Falkenberg: Property outweighing people in Horn case [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Falkenberg: Property outweighing people in Horn case

Pages : [1] 2

Ulric

12-13-2007, 08:48 AM

Compliments of the Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5374078.html

lilmckee

12-13-2007, 08:52 AM

there not people there criminals

mathews

12-13-2007, 08:56 AM

Dont worry,all the criminal lovers have pretty much ruined Mr.Horns life already

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 08:57 AM

good article... people are worth more than property... until they are stealing the property, and then to me they are people no longer... they are thieves

Cornbread

12-13-2007, 09:09 AM

The possibility of losing your life for committing a crime is a definite motivator to not commit the crime.

lilmckee

12-13-2007, 09:10 AM

The possibility of losing your life for committing a crime is a definite motivator to not commit the crime.

:nod::nod:

RACER X

12-13-2007, 09:10 AM

mamby panzy BS.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 09:10 AM

The possibility of losing your life for committing a crime is a definite motivator to not commit the crime.

:nod: Cornbread for EXECUTIONER!!!!

Whorenet

12-13-2007, 09:18 AM

we should open a pay pal account and start a "move joe horn to vidor/orange fund" so he can avoid disturbances by black hate groups.....i doubt even louis farakhan has the balls to show his face round there...

Cornbread

12-13-2007, 09:23 AM

I used to live in Vidor. It's a sad place.

MadseasoN

12-13-2007, 09:36 AM

Falkenberg makes me sick. She's made three commentaries on this case so far and they've all ended up on the front page. Talk about playing politics.

Moody

12-13-2007, 09:38 AM

I think his phone call will screw him in court.

IAHKAT

12-13-2007, 09:42 AM

Mr. Horns second thought was about the well being of the property being heisted from his neighbor. First thought on my mind would have been the protection of the community in which I live and if I do nothing I am next. Theft is a slippery slope to deeper criminal activity and if not nipped in the bud these fine young illegals would have come back to the same community for more loot or possibly worse.

Unfortunately Mr. Horn has a huge uphill battle. Hopefully everyone learned a lesson thanks to Horn, call 911, give them your info, make sure they have someone on the way and hang up.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 09:47 AM

Hopefully everyone learned a lesson thanks to Horn, call 911, give them your info, make sure they have someone on the way and hang up then do what you gotta do. fixed for emphasis and additional info

Street Ninja

12-13-2007, 09:49 AM

They well knew the risk of entering someones home. Hell If the home owner was home we would be looking at the same situation. 2 dead thieves with the same pissed off family. T S !! How about the items they stole? Family Heirloom's? Irreplaceable documents, personal information.....The list of possibilities is endless. I hope for the sake of my home this strikes a WAKE UP CALL in the slime of our culture, "WE WONT TAKE IT ANY MORE"! I say Go Mr. Horn You did what I hope my neighbors would do THE SAME! There is a house for sell a few houses down from me hope it fills with a stand up human such as yourself!

jus10

12-13-2007, 09:52 AM

I think his phone call will screw him in court.

I'm not so sure. Does anyone remember the guy who chased down a truck with 2 or 3 dudes in it, and shot them up because they stole a tv or vcr from him? Riddled the truck with bullet holes and killed at least one of the guys...DOWN THE STREET!!! Not even in his yard.

However, I would not have stayed on the phone. No way.....

Street Ninja

12-13-2007, 10:01 AM

Call, Report, Hangup! Like stop, drop, and roll for stopin thieves.

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 10:31 AM

Now, one might argue that, since the dispatcher told Horn that police were on their way, Horn should have reasonably believed authorities would nab the bad guys.

I hate to say this but the only reason the cops this time around were able to catch these guys is because they were laying on the ground.

ScooterTrash

12-13-2007, 10:48 AM

mamby panzy BS.

yup, the thiefs chose to value their lives equal to the property pilfered.

ScooterTrash

12-13-2007, 10:49 AM

I think his phone call will screw him in court.

me too, he went a bit overboard with info and comments. I agree with him, just that he prolly did it the wrong way.

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 10:54 AM

The same law that may protect Horn from indictment could also protect someone who, in the dark of night, discovers a group of teenage girls wrapping his front yard trees with toilet paper.

Okay seriously now... We cannot change the fact that these two guys were killed. If he had a 9mm andshot them in the knee caps and they survived? Would he them be more of a hero?!? I don't agree with him shooting them, but because they were on HIS property, the story changes. It is nice to know that they was Horn to go to prison for killing worthlesscriminals anyway. And the FIANCE! STFU! You KNEW he was here illegally, you KNEW of his previous crimes, and you more than likely KNEW he was out to rob and maybe kill again! Shame on her!

lilmckee

12-13-2007, 10:55 AM

Okay seriously now... We cannot change the fact that these two guys were killed. If he had a 9mm andshot them in the knee caps and they survived? Would he them be more of a hero?!? I don't agree with him shooting them, but because they were on HIS property, the story changes. It is nice to know that they was Horn to go to prison for killing worthlesscriminals anyway. And the FIANCE! STFU! You KNEW he was here illegally, you KNEW of his previous crimes, and you more than likely KNEW he was out to rob and maybe kill again! Shame on her!

are you debating yourself?

Cherub

12-13-2007, 11:37 AM

I think there is no clear cut wrong right answer here on both sides. Shooting one of the men in the back and the 911 call is whats going to get Horn introuble.

dbuck

12-13-2007, 11:47 AM

me too, he went a bit overboard with info and comments. I agree with him, just that he prolly did it the wrong way.

I'm sure when Mr. Horn picked up the phone and shotgun and called 911, the last thing on his mind was how the phone conversation was gonna be perceived in court. He was probably a bit nervous....:hs:

Moody

12-13-2007, 12:03 PM

I'm not so sure. Does anyone remember the guy who chased down a truck with 2 or 3 dudes in it, and shot them up because they stole a tv or vcr from him? Riddled the truck with bullet holes and killed at least one of the guys...DOWN THE STREET!!! Not even in his yard.

However, I would not have stayed on the phone. No way.....

Completely different in the eyes of the law when your property is being stolen.

Moody

12-13-2007, 12:05 PM

me too, he went a bit overboard with info and comments. I agree with him, just that he prolly did it the wrong way.

:nod:

The biggest catch in not even the call but the words in the call that go something like... I don't really know them in reference to the neighbors. :/:

Moody

12-13-2007, 12:06 PM

jus10

12-13-2007, 12:11 PM

Completely different in the eyes of the law when your property is being stolen.

Unless you are asked to take care of the neighbors house while they are gone. Such as my neighbors asking me to watch over their house while they're away.(Even gave me his gun!:eek3:) Giving me the same rights as if I lived there.
:nod: The biggest catch in not even the call but the words in the call that go something like... I don't really know them in reference to the neighbors. :/:

Oops. He shouldn't have said that at ALL!!! That is a big no no. However, even after that, they were in his yard and just committed a crime, so he does have some ground to stand on, but might make it a bit sticky.

ArturoC

12-13-2007, 12:14 PM

I used to live in Vidor. It's a sad place.

I passed through there once. I was skeer'd.

ArturoC

12-13-2007, 12:16 PM

I'm surprised nobody has posted Falkenberg's home address. Sounds like a free-for-all waiting to happen on her property. It's not like you'll get shot. :keke:

CLETUS

12-13-2007, 12:58 PM

I have truely had it with Lisa Falkenberg and this trash that she spreads in these commentaries. The only thing I see her doing is making it easier for criminals to do things like this. She has no clue that criminals use this type of horse hockey to make people afraid to do what they need to when faced with this type of situation.
How can she say that protecting property is morally wrong when these people on in the US illegally and robbing homes? If it is morally right to work and earn these things, then it is morally right to protect and defend it; including the property of their neighbors.

I would bet that if she woke up a 2:00 am with one of these people standing over her bed in the dark, dressed in black, and loading her jewelery into a bag her actions would be completely opposite of the point that she is portraying in her commentaries. It is just to easy to stand back and throw stones at other peoples actions than make a choice and stand alone (like Mr. Horn now) to defend it.

Candy

12-13-2007, 01:23 PM

I'm sorry to be the minority on this convo, but as the law stands TODAY, Mr. Horn had NO BUSINESS SHOOTING these 2 individuals IN THE BACK WITH NO WEAPONS.

I agree stealing is wrong, but when u get caught stealing by leo's, u face being jailbait NOT WORMBAIT. Besides, they were stealing from his NEIGHBOR, Mr. Horn was not protecting his own property or in danger at any time (according to the tapes), which the castle doctrine will i think work in that case.

He was TOLD BY AN OFF-DUTY leo standing as the 911 operator to STAY in his home, and he IGNORED that warning, and proceeded OUTSIDE of the protection of his home to shoot these PEOPLE IN THE BACK, b/c he's "tired of this shyt". :angry7: Call the po po's and let them deal with these guys, get evidence by photograph or license plate number of the vehicle they were in, but taking the law into ur own hands, which is what he did is wrong.

U got me phucked up, he deserves at least a manslaughter charge, he broke the law when he decided to take it into his hands.

ArturoC

12-13-2007, 01:32 PM

Call the po po's and let them deal with these guys,

I'm sure that's what they were hoping for. Slap on the hand so they can do it again, and again and again and again.

Candy

12-13-2007, 01:34 PM

I'm sure that's what they were hoping for. Slap on the hand so they can do it again, and again and again and again.

And i agree they probably will, but AS THE LAW STANDS 2day, it is what it is, u don't like it right ur congressman or state rep.

MadseasoN

12-13-2007, 01:38 PM

Mr.P

12-13-2007, 01:42 PM

Joe Horn stands in stark contrast to what is wrong with America. He's a real man doing what real men do when confronted with real problems. A lesser man would have cowered in his home on the phone. A lesser man would have not pulled the trigger. Sadly, a lesser man will probably convict him of doing the world a favor.

jus10

12-13-2007, 01:44 PM

And i agree they probably will, but AS THE LAW STANDS 2day, it is what it is, u don't like it right ur congressman or state rep.

And what law is that? The "after dark" law? They were on HIS property at the time of the shooting AND just committed a crime. I don't see this as definitely one way or another. In some ways he was right and in others he was wrong, it's just a matter of which one weighs more.

Candy

12-13-2007, 02:01 PM

And what law is that? The "after dark" law? They were on HIS property at the time of the shooting AND just committed a crime. I don't see this as definitely one way or another. In some ways he was right and in others he was wrong, it's just a matter of which one weighs more.

But were on his property as far as stealing from him, or harming him, no and no! He's wrong, shot them cold blooded, WITH INTENT TO KILL!!!! Jail time!! Heroic woulda been harming them or rendering them enough until the leo came, not SHOOTING THEM in the back!

jus10

12-13-2007, 02:04 PM

But were on his property as far as stealing from him, or harming him, no and no! He's wrong, shot them cold blooded, WITH INTENT TO KILL!!!! Jail time!! Heroic woulda been harming them or rendering them enough until the leo came, not SHOOTING THEM in the back!

no no no no no....shooting to harm them would have been a bigger mistake. They had just committed a crime, he knew it and saw it, and then they came into his yard at night!!!! That's justification to shoot right there. As a man, however, I personally would not shoot someone in the back, I think that's weak as hell, but hey that's just me.

mathews

12-13-2007, 02:05 PM

those poor criminal illegals on probation,he had no right.WTF

MadseasoN

12-13-2007, 02:10 PM

But were on his property as far as stealing from him, or harming him, no and no! He's wrong, shot them cold blooded, WITH INTENT TO KILL!!!! Jail time!! Heroic woulda been harming them or rendering them enough until the leo came, not SHOOTING THEM in the back!

Allegedly he shot them in the back.

Besides the point. What's wrong with shooting them in the back? It stopped them didn't it? Maybe they charged at him until they saw the gun then they turned around. Too late.

Had they dropped to the ground and surrendered then they would be here today.

Candy

12-13-2007, 02:13 PM

no no no no no....shooting to harm them would have been a bigger mistake. They had just committed a crime, he knew it and saw it, and then they came into his yard at night!!!! That's justification to shoot right there. As a man, however, I personally would not shoot someone in the back, I think that's weak as hell, but hey that's just me.

Hold up now, it was during the day where it would have been visible to Mr. Horn IF THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO actually ATTACK HIM, whether or not they had any weapons to distinguish if his life was in danger, and texas law allows u to protect UR PROPERTY with deadly force, not ur neighbors.

As the law stands he's wrong!

ArturoC

12-13-2007, 02:13 PM

Heroic woulda been harming them or rendering them enough until the leo came, not SHOOTING THEM in the back!

They would have sued him and probably won. :angry7:

jus10

12-13-2007, 02:17 PM

Hold up now, it was during the day where it would have been visible to Mr. Horn IF THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO actually ATTACK HIM, whether or not they had any weapons to distinguish if his life was in danger, and texas law allows u to protect UR PROPERTY with deadly force, not ur neighbors.

As the law stands he's wrong!

I had been informed it was at night, if not then yes, he's in some shit. And yes Texas law DOES allow you to use deadly force to protect your neighbor's property ONLY if you are "in charge" of watching the house while they're away. If he was not "in charge" of watching the house, and what Moody says is true(that he said he didn't really even know them) then he's definitely going to have a hard time defending that one.

Candy

12-13-2007, 02:17 PM

those poor criminal illegals on probation,he had no right.WTF

Don't get it twisted they ARE criminals and should be punished, but according to the law in texas, the worst they would have gotten if they were caught by leo's was a jail sentence or probation which is in fact just a slap on the wrist, but never the less it's our judicial system as it stands.

Even when I think about the saying an eye for an eye, they stole PROPERTY (which is covered under homeowners insurance and is replacable). They didn't harm any person, or attack anyone, but they RECEIVED DEATH, this was unbalanced!!!!

Candy

12-13-2007, 02:19 PM

They would have sued him and probably won. :angry7:

I've seent that happen b4 when a thief broke into a house, slipped and got stuck in a chimney. He didn't win though!

witchdoctor575

12-13-2007, 02:19 PM

The possibility of losing your life for committing a crime is a definite motivator to not commit the crime.

+ 1 million

mathews

12-13-2007, 02:21 PM

I always love the "insurance" part.You have obviously had few dealings with insurance companies.

MadseasoN

12-13-2007, 02:21 PM

Don't get it twisted they ARE criminals and should be punished, but according to the law in texas, the worst they would have gotten if they were caught by leo's was a jail sentence or probation which is in fact just a slap on the wrist, but never the less it's our judicial system as it stands.

Even when I think about the saying an eye for an eye, they stole PROPERTY (which is covered under homeowners insurance). They didn't harm any person, or attack anyone, but they RECEIVED DEATH, this was unbalanced!!!!

Death penalty (by homeowner) or 10 years in jail .... I honestly think that most people don't care at this point. The public is fed up with habitual criminals like these two.

Even if it does go to trail they will have a hard time convincing a jury that he is guilty of anything.

CLETUS

12-13-2007, 02:22 PM

Sorry, it is their fault. They made Mr. Horn kill them and asked for him to do it while robbing the neighbors property and crossing on his. I think the families of these robbers owes Mr. Horn an apology for making him have to shoot them and they owe him for the counciling that he needs to take having had to take both of their lives in that manner.

ArturoC

12-13-2007, 02:22 PM

Even when I think about the saying an eye for an eye, they stole PROPERTY (which is covered under homeowners insurance).

Just 'property' is an overly simplified way of looking at it. Entering somebody's property uninvited would have been enough to kill 'em. Taking their property just adds to it. I don't know what was taken, but insurance can not replace sentimental value, or even just time lost dealing with the police and insurance company. :banghead:

They didn't harm any person, or attack anyone, but they RECEIVED DEATH, this was unbalanced!!!! [/COLOR]

Thump my ear and see if I don't turn around and punch you in the throat.

I'm just sayin'

Candy

12-13-2007, 02:27 PM

Death penalty (by homeowner) or 10 years in jail .... I honestly think that most people don't care at this point. The public is fed up with habitual criminals like these two.

Even if it does go to trail they will have a hard time convincing a jury that he is guilty of anything.

Then the "fed up public" should push their lawmakers here in Texas to push for stiffer punishment for theft of property, until then HE'S WRONG!!!!

mathews

12-13-2007, 02:44 PM

The libs wont let us lock em up longer.Its not Fair

Candy

12-13-2007, 02:45 PM

Just 'property' is an overly simplified way of looking at it. Entering somebody's property uninvited would have been enough to kill 'em. Taking their property just adds to it. I don't know what was taken, but insurance can not replace sentimental value, or even just time lost dealing with the police and insurance company. :banghead:

Thump my ear and see if I don't turn around and punch you in the throat.

I'm just sayin'

I'm sorry but the human christian in me wouldn't trade LIFE FOR PROPERTY or better yet MATERIALISTIC SHYT on my worst day in hell. If they had taken a life i might feel a little different, but still woulda let the law handle it, that's what i'm paying em every month for anyway.

mathews

12-13-2007, 02:49 PM

How do you know they havent taken a life?They both have shown a total disregard for all our other laws.Maybe he should have reasoned with them.But they probably didnt speak english

CLETUS

12-13-2007, 02:50 PM

I'm sorry but the human christian in me wouldn't trade LIFE FOR PROPERTY or better yet MATERIALISTIC SHYT on my worst day in hell. If they had taken a life i might feel a little different, but still woulda let the law handle it, that's what i'm paying em every month for anyway.

That's an intersting point. What if they had resisted arrest and the cop had to shoot and kill them?
Would that still be trading a LIFE FOR PROPERTY?

I really don't see a difference.

Cherub

12-13-2007, 02:59 PM

Allegedly he shot them in the back.

Besides the point. What's wrong with shooting them in the back? It stopped them didn't it? Maybe they charged at him until they saw the gun then they turned around. Too late.

Had they dropped to the ground and surrendered then they would be here today.

they werent causing him a threat running away from him! they didnt break into his house it was someone elses. I think ultimately he make the wrong choice. Now if it where his house this would be a different story.

and for all the people talking about preserve the community and blah blah blah you would be suprised at how much shit goes on in a neighborhood that you dont know about.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:01 PM

neighbors house or not... even if he saw them running down the road with something stolen from 6 houses away, he should be allowed to shoot them both.... when a person becomes a Thief, they cease being a person in my eyes

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:01 PM

How do you know they havent taken a life?They both have shown a total disregard for all our other laws.Maybe he should have reasoned with them.But they probably didnt speak english

I don't but as this case stands, they didn't so it was a bit much to shoot em down. AND EVEN if they had killed someone b4, U AS A CITIZEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE LAW INTO UR OWN HANDS unless them have infringed on UR PROPERTY.

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:04 PM

when a person becomes a Criminal, they cease being a person in my eyes

Have u ever received a ticket for a traffic violation? A speeking ticket is a criminal offence in texas, and hence if u receive the ticket ur a phuckin criminal, so now cease to be a person in ur own eyes!

Whorenet

12-13-2007, 03:05 PM

Whorenet

12-13-2007, 03:06 PM

castle doctorine

I don't but as this case stands, they didn't so it was a bit much to shoot em down. AND EVEN if they had killed someone b4, U AS A CITIZEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE LAW INTO UR OWN HANDS unless them have infringed on UR PROPERTY.

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 03:06 PM

Sec. 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.

While I still may not agree with it is irrelivant. What happened, is what happened.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:07 PM

Have u ever received a ticket for a traffic violation? A speeking ticket is a criminal offence in texas, and hence if u receive the ticket ur a phuckin criminal, so now cease to be a person in ur own eyes!
yes, but i stopped and took responisibility for my actions. those guys were not going to do that

Cherub

12-13-2007, 03:07 PM

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:08 PM

ArturoC

12-13-2007, 03:08 PM

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"]I'm sorry but the human christian in me wouldn't trade LIFE FOR PROPERTY or better yet MATERIALISTIC SHYT on my worst day in hell.

Note to criminals: Target the christian homes. It's much safer. :keke:

What if they made a mistake and somebody was home. Would they have turned around and left? Or killed 'em out of necessity? Who knows, but my guess is that they showed they have a total disregard for law and property, and life wouldn't matter to them either.

Apparently THEY were willing to trade their life for material goods. Don't take that away from them. :)

Whorenet

12-13-2007, 03:08 PM

I don't but as this case stands, they didn't so it was a bit much to shoot em down. AND EVEN if they had killed someone b4, U AS A CITIZEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE LAW INTO UR OWN HANDS unless them have infringed on UR PROPERTY.

so "they" not even being citizens have the right to steal what the fux ever they please thats not bolted down? right? theyre doing it anyhow, medicaide, welfare, wic, all sortsa other useless programs for lazy indigents....so really? who was really injured? the american tax payers? not so much....

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:09 PM

Yes should be able too is differnt than being leagaly just in doing so.

unfortunately yes

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 03:09 PM

yes, but i stopped and took responisibility for my actions. those guys were not going to do that

Exactly! But they never got caught.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:09 PM

Note to criminals: Target the christian homes. It's much safer. :keke:
What if they made a mistake and somebody was home. Would they have turned around and left? Or killed 'em out of necessity? Who knows, but my guess is that they showed they have a total disregard for law and property, and life wouldn't matter to them either.

Apparently THEY were willing to trade their life for material goods. Don't take that away from them. :)not mine, i just sold my deer rifle for a gun i could use inside if i had to...

Cherub

12-13-2007, 03:10 PM

While I still may not agree with it is irrelivant. What happened, is what happened.

thats all good and well but the 911 call is not supporting that

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:10 PM

Exactly! But they never got caught.
yes they did:keke: (with a shotgun)

Cherub

12-13-2007, 03:11 PM

unfortunately yes

this case will be interesting to watch how it plays out

CLETUS

12-13-2007, 03:12 PM

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 03:12 PM

Note to criminals: Target the christian homes. It's much safer. :keke:
What if they made a mistake and somebody was home. Would they have turned around and left? Or killed 'em out of necessity? Who knows, but my guess is that they showed they have a total disregard for law and property, and life wouldn't matter to them either.Apparently THEY were willing to trade their life for material goods. Don't take that away from them. :)

This was the argument I made last time. Under different circumstances it would have been necessary to take better precaution. But apparently, I am not the killing type no matter what! :keke:

Cherub

12-13-2007, 03:12 PM

they did, they came onto HIS property

good im going to shoot the little kids that run on my grass them little tards

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 03:13 PM

this case will be interesting to watch how it plays out

Heck yea! Who know's on which side of the spectrum this is going to fall on!

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:13 PM

same situation as american history x in my opionion....hell, shoot em all, curb em.... a theif is a theif.....and yeah according to "someone's" b.s. about christianity having any part to do with this..... THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. god told moses, so it must be true....right? what? argue about that why dontcha....

Thou shalt not kill comes 1st...see

From Exodus 20:1-17
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.�

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:13 PM

good im going to shoot the little kids that run on my grass them little tards

i'm sorry if little kids threaten you enough to fear for your life :keke:

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 03:14 PM

good im going to shoot the little kids that run on my grass them little tards

hahahhahhahahhahahaa!!!

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:15 PM

Thou shalt not kill comes 1st...see

From Exodus 20:1-17
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.�

i didn't realize those were in a priority order?

Cherub

12-13-2007, 03:15 PM

i'm sorry if little kids threaten you enough to fear for your life :keke:

yea about as threatening as a guy running away with something in his hands!! wheres my shottie

jus10

12-13-2007, 03:15 PM

this case will be interesting to watch how it plays out

You said it!:nod:

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:17 PM

i don't give a damn, if i catch you stealing something of mine or a friends and i am carrying... you will be shot.

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:17 PM

castle doctorine

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. Within the legal paradigm, therefore, it functions as a type of justifiable homicide.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine.

Key points on y this doesn't qork for him imho

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 03:18 PM

i don't give a damn, if i catch you stealing something of mine or a friends and i am carrying... you will be shot.

well make sure he is dead. :thumb:

jus10

12-13-2007, 03:19 PM

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. Within the legal paradigm, therefore, it functions as a type of justifiable homicide.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine.

Key points on y this doesn't qork for him imho

Once again, it DOES work for him ONLY if he was in charge of watching the house. If he was not, then he has to argue the point of them being on HIS property at the time of the shooting and whether or not it was at night.

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:19 PM

yes, but i stopped and took responisibility for my actions. those guys were not going to do that

And so we have police & our judicial system to work at HOLDING THEM RESPONSIBLE, police to investigate and catch the criminals, and the judge and a jury to convict their asses.......LAW & ORDER BABY

ArturoC

12-13-2007, 03:20 PM

If killing isn't allowed for stealing, then they damn sure better start chopping off their hands.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:21 PM

:nod:
well make sure he is dead. :thumb::nod:

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:22 PM

And so we have police & our judicial system to work at HOLDING THEM RESPONSIBLE, police to investigate and catch the criminals, and the judge and a jury to convict their asses.......LAW & ORDER BABY i wonder how many people here have had their bikes stolen and nobody has been arrested... hmmm. i'll let the cops catch them... shouldn't be much of a chase though. dead doesn't run very fast

Whorenet

12-13-2007, 03:23 PM

And so we have police & our judicial system to work at HOLDING THEM RESPONSIBLE, police to investigate and catch the criminals, and the judge and a jury to convict their asses.......LAW & ORDER BABY

o yeah, real life is like law and order...more murders go unsolved than are EVER solved....and everything is covered in semen to provide dna evidence, also all criminals are males to provide semen samples.

your arguments are so valid and well based i have no rebuttal, your opinions are above reproach and you must be a superior human being. I have nothing to say in response to your perfect sentiment.:gesture:

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:24 PM

they did, they came onto HIS property

Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment; (2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:

His property was not in danger, and i'm sure kids run across his lawn all the time, might as well shoot them 2

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:25 PM

Your smarter than this...

No just smarter than Joe Horn :thumb: and most of u phuckers who seem to think the system won't lock ur as up for taking the law into ur own hands!

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:27 PM

your arguments are so valid and well based i have no rebuttal, your opinions are above reproach and I have nothing to say in response to your perfect sentiment.

Fixed it for ya! Now ur absophuckinlutely correct!

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:28 PM

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:32 PM

if i shoot somebody, i would be fearing for my life or protecting my property... i am justified in doing so. and all of my friends have told me to watch their _______ at some time or another, they never told me to stop watching it for them

Great and if the "neighbor shyt" that someone brought up is in fact a part of the castle doctrine law and the prosecution can't prove ur guilt, then beat the case, and face ur judgment with God later for killing as they will for stealing.

CLETUS

12-13-2007, 03:33 PM

No just smarter than Joe Horn :thumb: and most of u phuckers who seem to think the system won't lock ur as up for taking the law into ur own hands!

We own guns in this country for just that reason. The Amber alert on the hwy is to get help from the people when a child is missing. Wanted posters are published so you know what the bad guy looks like not so the cops don't forget.
We have these laws like to castle doctrine, etc to protect us land/property owners when do what we have to do to look after our own and our neighbors.

You think cops are the only people that have the right to shoot somebody because they have a badge and a gun?
Then why would we have the CHL and Castle Donctrine?

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:36 PM

with a CHL if i see someone getting beat with a baseball bat, i can legal shoot and kill the person with the bat. at no point did i ever fear for my life... but by law, i can do that

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:37 PM

We own guns in this country for just that reason. The Amber alert on the hwy is to get help from the people when a child is missing. Wanted posters are published so you know what the bad guy looks like not so the cops don't forget.
We have these laws like to castle doctrine, etc to protect us land/property owners when do what we have to do to look after our own and our neighbors.

You think cops are the only people that have the right to shoot somebody because they have a badge and a gun?
Then why would we have the CHL and Castle Donctrine?

We do have those laws, and i'm glad i can protect MYSELF and MY property if their in harms way. Joe Horn nor his property were being threatened, he proved it in his statement to the off-duty cop, and there lies the argument, HE DIDN'T HAVE CAUSE, based on the Castle Doctrine.

As for the po po's, they have 2 have cause 2 shoot ur ass just like WE HAVE TO HAVE CAUSE, Joe Horn didn't have it and I hope a grand jury see's it the same

Cherub

12-13-2007, 03:39 PM

with a CHL if i see someone getting beat with a baseball bat, i can legal shoot and kill the person with the bat. at no point did i ever fear for my life... but by law, i can do that

just for kicks what if the i grabbed the bat from the guy jackie chan style and you walk up and shoot me thinking im the assailant..........

better just let nature take its course:thumb:

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:39 PM

with a CHL if i see someone getting beat with a baseball bat, i can legal shoot and kill the person with the bat. at no point did i ever fear for my life... but by law, i can do that

Stop giving me these woulda shoulda coulda's. it's annoying. We r talking about Joe Horn and the facts of his case, not what if's, and to my knowledge that's incorrect as well, u have to still use equal force.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:40 PM

just for kicks what if the i grabbed the bat from the guy jackie chan style and you walk up and shoot me thinking im the assailant..........

better just let nature take its course:thumb:
i'm sorry, i couldn't hear you... you're dead now:keke: i would see who is doing the beating before i shoot

Whorenet

12-13-2007, 03:40 PM

jus10

12-13-2007, 03:41 PM

Joe Horn didn't have it and I hope a grand jury see's it the same

And that is what we shall wait to hear. I really think it could go either way here.

RACER X

12-13-2007, 03:41 PM

As for the po po's, they have 2 have cause 2 shoot ur ass just like WE HAVE TO HAVE CAUSE, Joe Horn didn't have it and I hope a grand jury see's it the same

poll after poll that i've seen hope's differently.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:42 PM

Stop giving me these woulda shoulda coulda's. it's annoying. We r talking about Joe Horn and the facts of his case, not what if's, and to my knowledge that's incorrect as well, u have to still use equal force.

so i would have to use a baseball bat as well.... WRONG!!! look it up. I could protect another citizen from a brutal attack with deadly force as long as i have my CHL

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:44 PM

I hope a grand jury see's it the same
i sure as hell don't. Thieves don't have rights... they gave up those rights when they committed the felony. when convicted of a felony, you cannot even vote until you have your rights granted back to you

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:46 PM

i was trying to be nice and not just say outright that you are being ridiculous....

people that defend criminals, especially saying that illegals have rights have, no sense of justice.

and in regards to your statement about "makes you a criminal"

civil vs. criminal court.....guess which one petty trafic tickets fall under?

Ur never nice 2 me, but i'm sure that's cause u feel inferior in some way.

I'm not DEFENDING anyone, I've said they are criminals plain and simple, but JOE HORN WAS not within his legal rights to shoot and kill these people. If u can't hold an actual side of that argument don't freakin reply.

Tickets are a class a but still a criminal offense

CLETUS

12-13-2007, 03:46 PM

And that is what we shall wait to hear. I really think it could go either way here.

He'll walk...
It is a land owner vs scum. Every person on that Grand Jury will have a home and a family and understand that he didn't kill those guys because they were Latino or the way that they dressed or that they were in his hood. They will know that Joe put them down because they were commiting a crime and Joe took action because he knew the cops were not going to be able to catch these guys if they got away.

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:48 PM

And that is what we shall wait to hear. I really think it could go either way here.

And it honestly could. I do c & understand the points of my opposers in this thread, but IMHO, i don't feel the crime fit the punishment that JOE HORN handed down, and neither did the officer on the 911 call!

Candy

12-13-2007, 03:55 PM

poll after poll that i've seen hope's differently.

And if those polls ring true in the 12 grand jury members and thier interpretation of the castle doctrine then he'll get off, so phuckin be it!

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 03:58 PM

And it honestly could. I do c & understand the points of my opposers in this thread, but IMHO, i don't feel the crime fit the punishment that JOE HORN handed down, and neither did the officer on the 911 call!
i feel the punishment fit the crime... and it should act to deter others from trying to steal from his neighbors again. if we kill enough thieves maybe they will become extinct

Candy

12-13-2007, 04:00 PM

I received this PM from someone who doesn't necessarily argee with my side of the argument but applauds my effort and comprehensible responses to debate, and has been reading ur and my responses....

Lol, yeah...these boys are a trip. They are projecting their personal opinion of how things would be, ideally, if they had a say but totally disregard what is real and what the letter of the law dictates as true. What you think may be quite different than what is.

+1

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 04:02 PM

i don't disregard what is real... i truly feel that i would have done the same thing, but i don't have a shoty...

Candy

12-13-2007, 04:04 PM

i feel the punishment fit the crime... and it should act to deter others from trying to steal from his neighbors again. if we kill enough thieves maybe they will become extinct

That's a HUGE far stretched maybe. If someone is desparate enough they'll do it!

So ur saying it's ok for u 2 ignore the law but not them. Change the law and make stiffer punishments, but don't think ur reasonable for ignoring or breaking the law urself by taking the law into ur hands. Carry urself within the means of the law, or take responsibility for not doing so.

AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR DEBATE

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 04:06 PM

That's a HUGE far stretched maybe. If someone is desparate enough they'll do it!

So ur saying it's ok for u 2 ignore the law but not them. Change the law and make stiffer punishments, but don't think ur reasonable for ignoring or breaking the law urself by taking the law into ur hands. Carry urself within the means of the law, or take responsibility for not doing so.

if the law says i can shoot them then i will. if it said i had to stab them in the eye with a candy cane then i'd do that.

the law states that i can use deadly force to protect a neighbors property and blah blah blah .........

Whorenet

12-13-2007, 04:07 PM

No just smarter than Joe Horn :thumb: and most of u phuckers who seem to think the system won't lock ur as up for taking the law into ur own hands!

Ur never nice 2 me, but i'm sure that's cause u feel inferior in some way.

I'm not DEFENDING anyone, I've said they are criminals plain and simple, but JOE HORN WAS not within his legal rights to shoot and kill these people. If u can't hold an actual side of that argument don't freakin reply.

Tickets are a class a but still a criminal offense

ive already stated my side of the argument, i think joe horn should replace charlton heston as presidant of the NRA, i think we should have a bill fast tracked through congress called the "joe horn bill" quite similiar to the brady bill...but instead of preventing hand gun violence, it should encourage taking the law into YOUR OWN HANDS.

i think joe horn's birthday should be a national holiday, banks should close, post offices should shut down, and single moms should take their children to the gun range with them so children from less privelaged families are exposed to proper hand gun usage and the positive impact they can have on society.

i think the thunder ranch beginners course should be a requirement for hs students much like PE and health....

IS MY STANCE CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU THIS TIME?

and no i feel in NO WAY INFERIOR to you....in fact that makes me laugh, but only just a little.

i have nothing against you personally.do you think that maybe my opinion being different from yours is alright? i sure do.

free will

and to end my thoughts-is it some small coincidence that EVERYONE on this thread is blatantly bashing your comments and not just me?

i will say this one more time-i dont know you and i have nothing "personal" against you.

Candy

12-13-2007, 04:08 PM

AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR DEBATE

:thumb:Have a nice day!

CLETUS

12-13-2007, 04:10 PM

That's a HUGE far stretched maybe. If someone is desparate enough they'll do it!

So ur saying it's ok for u 2 ignore the law but not them. Change the law and make stiffer punishments, but don't think ur reasonable for ignoring or breaking the law urself by taking the law into ur hands. Carry urself within the means of the law, or take responsibility for not doing so.

AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR DEBATE

Well, one thing we know for sure. The DA isn't sure if there is a law broken here so he is sending it a Grand Jury because in Texas it is based on what a normal (using the term loosely) person would do in a simular situation, whether or not they needed shooting...
Just because the GJ comes back with a yes dosen't mean that a regular jury will.

Candy

12-13-2007, 04:11 PM

Hey Whorenet!!!!!

7957

CLETUS

12-13-2007, 04:13 PM

Let's play nice, everybody.
We are all entitled to our to our own opions on issues.

RESPECT GUYS!!

jus10

12-13-2007, 04:17 PM

Hey Whorenet!!!!!

7957

Crikey!:eek3:

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 04:18 PM

Okay Key fact:

He killed them for robbing his neighbors house. There is no shoulda coulda woulda....

Crystalline

12-13-2007, 04:18 PM

Crikey!:eek3:

hahaha you said crikey! :rofl:

Candy

12-13-2007, 04:26 PM

Let's play nice, everybody.
We are all entitled to our to our own opions on issues.

RESPECT GUYS!!

We r entitled 2 our opinions and we should be able to EXPRESS THEM LIKE ADULTS. Since he chose not or better yet never chooses 2 i'd figured i'd come down 2 his level for a moment.

Javi

12-13-2007, 04:29 PM

yo thought id put my 2 cents in... ya ready?

that dude killed those dudes and if u think he didnt ur lying 2 ur self ........ what if it was ur kid, brother feel me.... we all make mistakes but they didnt diserve that... the dude is some corny dude that for sure got his ass beat in school why do nerds get 2 have guns???????????????

remember that guy that chased the robber and got his ass killed ..... wonder how his kids are spending xmass u think there sayn my daddy was a hero?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

if u wana be a man, but live like a nerd pick a fight with somebody ur size or bigger..........

the rest of his life will be known as the dude that killed 2 pll..... and they talk shit bout the hood????? what a joke.... and i love u!!!

Ulric

12-13-2007, 05:24 PM

Joe Horn attempted to stop to men that had robbed a house. They ignored an order to stop moving. One of the men moved towards Joe Horn... he fired on them both. Both men died when their hearts stopped. Lack of blood, functioning organs killed them, Joe just shot em.

mathews

12-13-2007, 05:38 PM

My brother doesnt rob people,and if he did he would suffer the consequences.The grand jury are the only ones that will hear all the facts.Robbing someones house in broad daylight isnt a MISTAKE its an intentional felony

sillywabbit

12-13-2007, 05:42 PM

people, people, lets all act like civilized adults...

before I pop a cap in yo ass. MSF?

Ulric

12-13-2007, 05:54 PM

Ok now that I finaly skimmed the whole thread...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5362232.html
our best source of information at present <cough>

The original legal code AND castle law have merits in regards to Mr. Horns case.
First off, the original code has allowance for a 1 person to watch over and protect the property of another as if it was their own.
The original code, and 'caste law' changes allow for a person to defend their own property.

Now let's address the 'pre-meditated murder' crud that comes up all over the place...

Mr. Horn called 911 when he noted the house was being broken into.
Mr. Horn stayed on the phone for over 6 minutes waiting for the police to arrive.
Mr. Horn stepped outside, stated 'Move and your dead' this is akin to freeze, stop etc. He announced an order and his intent to shoot if they fail to comply.
Mr. Horn did NOT go over to the house and shoot the men when he noticed they were breaking in, then call the police.
Mr. Horn did not step out the door and start shooting, he ordered the men to stop. (Move and your dead).

Yes Mr. horn said various things while on the phone. Actions and words do not match.

Now... under the code, Mr. Horn would in theory be allowed to defend his neighbors property as iif it was his own. The key and problem here, is it's presumed one would ask the other to do so.

It appears Mr. Horn did not fire until the men moved, one of which moved towards him. The plainclothes officer who arrived, it appears has corraborated Mr. Horns defense claim be stating that one of the men had moved closer to horn from where they were when Mr. horn confronted them.
He veered away from Mr. Horn at some point...

"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.
The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

Here we have a situation where Mr. Horn has justification for claiming defense... in addition...
"Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard."

So now we have both men on Mr. Horns Property, they had just robbed his neighbors house... he orders them to stop and one starts to move toward him.
Defense under original code AND Castle Law possibly could be applied at this point.

...and Candy...
'Thou Shall Not Kill' is more accurately translated to 'Thou Shall Not Murder'.

Continue to read Exodus and you'll find more in there in regards to theft and the defense.. Ie: If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

DvlRacer

12-13-2007, 06:09 PM

Tickets are a class a but still a criminal offense

Are they really? God I hope not.

Class A Punishments:
up to 1 year in county jail and/or a fine up to $4,000

I keep seeing you tell people to use the facts, I'm glad you are fully aware of and providing just the facts in your arguments :gesture:

~Keith

PS: The way you capitalize EVERYTHING you think is important is annoying

MadseasoN

12-13-2007, 06:13 PM

Then the "fed up public" should push their lawmakers here in Texas to push for stiffer punishment for theft of property, until then HE'S WRONG!!!!

They've come up with a better solution. It was implemented on 09/01/2007

Candy

12-13-2007, 07:22 PM

Are they really? God I hope not.

Class A Punishments:
up to 1 year in county jail and/or a fine up to $4,000

I keep seeing you tell people to use the facts, I'm glad you are fully aware of and providing just the facts in your arguments :gesture:

~Keith

PS: The way you capitalize EVERYTHING you think is important is annoying

Oh i'm sorry it's class c, but it is a criminal offense. I have the facts just the wrong letter:keke:

Most traffic citations in Texas are Class C misdemeanors: criminal offenses punishable by a fine of up to $500.00 per citation, plus court costs.

Candy

12-13-2007, 07:37 PM

Ok now that I finaly skimmed the whole thread...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5362232.html
our best source of information at present <cough>

The original legal code AND castle law have merits in regards to Mr. Horns case.
First off, the original code has allowance for a 1 person to watch over and protect the property of another as if it was their own.
The original code, and 'caste law' changes allow for a person to defend their own property.

Never indicated he was asked to watch over said property in any news clipping or even in his statement thru his attorney

Now let's address the 'pre-meditated murder' crud that comes up all over the place...

Mr. Horn called 911 when he noted the house was being broken into.
Mr. Horn stayed on the phone for over 6 minutes waiting for the police to arrive.
Mr. Horn stepped outside, stated 'Move and your dead' this is akin to freeze, stop etc. He announced an order and his intent to shoot if they fail to comply.
Mr. Horn did NOT go over to the house and shoot the men when he noticed they were breaking in, then call the police.
Mr. Horn did not step out the door and start shooting, he ordered the men to stop. (Move and your dead).

Yes Mr. horn said various things while on the phone. Actions and words do not match.

U forgot 2 mention he was SAFE IN HIS HOME, and was WARNED by the dispatcher who was an off-duty office, WHO KNOWS THE LAW better than u and i 2 not go outside, he ignored that.

Now... under the code, Mr. Horn would in theory be allowed to defend his neighbors property as iif it was his own. The key and problem here, is it's presumed one would ask the other to do so.

Presumption in that case it a BIG WORD to surmount.

It appears Mr. Horn did not fire until the men moved, one of which moved towards him. The plainclothes officer who arrived, it appears has corraborated Mr. Horns defense claim be stating that one of the men had moved closer to horn from where they were when Mr. horn confronted them.

these peole were both SHOT IN THE BACK, Horn had 2 TELL THEM 2 stop moving, therefore they were already fleeing when he decided to walk past that door

"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.
The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

Of course he felt in jeopardy now cause that will be the only thing that gets him off at this point, HOWEVER, it's obvious thru the phone call that MR HORN WAS NEVER IN JEOPARDY b4 he went outside

...and Candy...
'Thou Shall Not Kill' is more accurately translated to 'Thou Shall Not Murder'.

Continue to read Exodus and you'll find more in there in regards to theft and the defense.. Ie: If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

I only made the reference to thou shall not KILL, b/c Hornet mentioned thou shall not steal, and either way, killing came b4 stealing in the law of the land, so life b4 property is the point. I've read Exodus and every other book of the bible to know that the laws that govern us are BASED on the TC'S and it's up 2 us 2 leave the jugdement to the law & order of our system and GOD, not JOE HORN or u for that matter.

I rest my case!

CarbonJames

12-13-2007, 07:48 PM

you guys seem to be a bit off topic. This has turned into a debate between the MH members. So, before anyone gets their feelings hurt i think we should just close the thread and move on to the next topic.

you guys are shaming and bashing each other. This is drama which is not welcomed here so please stay on topic kids!

the justice system will prevail. None of us are on the jury, and none of us are going to be involved in this case so state your opinion and leave the bashing for other forums.

Try www.bashingpeople.com

Ulric

12-13-2007, 09:01 PM

"Never indicated he was asked to watch over said property in any news clipping or even in his statement thru his attorney."

I don't think i did either. This would be one of the problems he's facing.

"U forgot 2 mention he was SAFE IN HIS HOME, and was WARNED by the dispatcher who was an off-duty office, WHO KNOWS THE LAW better than u and i 2 not go outside, he ignored that"

So what. Find where there is a legal obligation to follow the orders of a 911 dispatcher? And precisely how do you, we or more importanly Mr. Horn know the operator was a licensed LEO and not a civilian? For that matter, how do we know the person he talked to, was NOT one of the High School students the union claims was taking calls?

"Originally Posted by Ulric
Now... under the code, Mr. Horn would in theory be allowed to defend his neighbors property as iif it was his own. The key and problem here, is it's presumed one would ask the other to do so.
Presumption in that case it a BIG WORD to surmount."

We have no 'official' word on wether it was ever breached or not that I know of. Further, I personaly think it's an issue that neesds to be addressed/changed. We all have a moral obligation to watch over our neighbors as part of a community.

"these peole were both SHOT IN THE BACK, Horn had 2 TELL THEM 2 stop moving, therefore they were already fleeing when he decided to walk past that door."
Go read the news report... Mr. Horn ordered them to stop, one approached him. One closed the distance from where he was when Mr. Horn exited his home to a point closer to Mr. Horn before turning. Now I'm sorry, but physics come into here... bullets are fast but don't travel from point A to point B simultaneously. A shotgun fires a slug or pellets at sub-sonic speeds, or in short... for a projectile weapon it moves relatively slow. In short the subject could turned in the time Mr. Horn pulled the trigger and the 'round' striking him. This of course ignores that law itself which states nothing in regards to shot location.

"Of course he felt in jeopardy now cause that will be the only thing that gets him off at this point, HOWEVER, it's obvious thru the phone call that MR HORN WAS NEVER IN JEOPARDY b4 he went outside"

It DOES NOT MATTER...the LAW makes allowance for a 3rd party to protect the property not their own. Ie: A neighbor protecting his neighbors home/property. Mr. Horn did not force them to enter his yard, he did not force one of them to approach them. He did not force them to ignore his command to stop, or not make any movement.

"I only made the reference to thou shall not KILL, b/c Hornet mentioned thou shall not steal, and either way, killing came b4 stealing in the law of the land, so life b4 property is the point. I've read Exodus and every other book of the bible to know that the laws that govern us are BASED on the TC'S and it's up 2 us 2 leave the jugdement to the law & order of our system and GOD, not JOE HORN or u for that matter.

I rest my case!"

I haven't passed judgement, I've just pointed out the law, how some of Mr. Horns actions play to either side of it and that even the bible allows for defense of one's self and others.

sbfuller

12-13-2007, 09:22 PM

after all this, i'm glad candy isn't my neighbor... she'd just sit and watch my $hit get stolen

RACER X

12-13-2007, 10:27 PM

^ +1

Candy

12-13-2007, 11:04 PM

after all this, i'm glad candy isn't my neighbor... she'd just sit and watch my $hit get stolen

Not true to u or Racer X.....for u 2 i'd help em steal it! :thumb:

U guys r completely a few crayons short of a full box, if u think i'm defending these guys. Far from it, i'm only standing up for what's legally RIGHT, and in my eyes Mr. Horn was wrong, u don't punish theft with death.

I think theft is wrong, PERIOD, but i also feel like there r just certain ways u go about detering or catching thieves, and shooting a thief dead is no where near the answer.

U ask me 2 appreciate cops and what they do, ok then same case here. Give the law & order we have established in this state the opportunity 2 do what they r getting paid for, catching criminals and prosecuting them 2 the full extent of the law. Mr Horn didn't do that, and none of u appear 2 as well.

Life or death......It's not up 2 u or i 2 make that judgment.

Candy

12-13-2007, 11:09 PM

We all should just agreed to disagree and /thread.

RACER X

12-13-2007, 11:13 PM

and in my eyes Mr. Horn was wrong, u don't punish theft with death.

in many eye's it is justifiable. and in certain situations it is very legal. to kill over property and the state is on your side.

now mr horns case is new and will set precident. we have differing opinions, is any 1 more right then another? you know what they say about opinions and assholes........lol

sorry, you can be a sheep or you can be a sheep dog. your choice, i choose to be a sheep dog.

good night.

Candy

12-13-2007, 11:24 PM

in many eye's it is justifiable. and in certain situations it is very legal. to kill over property and the state is on your side.

now mr horns case is new and will set precident. we have differing opinions, is any 1 more right then another? you know what they say about opinions and assholes........lol

sorry, you can be a sheep or you can be a sheep dog. your choice, i choose to be a sheep dog.

good night.

WTF is a mod doing attempting to indicate i'm a sheep?!

Do ur job and close this shyt cause now ya'll r really sounding ignorant

Ulric

12-13-2007, 11:56 PM

"Life or death......It's not up 2 u or i 2 make that judgment."

Wrong, if someone breaks into my house...attacks me on my property and their actions give me justification in using lethal force. Then I have the right to use it.

"WTF is a mod doing attempting to indicate i'm a sheep?!
Do ur job and close this shyt cause now ya'll r really sounding ignorant "

WTF are you throwing a fit about it... I'll be honest though, no your not a sheep. You're a rabid sheep, you'd have others cower in their homes but attack anyone that confronts you.

Was Joe Horn a Hero? Frag if I know or care, but while he mave have handled some things wrong.. Joe Horn did the RIGHT thing.
He watched out for his neighbors, he called the cops, he waited until the perps were exiting the home and the police had not arrived. He ordered them to stop, and fired when he felt at risk/threatened. The law does not require we cower and hide, the law does not require we flee.

Ignorance is saying we should cower or flee.
Ignorance is allowing the criminal more freedom, more protection than the people they prey upon.

Ulric

12-13-2007, 11:58 PM

..and Racer. I think Sheep or Wolf works better. Herd vs Pack.

Stacy

12-14-2007, 12:50 AM

"...
Ignorance is saying we should cower or flee.
Ignorance is allowing the criminal more freedom, more protection than the people they prey upon.

:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

I would hope my neighbors watch my house when I'm away, just as closely as I watch theirs. If I was being robbed I certainly hope my neighbors would do their best to keep the theives from getting away with my hard EARNED belongings, even if it meant shooting them. Fortunately for me (and my neighbors) my dog would rip the theives apart first.

None of us were there when this happened. None of us know exactly what was going through Mr. Horns mind while this was happening. None of us know whether his intentions were to go ouside and hold the thieves at gunpoint until the cops showed up, only to feel threatened for his life after doing so. They teach if you are going to point a gun, be prepared to use it...maybe he was intimidated into actually having to use it. Nobody knows the exact story other then those who were there in first person.

RACER X

12-14-2007, 05:46 AM

WTF is a mod doing attempting to indicate i'm a sheep?!

Do ur job and close this shyt cause now ya'll r really sounding ignorant

if the shoe fits.

my "job" is to keep order, i've done my job.

Ulric, a general made a comment/story like that. it involves, sheep (the unassuming, sheeple), the wolf (bad people) & the sheep dog (LEO's, people willing to get involved)
:thumb:

BTW another 'burglar" shot and killed last night, judge jury executioneer. and in another case a female homeowner was tied up and killed by 2 thieves during the middle of the day in Fulshur yesterday. this time the thieves were judge, jury and executioneer.

Ulric

12-14-2007, 06:35 AM

"Ulric, a general made a comment/story like that. it involves, sheep (the unassuming, sheeple), the wolf (bad people) & the sheep dog (LEO's, people willing to get involved)"

Ah ok, I was thinking of a different dynamic.

Meaner-n-u

12-14-2007, 07:11 AM

good article... people are worth more than property... until they are stealing the property, and then to me they are people no longer... they are thieves

+1

"The law of our land seems to place more value on the property being stolen — even if it belongs to a neighbor — than on the life of the burglar stealing it."

That was my favorite line from the article. Why do criminals always want rights? You give up those rights when you choose to DISOBEY the law. Days gone by these guys; if not dead; would be in jail (a really miserable one - waiting to be hung) and no one would have blinked. CONSEQUENCES!

Don't get me wrong. I care about human life. (I value it over the lives of animals too) What I don't care for is people taking advantage of the PRIVIDLEDGE of life. This seems so Darwinian and the criminials in this case were removed from the gene pool by repeated stupidity. Odds were against these men living to a ripe old age. How long before they broke into a house inhabited by a little old lady and killed her? What if she was your mom? How many times does a person have to break the law before people rise up? When is a foul - a foul?

Crystalline

12-14-2007, 08:26 AM

Back on topic. Falkenberg suxors! :D

lilmckee

12-14-2007, 08:27 AM

Back on topic. Falkenberg suxors! :D

you suck

Crystalline

12-14-2007, 08:28 AM

you suck

Don't be mad. You know you don't like her articles either.

lilmckee

12-14-2007, 08:34 AM

Don't be mad. You know you don't like her articles either.

your right, i apologize

Crystalline

12-14-2007, 08:38 AM

after all this, i'm glad candy isn't my neighbor... she'd just sit and watch my $hit get stolen

You're glad I am not your neighbor either! :keke:

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 09:52 AM

I wonder how this woman feels about Joe Horn:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5377914.html

Too bad he didn't live next door.

RACER X

12-14-2007, 09:56 AM

I wonder how this woman feels about Joe Horn:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5377914.html

Too bad he didn't live next door.
or what if somebody like 1fastgsxr lived next door, and just watched and called the cops. the chances of the murderers getting caught are slim. maybe shooting them AFTER the fact isn;t going to bring her back, but at least it would resolved the case. and given closure to the family.

Crystalline

12-14-2007, 10:03 AM

I wonder how this woman feels about Joe Horn:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5377914.html

Too bad he didn't live next door.

I was thinking the same thing, and also waiting on the an article from this bish to see how the criminals should not be prosecuted if caught. :rofl:

Candy

12-14-2007, 10:22 AM

or what if somebody like 1fastgsxr lived next door, and just watched and called the cops. the chances of the murderers getting caught are slim. maybe shooting them AFTER the fact isn;t going to bring her back, but at least it would resolved the case. and given closure to the family.

Good morning all, this is my 1st post....

Ok this is the last time ima chime in on this shyt for u slow coaches that seem 2 b focused on 1 sentiment of what i said. I AM AGAINST SOME1 stealing anything, NO A THIEF IS NOT RIGHT IN ANYWAY, but unless they r ON MY PROPERTY OR PUTTING MY LIFE IN JEOPARDY, as far as the law goes, I HAVE NO REASON 2 SHOOT & KILL THEM, RUNNING AWAY NO LESS.

If my neighbors house is being broken into, i'm doing WHATEVER THE PHUCK is NECESSARY and LEGAL for me 2 do by law 2 protect them as i would want them 2 do 4 me. BUT QUITE HONESTLY, KILLING ANYONE for stealing REPLACABLE shyt WITHOUT ENDANGERING LIVES, is barbaric.

And all u e-thugs on this bish with all ur "what I would do in the situation" comments know very well, u wouldn't pull a pistol on a rat for FEAR OF GOING 2 JAIL, so stop talking the big shyt, when u know u wouldn't bust a grape.

TY:D

lilmckee

12-14-2007, 10:25 AM

And all u e-thugs on this bish with all ur "what I would do in the situation" comments know very well, u wouldn't pull a pistol on a rat for FEAR OF GOING 2 JAIL, so stop talking the big shyt, when u know u wouldn't bust a grape.

TY:D

i meet alot of people that chimed in on this thread

and im pretty sure they would have done what horn did

I know damn well I would. Some people on here KNOW i would, cause of what happened before.

Granted alot of people talk shit, but i wouldnt say everyone.

RACER X

12-14-2007, 10:30 AM

Good morning all, this is my 1st post....

Ok this is the last time ima chime in on this shyt for u slow coaches that seem 2 b focused on 1 sentiment of what i said. I AM AGAINST SOME1 stealing anything, NO A THIEF IS NOT RIGHT IN ANYWAY, but unless they r ON MY PROPERTY OR PUTTING MY LIFE IN JEOPARDY, as far as the law goes, I HAVE NO REASON 2 SHOOT & KILL THEM, RUNNING AWAY NO LESS.

If my neighbors house is being broken into, i'm doing WHATEVER THE PHUCK is NECESSARY and LEGAL for me 2 do by law 2 protect them as i would want them 2 do 4 me. BUT QUITE HONESTLY, KILLING ANYONE for stealing REPLACABLE shyt WITHOUT ENDANGERING LIVES, is barbaric.

thats a hindsight copout, knowing they're only stealing stuff you'd let them go, but what if they killed or are killing your neighbor, are you just gonna call the cops ONLY. what good is calling the cops gonna do your neighbor?

i bet the dead lady wished Joe Horn were her neighbor.

remember you have seconds to act or not.

witchdoctor575

12-14-2007, 10:35 AM

having only seconds is the key to all of this. Chances are that if some one is in your house stealing shite then chances are they have a weapon as well. I don't know about you guys but if said criminal is on my property stealing MY stuff I am not going to give him the chance to put my stuff down to grab his weapon. I am gonna cap him BEFORE he has the chance to cap me first.

Candy

12-14-2007, 10:56 AM

thats a hindsight copout, knowing they're only stealing stuff you'd let them go, but what if they killed or are killing your neighbor, are you just gonna call the cops ONLY. what good is calling the cops gonna do your neighbor?

i bet the dead lady wished Joe Horn were her neighbor.

remember you have seconds to act or not.

Again the fact of the matter is THESE GUYS in THIS CASE, didn't kill or physically harm anyone, ESPECIALLY JOE HORN, and if they were caught at the scene and later prosecuted, the worst they woulda got was still JAIL not DEATH. If they had killed someone, capital murder=death/life, but that's again the magic word IF.

They didn't therefore Joe Horn's death penalty was 2 far. I understand split 2nd decisions r hard 2 calculate, but this phucker had a whole 1.5 mins to do what the officer on the phone asked him to do, "STAY IN THE HOUSE, a unit is on the way". He warned him 2 do it twice, but HORN was DETERMINED 2 go out there and shoot someone from the beginning.

In the case above the lady's life was IN DANGER had she had a pistol, she coulda defended herself, and if ya'll r accurate, had her neighbor came out and shot and killed the criminals, they are within the means of the castle doctrine. Ok cool, a life was being threatened and according to the castle doctrine it's ur right 2 aid in the defense of that life.

But as far as the horn case is concerned THE FACT is NO LIVES where in DANGER, only property, and i'm not saying that makes it ok, BUT it's something that can be replaced, lives can't, and the laws we live under apparently agree which is y u can't get the death penalty for theft, unless u kill someone in an attempt 2 steal their shyt. Maybe u should get death, but until they change the punishment for that u don't.

Oh and i never said shyt about letting them go, record them, get license plate numbers, descriptions, do whatever IS REASONABLE in the extent of the law without endangering urself. Phuck an offduty cop was already responding, he shoulda left it up 2 him 2 subdue these guys.

RACER X

12-14-2007, 10:59 AM

Again the fact of the matter is THESE GUYS in THIS CASE, didn't kill or physically harm anyone,
and you know this becuase it's hindsight.

now lets put the 2 stories together, Joe Horn plus the dead lady yesterday, now it's justafiable.

Joe Horn hears a break in, call cops, runs outside, blast them. they find the dead lady inside. story sounds better huh?

joe doesn't know if anybodys home or not, in real life or my made up story.

"y u can't get the death penalty for theft" another thief was killed by a homeowner last night, isn't that a death penalty?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5378504.html

2slo

12-14-2007, 11:04 AM

Ulric

12-14-2007, 11:15 AM

"Again the fact of the matter is THESE GUYS in THIS CASE, didn't kill or physically harm anyone, ESPECIALLY JOE HORN, and if they were caught at the scene and later prosecuted, the worst they woulda got was still JAIL not DEATH. If they had killed someone, capital murder=death/life, but that's again the magic word IF. "

Gee, hindsight.. isn't it great. Tell us how he was supposed to know what all they did inside the house, if anyone else was hurt etc.

"They didn't therefore Joe Horn's death penalty was 2 far. I understand split 2nd decisions r hard 2 calculate, but this phucker had a whole 1.5 mins to do what the officer on the phone asked him to do, "STAY IN THE HOUSE, a unit is on the way". He warned him 2 do it twice, but HORN was DETERMINED 2 go out there and shoot someone from the beginning. "

He was on the phone for OVER 6 minutes waiting on the police... so according to you he was supposed to watch them just walk away with everything. Just forget the law makes allowance for a neighbor to watch over anothers property. Just forget/ignore what we've already pointed out to ya.

"But as far as the horn case is concerned THE FACT is NO LIVES where in DANGER, only property, and i'm not saying that makes it ok, BUT it's something that can be replaced, lives can't, and the laws we live under apparently agree which is y u can't get the death penalty for theft, unless u kill someone in an attempt 2 steal their shyt. Maybe u should get death, but until they change the punishment for that u don't. "

So lets see, joe under the law is allowed to defend the neighbors property (provided he meets certain tersm). so he goes outside and confronts them, they ignore the order to stop and 1 makes motion to attack him.. whats he supposed to do, run?
You want him to get license plate #'s etc... you make note about the plainclothes officer and ignore the fact that THEY (the police) could not locate/identify the escape vehicle. So you expect joe to do something the police could not/failed to do.. then condemn for taking what action he could because the police were not there in time.

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:18 AM

and you know this becuase it's hindsight.

PASADENA, Texas (CBS) ― The 911 call came from a Pasadena, Texas resident, who alerted police to two burglary suspects on a neighbor's property. Before he hung up, two men were dead by his hand.

Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.

"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this --."

"I don't know if they're armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."

He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."
"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"

"I don't want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?

"No, I don't want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."

The dispatcher asks if a vehicle could be seen; Horn said no. The dispatcher again says Horn should stay inside the house.

Almost five minutes into the call, police had not arrived.

"I can't see if [the suspects are] getting away or not," Horn said.

Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn't know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.

Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?"

Horn: "Yes?"

Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."

Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."

Dispatcher: "I understand."

Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."

Dispatcher: "I'm ..."

Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."

Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."

Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "

Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."

Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this --. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!" didn't kill anyone STOLE SOMETHING

Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."
Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"

Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!

Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."

Horn: "They got a bag of loot." nhe KNEW THEY DIDN'T HAVE WEAPONS

Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."I think this is number 5

On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street.They were FLEEING I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the -- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

Dispatcher: "Did you shoot somebody?

Horn: "Yes, I did, the cops are here right now."

Dispatcher: "Where are you right now?"

Horn: "I'm inside the house. ..."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, put that gun down before you shoot an officer of mine. I've got several officers out there without uniforms on."

Horn: "I am in the front yard right now. I am ..."

Dispatcher: "Put that gun down! There's officers out there without uniforms on. Do not shoot anybody else, do you understand me? I've got police out there..."

Horn: "I understand, I understand. I am out in the front yard waving my hand right now."

Dispatcher: "You don't have a gun with you, do you?

Horn: "No, no, no."

Dispatcher: "You see a uniformed officer? Now lay down on the ground and don't do nothing else."

Yelling is heard.

Dispatcher: "Lay down on the ground, Mister Horn. Do what the officers tell you to do right now."

Two days later, Horn released a statement through an attorney.

"The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life," it said. "My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."

The identities of the men killed were released Friday.

They are Miguel Antonio Dejesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30. Official records show that each of them had a prior arrest in Harris County for drug offenses.

The men were reportedly shot at a distance of less than 15 feet. Might be good news for horn

A woman who lives nearby who asked not to be identified told CBS News affiliate KHOU correspondent Rucks Russell that she always saw Horn as a grandfather figure. "He is the guardian of the neighborhood," she said. "He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him."

But according to Tom Lambright, Horn's attorney and a friend for more than four decades, he's the one in need now. "He just needs everyone to know he's not a villain, he's not a bad guy," Lambright said.

He went on to say that Horn voluntarily gave an extensive video statement to police immediately following the shooting.

Horn was not taken into custody after the shooting. A Harris County grand jury will decide if charges are to be filed.

Lambright says Horn acted in complete and total self defense and has nothing to hide.

Local opinion has been passionate on both sides of the shooting.

One letter to the Houston Chronicle said, "He didn't shoot them in the legs, to make sure they did not run away, or hold them at gunpoint until police arrived. No, he was judge, jury and executioner." +1

Another letter writer praised Horn, saying, "Where does the line form to pin a medal on Joe Horn? I want to get in line." Another wrote, "Let's get rid of the police force and just hire Joe Horn!"

Support for Horn was also running about 2-1 in an online survey of readers on the KHOU Web site.

The incident may prove a test for a new law recently passed in Texas which expands the right of citizens to use deadly force.

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

RACER X

12-14-2007, 11:22 AM

do you understand the word hindsight?

"didn't kill anyone STOLE SOMETHING"

"he KNEW THEY DIDN'T HAVE WEAPONS"

ah assumptions, he's another thing for ya

ass u me

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:22 AM

Interesting thread. Always nice to read heated debates about current issues. I have just a few questions. Have any of you actually been the victims of a violent crime and seen first hand our how justice system works (or doesn't as the case may be)? And secondly, 1FastGSR, where did you go to law school? We might know some of the same people.

Forgive me but is that a joke, r u trying 2 be funny.

Not trying to be an asshole, jus wanna make sure i should answer that question or if it's just u being sarcastic. I'm getting a lot of that lately, when people run out of arguments

RACER X

12-14-2007, 11:26 AM

she's asking if you ever attended law school.

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:28 AM

do you understand the word hindsight?

"didn't kill anyone STOLE SOMETHING"

"he KNEW THEY DIDN'T HAVE WEAPONS"

ah assumptions, he's another thing for ya

ass u me

hindsight=: perception of the nature of an event after it has happened.......

he KNEW THEY HAD NO WEAPONS, so it wasn't hindsight, property part maybe, but weapons NOPE, so they were not a THREAT to his life carrying bags of loot instead of a gun

DvlRacer

12-14-2007, 11:29 AM

Not trying to be an asshole, jus wanna make sure i should answer that question or if it's just u being sarcastic. I'm getting a lot of that lately, when people run out of arguments

Oh Noeees! The world is out to get me! :rofl: Good thing you can never be wrong.

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:30 AM

she's asking if you ever attended law school.

I know what she's asking but i don't want to waste my time to answer it honestly if she's just being sarcastic.....

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:31 AM

Oh Noeees! The world is out to get me! :rofl:

:rofl: Far from it, and if u were the world, i'd have nothing to worry about....back on topic

RACER X

12-14-2007, 11:39 AM

he KNEW THEY HAD NO WEAPONS,you know this how?

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:43 AM

you know this how?

I read his statement in the freakin transcript i just posted grrrrr

hold please i need 2 shower.....:D

2slo

12-14-2007, 11:44 AM

I was not being sarcastic. Although I am NOT a lawyer my sister is a criminal defense attorney and your position sounds very similiar to hers. You also appear well versed in the law (what little I know) and therefore I just assumed. For what it's worth I strongly disagree with both of you... Damn liberals :keke: :keke: deb

Ulric

12-14-2007, 11:44 AM

"Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this --. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!" didn't kill anyone STOLE SOMETHING"

How does he know if anyone was killed or not, he is merely reporting what he sees.

"Horn: "They got a bag of loot." nhe KNEW THEY DIDN'T HAVE WEAPONS"
Read your own quotes.. remember the crowbar earlier... remember the 6" 'punch' mentioned in the report? 2 30yr old men vs 1 60yr old man.

Now, Mr. Horn ATTEMPTED to hold them at gun-point ("Move and your dead"), they moved...one of them in Mr. Horns direction (this is corraborated by the police).

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

PENAL CODE

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or
known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended
use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.

§ 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to
prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this
chapter.

§ 9.03. CONFINEMENT AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. Confinement
is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor
takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as
he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested
for an offense.

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

§ 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even
though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or
using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also
recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the
justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a
prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent
third person.

§ 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that
conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair
any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

SUBCHAPTER B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY

§ 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by
Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor
reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law,
by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental
tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is
used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect
property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by
virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is
specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful
conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to
retreat before using it.
(d) The justification afforded by this section is available
if the actor reasonably believes:
(1) the court or governmental tribunal has
jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or
governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is
unlawful; or
(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a
public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though
the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Crystalline

12-14-2007, 11:46 AM

Someone doesn't seem to get it. :keke:

Ulric

12-14-2007, 11:46 AM

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.

Ulric

12-14-2007, 11:46 AM

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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

RACER X

12-14-2007, 11:46 AM

I read his statement in the freakin transcript i just posted grrrrr

exactly where?

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

even the dispacther thinks they have weapons.

Crystalline

12-14-2007, 11:47 AM

i meet alot of people that chimed in on this thread
and im pretty sure they would have done what horn did
I know damn well I would. Some people on here KNOW i would, cause of what happened before.
Granted alot of people talk shit, but i wouldnt say everyone.

Heck yea! Scardy, Brett,...

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:52 AM

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 11:53 AM

For your considerations...

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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:55 AM

exactly where?

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

even the dispacther thinks they have weapons.

now the dispatcher has hindsight :D .

I bolded it and responded, he knew they had no weapons, something about i know they got a crow bar, bags of loot in their hands

Candy

12-14-2007, 11:58 AM

For your considerations...

good notes sean and thanks ulric.... it was daytime when this occured "deadly force at NIGHTIME", and the neighbors never GAVE HIM PERMISSION, he touchs on that in the call.. "i don't know them as good as my other neighbors...."

:thumb:

RACER X

12-14-2007, 11:58 AM

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 12:01 PM

good notes sean and thanks ulric.... it was daytime when this occured "deadly force at NIGHTIME", and the neighbors never GAVE HIM PERMISSION, he touchs on that in the call.. "i don't know them as good as my other neighbors...."

:thumb:

:thumb:

jus10

12-14-2007, 12:02 PM

See Candy that's what I was saying Yesterday. IF it were at night and IF he'd been asked to watch the house, there would be no question of legality. But since it's in the day time and the neighbors didn't request his supervision of their house, the only leg he has to stand on is self defense, and even then he still made it real hard on himself by saying the shit he did on the phone. So, he's got some 'splaining to do...

Obviously he was not immediately guilty or he would have been arrested. A coin toss really...

Candy

12-14-2007, 12:02 PM

"I don't know if they're armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."

this?

He went on to say I c them with bags in their hands!!!

i gotta go to work, give me 20 mins i'll b back on...

RACER X

12-14-2007, 12:03 PM

He went on to say I c them with bags in their hands!!!

i gotta go to work, give me 20 mins i'll b back on...

and so that means they don't have weapons?

hint: when i'm carrying x-mas shopping bags in my hand, i may have more then 1 weapon on me :eek3:

Candy

12-14-2007, 12:04 PM

See Candy that's what I was saying Yesterday. IF it were at night and IF he'd been asked to watch the house, there would be no question of legality. But since it's in the day time and the neighbors didn't request his supervision of their house, the only leg he has to stand on is self defense, and even then he still made it real hard on himself by saying the shit he did on the phone. So, he's got some 'splaining to do...

And THIS WE AGREE on...I have no problem with anyone doing what is WITHIN THE EXTENT of THE LAW...i feel he WASN'T. That's my whole point....whew

gotta go 2 work

jus10

12-14-2007, 12:04 PM

and so that means they don't have weapons?

hint: when i'm carrying x-mas shopping bags in my hand, i may have more then 1 weapon on me :eek3:

:werd:

Candy

12-14-2007, 12:05 PM

and so that means they don't have weapons?

hint: when i'm carrying x-mas shopping bags in my hand, i may have more then 1 weapon on me :eek3:

On u but NOT POINTED AT SOMEONE in an attempt to inflict harm!!! BIIIIGGGGG difference

20 mins guys i gotta get to work darn it:D

RACER X

12-14-2007, 12:07 PM

yeah, cuz i carry weapons for decorations.

jus10

12-14-2007, 12:08 PM

doing what is WITHIN THE EXTENT of THE LAW...i feel he WASN'T.

And that's the whole case right there. Will the jury feel he was or was not? Tune in next week, to The People's Court!

Ulric

12-14-2007, 12:36 PM

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 12:50 PM

"good notes sean and thanks ulric.... it was daytime when this occured "deadly force at NIGHTIME", and the neighbors never GAVE HIM PERMISSION, he touchs on that in the call.. "i don't know them as good as my other neighbors...."

There's some discussion on some other forums in regards to the nighttime clause.. if it only applies to the last part or all the possibilities.
Then yes the 'permission' or 'request' factor... in fact from a pure legal code standpoint that is the biggest bugger there I think.
I also think it's a bad part of the code... theres also a question, can the neighbor retroactively authorize in this situation?

We also get to the fact, that from reports.. both men were on Mr. horn property when he stepped outside. Two men Vs one, may give sufficient reason/justifcation of lethal force for defense considering the age differences. This ignores that they had a crowbar when he called it in.. for all he knows, they still could have the crowbar.

We have the police reporting that one of the men moved closer to Horn when he confronted them. The can be translated to threat, combine with knowledge they had a crowbar previously.... justification for threat of lethal force of use of lethal force.

Based on the language from the text you presented, there is no room for questioning the nighttime clause. It is part of a continual line of reasoning. No break. Secondly, I wouldn't think that a retroactive authorization would be acceptable. Say what you will but I doubt anyone can point to any precedent on this...if so, I'd love to see it. Thirdly, with regard to the situation with Mr. Horn being faced with danger will bring about the question of whether or not he placed himself in that danger not to mention, was he justified based on the aforementioned text in doing so? Most of this would be all predicated on the laws and the interpretation of those laws by the jurors. Sad thing for Joe is that that nighttime clause would be, in my mind, rather hard to over come, particularly when compounded on top of the other issue of not having authorization to protect the property in the first place, not to mention the audio.

RACER X

12-14-2007, 12:52 PM

way back, i said precedent setting case. it will be.

Candy

12-14-2007, 12:53 PM

I agree with u on that X, it will set a precedent!

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 12:54 PM

way back, i said precedent setting case. it will be.

Unquestionably...well, that or a precedent solidifying case :dontknow:

Candy

12-14-2007, 01:03 PM

And for the record..... I am always delighted to DISCUSS a topic with anyone until my fingers and face r blue, but what is absolutely unnecessary r the sarcastic antics, euphemisms, and also the :gesture:'s.

This type of shyt shows ur unknowledgable about the discussion or have no more points to make so u resort 2 the childish shyt in an attempt to not look out gunned by the opposition.

I love and adore most of u guys ( with the exception of 1 or 2 :keke:) and value ur opinions and thoughts, but lose respect for u when u resort 2 the dumb shyt.

Thanks!!!

Ulric

12-14-2007, 01:06 PM

Based on the language from the text you presented, there is no room for questioning the nighttime clause. It is part of a continual line of reasoning. No break. Secondly, I wouldn't think that a retroactive authorization would be acceptable. Say what you will but I doubt anyone can point to any precedent on this...if so, I'd love to see it. Thirdly, with regard to the situation with Mr. Horn being faced with danger will bring about the question of whether or not he placed himself in that danger not to mention, was he justified based on the aforementioned text in doing so? Most of this would be all predicated on the laws and the interpretation of those laws by the jurors. Sad thing for Joe is that that nighttime clause would be, in my mind, rather hard to over come, particularly when compounded on top of the other issue of not having authorization to protect the property in the first place, not to mention the audio.

That's why I refer to the castle laws changes possibly making a difference in part of the aspect. I think a lot is going to dened on how they present their arguements.
I'm not trying to judge/decide if he is going to get off or not.
I do hope that he's left alone with this... as I feel the heart of the law is followed though not the exact letter.

Candy

12-14-2007, 01:21 PM

That's why I refer to the castle laws changes possibly making a difference in part of the aspect. I think a lot is going to dened on how they present their arguements.

I agree with this part, however i in turn don't think in my heart, i should kill someone over my 42" plasma tv, that's when my morality sets in, and different strokes for different folks. Mamed :keke: or deterred maybe, but not shot in the back 2 the death, not over an insurance claim for a brand new and better 50" plasma instead. Not worth it on my conscious.

Ulric

12-14-2007, 01:29 PM

I agree with this part, however i in turn don't think in my heart, i should kill someone over my 42" plasma tv, that's when my morality sets in, and different strokes for different folks. Mamed :keke: or deterred maybe, but not shot in the back 2 the death, not over an insurance claim for a brand new and better 50" plasma instead. Not worth it on my conscious.

I understand, I just see or feel it's more than that.. it wound't be so much for the object itself. But the time, effort I spend working for it...and for their disrepect and invasion of my home. I would never feel as safe or as comfortable in my home if someone broke into it, cleaned me out and got away.

RACER X

12-14-2007, 01:34 PM

^ +1

Ulric

12-14-2007, 01:46 PM

...this is also why my ditch is 3.8' deep, the run from the house to the street it 600'+ and I have a rottie with enough cable to park her backside on the porch.

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 01:47 PM

I understand, I just see or feel it's more than that.. it wound't be so much for the object itself. But the time, effort I spend working for it...and for their disrepect and invasion of my home. I would never feel as safe or as comfortable in my home if someone broke into it, cleaned me out and got away.

^ I've been there. You're not only robbed of your possesions but also your sense of security. Not to mention part of your identity.

Your possesions are part of you. You've sold your labor and your time to earn the money for those things yet you're supposed to let someone come and take them from you? I think not.

In my case it was the neighbor's teenage kids that burglarized my home. In the end they were not prosecuted and I didn't get any of my things back. Cash, jewelry, stereo equipment, sentimental heirlooms. All "given" to some punk ass kids. So I say f^ck the burglars .... he should've shot 'em more than once.

Candy

12-14-2007, 01:50 PM

MACK

12-14-2007, 01:52 PM

If they hadent been stealin they wouldn't have got capped.

Candy

12-14-2007, 01:55 PM

If they hadent been stealin they wouldn't have got capped.

True, but just cause they were stealin doesn't mean they SHOULDA been capped and that is where some of us hope the law will prevail, in different ways of course :thumb:

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 01:58 PM

True, but just cause they were stealin doesn't mean they SHOULDA been capped and that is where some of us hope the law will prevail, in different ways of course :thumb:

But getting capped is a consequence of burglary so it should not suprise anyone when it happens.

Happened again this morning:
"A southwest Harris County homeowner shot and killed a man he discovered climbing into a window of his house at about 2:15 a.m. today, investigators said."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5378504.html

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:03 PM

But getting capped is a consequence of burglary so it should not suprise anyone when it happens.

Happened again this morning:
"A southwest Harris County homeowner shot and killed a man he discovered climbing into a window of his house at about 2:15 a.m. today, investigators said."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5378504.html

Consequence but one few and far in between, which is why MOST burglaries occur during fridays between the hours of 11-3pm, no one's home to GET SHOT!

It's not a surprise, when someone BREAKS INTO UR HOME, and U protect UR property and family, it is when it's the neighbors property, in the middle of the day, when there was no threat to u or ur property that is the surprise and y Joe got some splaining to do!

Ulric

12-14-2007, 02:03 PM

Trust me i'm an asshole about respecting me and my shyt so i understand, but when it all boils down 2 it, it's shyt u won't take with u when ur dead, so y die behind it! Let the ins co replace that shyt and move on.

Protect urself when LEFT WITH NO CHOICE, to survive is my thing.

The insurance company cannot do anything about the violation of my home and privacy.
The insurance company can replace the items...but they dont do anything about the time etc that you have to invest in reporting it etc.
Then you have to deal with increased ins rates, worry about it happening again ec, etc.

Crystalline

12-14-2007, 02:07 PM

Consequence but one few and far in between, which is why MOST burglaries occur during fridays between the hours of 11-3pm, no one's home to GET SHOT!

It's not a surprise, when someone BREAKS INTO UR HOME, and U protect UR property and family, it is when it's the neighbors property, in the middle of the day, when there was no threat to u or ur property that is the surprise and y Joe got some splaining to do!

Damn girl they are reading what you are saying but they are not doing anything with it but going around it. Boys! :keke:

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 02:11 PM

Consequence but one few and far in between, which is why MOST burglaries occur during fridays between the hours of 11-3pm, no one's home to GET SHOT!

It's not a surprise, when someone BREAKS INTO UR HOME, and U protect UR property and family, it is when it's the neighbors property, in the middle of the day, when there was no threat to u or ur property that is the surprise and y Joe got some splaining to do!

Why does it really matter if it was his home or the neighbor's home? The fact is he did stop the burglary.

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 02:16 PM

Why does it really matter if it was his home or the neighbor's home? The fact is he did stop the burglary.

I think she's saying the reason it matters is because the law provides no authority to do what was done here...

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 02:19 PM

I think she's saying the reason it matters is because the law provides no authority to do what was done here...

Yes, but the fact remains - Horn stopped the burglary. That is the message that should be remembered from this incident.

The Justice system cannot be relied on for everything. About the burglar that was shot this morning:
"He's got a pretty extensive criminal record of felonies over the last 13 years," Nelson said of Dunbar, 44. "He has at least 12 arrests for felonies and a half-dozen convictions."

... yet he's still out burglarizing homes. Some people have to learn the hard way.

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:20 PM

Why does it really matter if it was his home or the neighbor's home? The fact is he did stop the burglary.

UNLAWFULLY is the point!

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 02:23 PM

Yes, but the fact remains - Horn stopped the burglary. That is the message that should be remembered from this incident.

The Justice system cannot be relied on for everything. About the burglar that was shot this morning:
"He's got a pretty extensive criminal record of felonies over the last 13 years," Nelson said of Dunbar, 44. "He has at least 12 arrests for felonies and a half-dozen convictions."

... yet he's still out burglarizing homes. Some people have to learn the hard way.

Yeah alright man! :thumb:

The fact REMAINS that laws are in existence for a reason...that other case has nothing to do with what happened here. Deal with the facts of this case UNLESS they specifically parallel the merits of this case and/or provide some sort of precedent...otherwise they are useless, inconsequential mentions

RACER X

12-14-2007, 02:24 PM

UNLAWFULLY is the point!hasn't gone to to jury yet, so it's still not unlawful. :nod:

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:26 PM

Yes, but the fact remains - Horn stopped the burglary. That is the message that should be remembered from this incident.

The Justice system cannot be relied on for everything. About the burglar that was shot this morning:
"He's got a pretty extensive criminal record of felonies over the last 13 years," Nelson said of Dunbar, 44. "He has at least 12 arrests for felonies and a half-dozen convictions."

... yet he's still out burglarizing homes. Some people have to learn the hard way.

I agree they can't but it's what we live in and all i'm saying is do whatever the law extends to u as legal to protect urself and ur property.

mathews

12-14-2007, 02:26 PM

Your opinion,not yet the grand jurys

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 02:27 PM

hasn't gone to to jury yet, so it's still not unlawful. :nod:

There go the damn nit picky ass, irritating comments again...:angry7:

...and I just added another, for that I apologize. Just really wish we could post profound, necessary things instead of the occasional :gesture: or "but this hasn't happened yet" or "you're just stupid".../baby rant

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:28 PM

hasn't gone to to jury yet, so it's still not unlawful YET. :nod:

:thumb:

RACER X

12-14-2007, 02:28 PM

and even if the grand jury says to charge him, he still has a whole trial after that before "he's guilty" if thats the end verdict. then appeal and so on. and who's to day they may find him guilty and let him walk. would he then really "be guilty"

so lets not put the buggy in ft of the horse.

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:28 PM

Your opinion,not yet the grand jurys

Um....that's the point of the thread OPINIONS!! :D

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:29 PM

and even if the grand jury says to charge him, he still has a whole trial after that before "he's guilty"

so lets not put the buggy in ft of the horse.

Never did simply said, about 4 pages ago " I HOPE A GRAND JURY SEES IT THE SAME WAY", never convicted him.

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:31 PM

Damn I been carrying my own since page 4. :D

RACER X

12-14-2007, 02:32 PM

and have quit this thread at least 3 x, lol

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:33 PM

and have quit this thread at least 3 x, lol

No shyt :rofl::rofl: stubborn i'm sure!

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 02:34 PM

Yeah alright man! :thumb:

The fact REMAINS that laws are in existence for a reason...that other case has nothing to do with what happened here. Deal with the facts of this case UNLESS they specifically parallel the merits of this case and/or provide some sort of precedent...otherwise they are useless, inconsequential mentions

You don't know all of the facts. You only know what you've read in the newspaper.

Whether or not they were burglarizing his home or the neighbors home, whether they were over the property line, or if they were facing Horn or doing a handstand ... it doesn't really matter. You still get the same end result - two career criminals off the streets for good (something that our justice system failed to do). Good riddance. I'm sure the jury in Horn's case will feel the same way (if it goes that far).

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:39 PM

You don't know all of the facts. You only know what you've read in the newspaper.

Whether or not they were burglarizing his home or the neighbors home, whether they were over the property line, or if they were facing Horn or doing a handstand ... it doesn't really matter. You still get the same end result - two career criminals off the streets for good (something that our justice system failed to do). Good riddance. I'm sure the jury in Horn's case will feel the same way (if it goes that far).

We know the facts cause Joe blabbed em out on the transcript i posted a pg or 2 ago, and as for CAREER criminals, each had a 1 prior arrest for drug charges! Not a 6ft long wrap sheet!

RACER X

12-14-2007, 02:40 PM

lets not forget illegals.

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:41 PM

lets not forget illegals.

Now I never heard they were illegals, columbians yes, but illegal hadn't heard. If that's true i can rattle on about that shyt 2, but i won't cause it's off topic :D.

I take that back ur right...this from the chron...."Both were illegal immigrants from Colombia, authorities said. Torres had been deported to Colombia in 1999 after serving time for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Both were also using fake identification cards and aliases, and their backgrounds are now being scrutinized by federal authorities to determine if they were part of a Colombian fake ID and burglary ring, authorities said."

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 02:44 PM

We know the facts cause Joe blabbed em out on the transcript i posted a pg or 2 ago, and as for CAREER criminals, each had a 1 prior arrest for drug charges! Not a 6ft long wrap sheet!

I doubt this was the first home that they burglarized. Secluded neighborhood, $2K in cash, no alarm system on the house, and the homeowners were away. Hmmm. Lot's of coincedences there. These guys knew what they were doing. Probably even staked out the house for awhile.

And now they're pushing up daisies!

RACER X

12-14-2007, 02:45 PM

dunno it's what the paper is saying,

"The two, Colombian citizens who were in this country illegally, "

does it change your opinions any?

have also heard involved in crime ring.

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 02:45 PM

You don't know all of the facts. You only know what you've read in the newspaper.

Lol, ok bud...as far as I am aware, those items in the newspaper ARE still facts, facts are facts. Whether or not I know all of the facts are irrelevant, I am asking that we stick to what we KNOW regarding this case...we are both working with the same amount of information, the difference is: you are applying your rationale to what you think is right without any regard for what the law states regarding the matter and I am discussing the merits of what we know about the case in contrast to the laws.

Whether or not they were burglarizing his home or the neighbors home, whether they were over the property line, or if they were facing Horn or doing a handstand ... it doesn't really matter. You still get the same end result - two career criminals off the streets for good (something that our justice system failed to do). Good riddance. I'm sure the jury in Horn's case will feel the same way (if it goes that far).

I can agree that two criminals being off the street is a good thing, NEVER did you hear anything different. What I am commenting on and trying to bring to your attention is that from what we know about the case and what a few others besides myself have alluded to is that there may be an issue with the legality of Mr. Horns actions that day. Don't really care past that...I don't give two shyts what you think should've happened, talk to me about the legality of his actions, not what was right...other than that keep the shyt to yourself...:thumb:

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:50 PM

dunno it's what the paper is saying,

"The two, Colombian citizens who were in this country illegally, "

does it change your opinions any?

have also heard involved in crime ring.

I edited my post above u were right. I would have hoped that border patrol woulda kept there asses out once they were deported from the get go, but honestly, that's neither here nor there.

It's still the illegal use of force that i'm not kosher with!

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 02:56 PM

Lol, ok bud...as far as I am aware, those items in the newspaper ARE still facts, facts are facts. Whether or not I know all of the facts are irrelevant, I am asking that we stick to what we KNOW regarding this case...we are both working on the same amount of information, the difference is: you are applying your rationale to what you think is right without any regard for what the law states regarding the matter.

I can agree that two criminals being off the street is a good thing, NEVER did you hear anything different. What I am commenting on and trying to bring to your attention is that from what we know about the case and what a few others besides myself have alluded to is that there may be an issue with the legality of Mr. Horns actions that day. Don't really care past that...I don't give two shyts what you think should've happened, talk to me about the legality of his actions, not what was right...other than that keep the shyt to yourself...:thumb:

Yeah, you're trying to be technical about it and I respect that. I've already debated the legality of what Horn did and I say that he is within the law. But, this isn't a law forum and most people on a jury will also have opinions and biases about criminals and the law .... just like some of us here.

sbfuller

12-14-2007, 02:56 PM

they disobeyed laws when they came here illegally, they broke into someones house, and the stole some stuff. so even if horn did break the law by shooting them, he just evened out the score. 3 - 1

Candy

12-14-2007, 02:58 PM

they disobeyed laws when they came here illegally, they broke into someones house, and the stole some stuff. so even if horn did break the law by shooting them, he just evened out the score. 3 - 1

With that being said, he made sure we COULDN'T prosecute them, but put himself in that position instead :thumb:

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 03:00 PM

Yeah, you're trying to be technical about it and I respect that. I've already debated the legality of what Horn did and I say that he is within the law. But, this isn't a law forum and most people on a jury will also have opinions and biases about criminals and the law .... just like some of us here.

Thank you! Finally ME and YOU come to a consensus...we agree to disagree, peacefully...thank you, seriously. :thumb:

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 03:01 PM

Thank you! Finally ME and YOU come to a consensus...we agree to disagree, peacefully...thank you, seriously. :thumb:

I don't think this is the first time. :dontknow:

Anyways ... debate is a purpose of the forum.

sbfuller

12-14-2007, 03:02 PM

With that being said, he made sure we COULDN'T prosecute them, but put himself in that position instead :thumb:

yep, he did the prosecuting... which i'm fine with

CaJuNsOuLjA

12-14-2007, 03:05 PM

I don't think this is the first time. :dontknow:

Anyways ... debate is a purpose of the forum.

No there have been a few other times, just lately, we been butting heads about alotta sh!t...I love debate but sometimes it veers from debate (discussion) to arguing at a level bordering on petty. Anyway, thanks again! I like it when things stay within the realm of maturity and intelligence...

Candy

12-14-2007, 03:07 PM

yep, he did the prosecuting... which i'm fine with

Ok......AND.....according to the law U and HE are WRONG!!!!

MadseasoN

12-14-2007, 03:09 PM

No there have been a few other times, just lately, we been butting heads about alotta sh!t...I love debate but sometimes it veers from debate (discussion) to arguing at a level bordering on petty. Anyway, thanks again! I like it when things stay within the realm of maturity and intelligence...

Let's not go that far.

:D

sbfuller

12-14-2007, 03:09 PM

Ok......AND.....according to the law U and HE are WRONG!!!!

maybe, maybe not... that is what the GJ will decide. there are grey areas on both sides and multiple ways that most laws can be interpreted.