Methinks this guy is in bad trouble

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Then, again, there is always Texas law which allows him to shoot them

Grand jury fails to indict. All charges dropped.

here is a FoxNews debate on this case.

FoxNews VIDEO
 

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
Police officers in riot gear monitored the activities, but no arrests were made.
Horn's attorney 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.

But that description is partly at odds with Horn's call to 911 in which Horn threatens to kill the men despite the dispatcher's urging that Horn stay inside his house.

???

so he ran out to confront them....


he BELEIVED the two men commited a crime, but wasn't sure, then ran out and waved a gun in their faces, then shot them when they ran....
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
???

so he ran out to confront them....


he BELEIVED the two men commited a crime, but wasn't sure, then ran out and waved a gun in their faces, then shot them when they ran....

What were those guys doing at the neighbor's house?

Those guys getting killed works for me, two criminals less in this world.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
right. so we should let some random texan decide who looks shifty and should be shot for it, despite the lack of an immediate threat.

though i suppose we've been letting a texan do that for several years, now, in a much bigger playpen...
 

tonksy

New Member
Come on now, I think I would be able to recognize if someone was an intruder in my neighbors home, wouldn't you?
 

2minkey

bootlicker
perhaps. but you could also yell "hey" and they'd likely bolt. making the whole scene more convenient for everyone. and isn't convenience what america is really about, anyway?
 

tonksy

New Member
I guess by yelling Hey! the guy figured they would get away with their crime. This way they didn't. :shrug:
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Texas law says deadly force may be used to protect persons and property. Too bad all states don't believe that. Wanna bet there aren't many burglaries in doughboys neighborhood thanks to his action. More like him & we'd live in a better world.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
for some reason i'm not inclined to think that burglary should bring a death sentence.

you may.

perhaps you could apply for citizenship in saudi arabia, where they are more like minded?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Over at the Firing Line there has been quite a bit of discussion on this case; most of it centering around the recently passed Castle Doctrine law. This case, however, has no bearing on Castle Doctrine nor is it pertinent to it.

The law in Texas -- which has existed long before any of us was born and was originally for rustlers and horse thieves -- is quite clear on the use of deadly force for the protection of property. Horn was within his rights, and the laws of Texas, in killing these two perps. All he did was add a little more chlorine to the shallow end of the gene pool.

Their first and last acts in the United States was the breaking of the laws of this nation.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The
justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use
of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by
the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious
bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the
circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he
installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept.
1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
While I agree with you, a few death penalties would slow down the crime that occurs every day. If you know the worse that can happen is a couple years in jail, with your buds, you aren't scared. When you might get a slug in the back, it becomes a deterrent.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
While I agree with you, a few death penalties would slow down the crime that occurs every day. If you know the worse that can happen is a couple years in jail, with your buds, you aren't scared. When you might get a slug in the back, it becomes a deterrent.

The problem is that public executions have not deterred capital crimes in Arabic countries. The other problem would be that the anti-firearm press would begin to ignore these types of stories or relegate them to page F-10 below the fold.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
you guys, and joe horn, are my heroes. may we all be brave enough to shoot fleeing suspects in the back with a 12 gauge.
 
Top