets in the back do very little in proving they were actively running from him.

It's just an unfortunate situation on all accounts.

It's a sticky situation, especially since it's mentioned there was a cop that witnessed it all, yet we have no record of his "account" of what happened (which is suspicious to me). So all we really have is the 911 call and his police interview. It's clear that Joe believed he felt threatened, even if in hindsight we can all analyze the situation and say he wasn't.

It can't be PROVEN that he exited the house with the intention to kill them. That's why he didn't go to jail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='pittpizza']As a criminal defense attorney, I know the definition pretty well. (Of all degrees actually.)

This scenario was definitely murder, as evinced by Horn's repeated statement "I'ma kill em!"[/quote]

You must be a public defender because your grasp of the definition of murder seems to be tenuous at best. Last I checked murder was the unlawful killing of another person. The criminal justice system has ruled that the killing of the thieves was not unlawful, thus it was not murder.
 
Thrust, my biggest problem with your latest response is how much weight you put in his testimony. His story, to me, is crafted in hindsight to justify his irrational actions. You can't just accept his testimony at face value, just as I can't dismiss it.

The job of a jury is to determine material fact. They very well may decide that the facts cannot be accurately determined, and since the burden of proof is on prosecution he'd walk free, but he should still be on trial. Whether the thieves were close to him, whether they threatened him, what his intent was, etc, none of that is fact as you treat it in your response: the jury on the trial he should be having would determine what's true, what isn't, and what cannot be determined. Unfortunately, he won't be having that trial.

[quote name='thrustbucket']It can't be PROVEN that he exited the house with the intention to kill them. That's why he didn't go to jail.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't have to PROVEN, it just has to be beyond any reasonable doubt -- the legal definition of reasonable doubt is doubt a reasonable person would have. A reasonable person would not doubt Joe Horn's intent based on the recording, so I'd say yes, his intent can be proven. Spending 5 minutes explaining you're about to kill someone, loading and cocking a gun, approaching two men and shooting them (in the back or otherwise) after a couple seconds makes it pretty damn clear what your intent was -- but as I said, intent is something for the jury to decide. Regardless, doubt isn't the reason he didn't go to trial, doubt would be a reason for the jury on his trial to decide not guilty. Again, unfortunately, a trial he won't be having.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']You must be a public defender because your grasp of the definition of murder seems to be tenuous at best. Last I checked murder was the unlawful killing of another person. The criminal justice system has ruled that the killing of the thieves was not unlawful, thus it was not murder.[/QUOTE]

Juries or Judges can get it wrong and that is totally fine. I don't have a problem with what happened to Joe Horn. I think that so long as the system has run it's course, then no matter the outcome, so long as an impartial factfinder has come to a conclusion then justice has been done.

This process (called "due process") is exactly what Horn robbed his victims of.

In my view, the jury either got it wrong, or excercised jury nullification.

So I think this killing was a (1) Premeditated (2) killing of (3) another person. So yeah, it's first degree murder in my book. You aren't one of those nuts that goes around the internet spewing some variation of "If it isn't a fact then it's just your opinion man!!! ANd if it's your opinion you have to disclose it as such!!!" Gimme a fuckin break dude. We're all just talking about our opinions unless we cite.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Thrust, my biggest problem with your latest response is how much weight you put in his testimony. His story, to me, is crafted in hindsight to justify his irrational actions. You can't just accept his testimony at face value, just as I can't dismiss it.
[/QUOTE]

I realize this. That' why I said:
It's a sticky situation, especially since it's mentioned there was a cop that witnessed it all, yet we have no record of his "account" of what happened (which is suspicious to me).
Click to expand...

The whole thing is suspicious. Either the cop witness corroborated his story (that you disbelieve), or he lied to make Joe look good. But I guess we'll never know.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']So I think this killing was a (1) Premeditated (2) killing of (3) another person. So yeah, it's first degree murder in my book. [/quote]

Well your book is missing the biggest requirement, the killing must be unlawful to be considered a murder.

[quote name='pittpizza']Juries or Judges can get it wrong and that is totally fine. I don't have a problem with what happened to Joe Horn. I think that so long as the system has run it's course, then no matter the outcome, so long as an impartial factfinder has come to a conclusion then justice has been done. [/quote]

Then quit committing libel by claiming that the man is a murderer.

[quote name='pittpizza']This process (called "due process") is exactly what Horn robbed his victims of. [/quote]

What victims? The victim in this situation was Horn's neighbor. The two criminals died as a result of their crimes, they're hardly victims.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The whole thing is suspicious. Either the cop witness corroborated his story (that you disbelieve), or he lied to make Joe look good. But I guess we'll never know.[/QUOTE]

I've read so much about this that I forget what info came from where, but I distinctly remember the cop saying that the first thief who was shot appeared to be running away from the neighbor's residence, which involved cutting through the corner of Horn's property that meets his neighbor's property and the street, and that the angle he was shot at was more side-back than pure back.

I think it might've been the Chronicle article.. not sure.. too lazy to check. Regardless, it was inconsistent with Joe's testimony (which is itself inconsistent with the 911 recording).
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']Well your book is missing the biggest requirement, the killing must be unlawful to be considered a murder.
[/QUOTE]

You should know by now that PittPizza goes by his own "book". His concept of laws and how should be are pushed on everyone else, regardless of a states laws. His "book" is much closer to a book of laws you'd find in Europe than any state in America.

Guess that makes a good lawyer? I dunno.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']Well your book is missing the biggest requirement, the killing must be unlawful to be considered a murder.



Then quit committing libel by claiming that the man is a murderer.



What victims? The victim in this situation was Horn's neighbor. The two criminals died as a result of their crimes, they're hardly victims.[/QUOTE]

CC, when an officer of the law is ordering you not to do something, doing it is unlawful. Therefore, Horn's shooting those two men was unlawful.

He is a public figure. Further, to be liable for lible, the statement must be untrue. Truth is an affirmative defense. Horn is a murderer.

The homeowner likely got every single thing taken returned to them or got the value via insurance.

The victims here are those that were put to death for committing a crime not punishable by death.
 
i have to pull the race card here. not for the asses that tried to rob the house but for the fact that if this john horn was a black man defending his neighbor they would of found him guilty
 
[quote name='mervlouch']i have to pull the race card here. not for the asses that tried to rob the house but for the fact that if this john horn was a black man defending his neighbor they would of found him guilty[/QUOTE]

It's sad but you're right. Though not overly relevant to Horn's guilt, but telling nonetheless.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']CC, when an officer of the law is ordering you not to do something, doing it is unlawful. Therefore, Horn's shooting those two men was unlawful. [/quote]

What officer of the law? The only officer of the law was the police officer who sat in his car and witnessed the incident.

[quote name='pittpizza']He is a public figure.[/quote]

Being in the news does not make one a public figure in the eyes of the law.

[quote name='pittpizza']Further, to be liable for lible, the statement must be untrue. Truth is an affirmative defense. Horn is a murderer.[/quote]

Was he convicted of murder? If not then you're lying and have committed libel.

If you believe you're right and since you're supposedly a lawyer, what's your name and what bar association do you belong to? Do you stand behind your claims enough to back them up with your name?

[quote name='pittpizza']The homeowner likely got every single thing taken returned to them or got the value via insurance.[/quote]

No, he got them back because his neighbor stepped up and demanded that a couple of crooks stop.
 
[quote name='mervlouch']i have to pull the race card here. not for the asses that tried to rob the house but for the fact that if this john horn was a black man defending his neighbor they would of found him guilty[/QUOTE]

How is that a fact?

[quote name='pittpizza']It's sad but you're right. Though not overly relevant to Horn's guilt, but telling nonetheless.[/quote]
The only thing that's telling is how you and others continue to fall victim to and perpetuate stereotyping and generalizing people based on where they are born, what they look like, and where they live by even bringing up or discussing race where race isn't an issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top