Full Version: Joe Horn-hero or racial vigilante?..
Joe Horn is accused of shooting two burglars who entered his neighbor's home. There appears to be some discrepancy between Horn's statement that the intruders came onto his property, which is why he killed them, and the fact that the dispatcher told him to stay in his own home and to not confront the robbers. An interesting New Black Panther Party protest was recorded and posted that shows Quanell X and friends being rebuffed and flustered by Joe Horn's neighbors and supporters. Prosecution of Horn will be difficult according to some cited earlier, as Texas has a "tough on crime" mentality in general and the state's self-defense laws can be tough to prosecute Horn on.
the relevant part relating to protecting your neighbor's property:
I don't know if it occured at night time, though it looks like the ycould argue that he thought it could not be "recovered by any other means."
It's doubtful that a jury would sympathize much with criminals who have a long history of drug use and entering the country illegally.
BTW-Painting this as an act of racial hatred is complicated, due to the fact that Horn was defending the home of his Vietnamese neighbor.
I'm personally miffed as to why the New Black Panther Party is involved in this at all. It's simply a case of over-reacting on Horn's part. I think he would've shot the robbers, no matter what color they were.
Questions for debate:
the relevant part relating to protecting your neighbor's property:
QUOTE
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
I don't know if it occured at night time, though it looks like the ycould argue that he thought it could not be "recovered by any other means."
It's doubtful that a jury would sympathize much with criminals who have a long history of drug use and entering the country illegally.
BTW-Painting this as an act of racial hatred is complicated, due to the fact that Horn was defending the home of his Vietnamese neighbor.
I'm personally miffed as to why the New Black Panther Party is involved in this at all. It's simply a case of over-reacting on Horn's part. I think he would've shot the robbers, no matter what color they were.Questions for debate:
QUOTE
1.)Is Joe Horn a hero or a vigilante killer?
QUOTE
2.)Is Horn's actions covered under Texas law?, why or why not?
QUOTE
3.)In lending support and sympathy to the (now dead) thuggish criminal element, is the New Black Panther Party only further encouraging the pathology of crime and violence in society?
1.)Is Joe Horn a hero or a vigilante killer?
From what I have read Joe Horn disobeyed the direct order of the police dispatcher who told him to stand down. He then specifically said he was going to go kill them. Saying you are going to go kill them is not defensive or showing your life is in any way at risk.
his response to the dispatcher was...
horn
Now it turns out the police were on the scene. so from the officers perspective is Horn a accomplish and he should have shot all three?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html
He needs to be charged with interference of a police officer in a crime also.
this is the perfect example of why vigilantes must be stopped, the officer was afraid for his life because the moron Joe did not know what he was doing.
Now what if the officer did not know he was the neighbor and shot and killed the idiot. then the conservatives would be crying a new version of the weaver story again.
2.)Is Horn's actions covered under Texas law?, why or why not?by reading this law, if my newspaper ended up on his lawn and I went to pick it up he could shoot me in th back. IE he though I was picking/stealing up his paper. If the neighbors kid hit a baseball on his property and went to retrieve it at night and he thought you were stealing he can shoot the kid in the back.
His actions appear to be covered, but there may be other laws he broke.
3.)In lending support and sympathy to the (now dead) thuggish criminal element, is the New Black Panther Party only further encouraging the pathology of crime and violence in society?Lynching should never be tolerated by any group. Here is a good example of the vigilantism out there.
http://rackjite.com/archives/964-Pasadena-...onstration.html
From what I have read Joe Horn disobeyed the direct order of the police dispatcher who told him to stand down. He then specifically said he was going to go kill them. Saying you are going to go kill them is not defensive or showing your life is in any way at risk.
his response to the dispatcher was...
QUOTE
"You wanna make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm gonna kill 'em."
horn
Now it turns out the police were on the scene. so from the officers perspective is Horn a accomplish and he should have shot all three?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html
QUOTE
"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."
So he endangered the life of a police officer by his anctics, no wonder police do not want to stop thieves in that area.
So he endangered the life of a police officer by his anctics, no wonder police do not want to stop thieves in that area.
He needs to be charged with interference of a police officer in a crime also.
this is the perfect example of why vigilantes must be stopped, the officer was afraid for his life because the moron Joe did not know what he was doing.
Now what if the officer did not know he was the neighbor and shot and killed the idiot. then the conservatives would be crying a new version of the weaver story again.
2.)Is Horn's actions covered under Texas law?, why or why not?by reading this law, if my newspaper ended up on his lawn and I went to pick it up he could shoot me in th back. IE he though I was picking/stealing up his paper. If the neighbors kid hit a baseball on his property and went to retrieve it at night and he thought you were stealing he can shoot the kid in the back.
His actions appear to be covered, but there may be other laws he broke.
3.)In lending support and sympathy to the (now dead) thuggish criminal element, is the New Black Panther Party only further encouraging the pathology of crime and violence in society?Lynching should never be tolerated by any group. Here is a good example of the vigilantism out there.
http://rackjite.com/archives/964-Pasadena-...onstration.html
QUOTE
The law at play here is fairly new. It is referred to as the "Castle Law". It extends Texas Gungoonery beyond one's property line so that if unarmed Black or Brown people who you decide may be up to no good come too close, you can literally blow their heads off with a 12 gauge shotgun at the fair - Joe Horn - range of 15 feet. You ever shot anything with a 12 gauge at 15 feet? Talk about fun!
Local police, courts and grand juries don't give a hoot in Hell if you act as police, judge, jury and executioner. It saves everyone tax money which is the be-all and end-all of American life. And besides, it's quite a bit faster and more enjoyable than the old process of lynching.
So if you don't like Blacks or Hispanics come on down to Texas! Rent a house or buy a little home and if you can lure some people less white than you on or near your property, you can not only kill them but enjoy a subsequent biker parade!
Local police, courts and grand juries don't give a hoot in Hell if you act as police, judge, jury and executioner. It saves everyone tax money which is the be-all and end-all of American life. And besides, it's quite a bit faster and more enjoyable than the old process of lynching.
So if you don't like Blacks or Hispanics come on down to Texas! Rent a house or buy a little home and if you can lure some people less white than you on or near your property, you can not only kill them but enjoy a subsequent biker parade!
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 9 2007, 03:13 PM) 
Joe Horn is accused of shooting two burglars who entered his neighbor's home. There appears to be some discrepancy between Horn's statement that the intruders came onto his property, which is why he killed them, and the fact that the dispatcher told him to stay in his own home and to not confront the robbers. An interesting New Black Panther Party protest was recorded and posted that shows Quanell X and friends being rebuffed and flustered by Joe Horn's neighbors and supporters. Prosecution of Horn will be difficult according to some cited earlier, as Texas has a "tough on crime" mentality in general and the state's self-defense laws can be tough to prosecute Horn on.
the relevant part relating to protecting your neighbor's property:
I don't know if it occured at night time, though it looks like the ycould argue that he thought it could not be "recovered by any other means."
It's doubtful that a jury would sympathize much with criminals who have a long history of drug use and entering the country illegally.
BTW-Painting this as an act of racial hatred is complicated, due to the fact that Horn was defending the home of his Vietnamese neighbor. I'm personally miffed as to why the New Black Panther Party is involved in this at all. It's simply a case of over-reacting on Horn's part. I think he would've shot the robbers, no matter what color they were.
Questions for debate:
the relevant part relating to protecting your neighbor's property:
QUOTE
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
I don't know if it occured at night time, though it looks like the ycould argue that he thought it could not be "recovered by any other means."
It's doubtful that a jury would sympathize much with criminals who have a long history of drug use and entering the country illegally.
BTW-Painting this as an act of racial hatred is complicated, due to the fact that Horn was defending the home of his Vietnamese neighbor.
I'm personally miffed as to why the New Black Panther Party is involved in this at all. It's simply a case of over-reacting on Horn's part. I think he would've shot the robbers, no matter what color they were.Questions for debate:
QUOTE
1.)Is Joe Horn a hero or a vigilante killer?
QUOTE
2.)Is Horn's actions covered under Texas law?, why or why not?
QUOTE
3.)In lending support and sympathy to the (now dead) thuggish criminal element, is the New Black Panther Party only further encouraging the pathology of crime and violence in society?
1.)Is Joe Horn a hero or a vigilante killer?
Neither really. I don't think he's a hero, even if I had gone outside and confronted these men with a gun, which I probably wouldn't have, it seems ridiculous to shoot two men in the back for a robbery. From what I heard there was no warning shot, so what this guy horn was thinking I'm not sure. However when I think of a vigilante I think of someone who goes out and looks for people to kill based on personal beliefs. However this situation did kind of land on his lap, I just believe his actions were way over the top anyway you look at it. I don't know this guy to say whether or not this was racially motivated, or just a bad judgment call. Of course all the Al Sharptons in the world will see any violent act committed from a white man to a minority as being an act of racism. It seems to me there are some who still live in the 1960's.
2.)Is Horn's actions covered under Texas law?, why or why not?
Well I'm not all too familiar with Texas law. Ive heard this being debated on the news a bit and im hearing that Texas law is quite lenient when it comes to what qualifies as self defense. I'm hearing some say you can defend a neighbors house under certain circumstances, or even a neighborhood. I'm not familiar with any specifics however so I really couldn't say for sure.
3.)In lending support and sympathy to the (now dead) thuggish criminal element, is the New Black Panther Party only further encouraging the pathology of crime and violence in society?
Ive never had any respect for the Black Panther Party, nor do I have respect for the KKK. Do either of these organizations occasionally stand for justice? Perhaps so, but the catch is that if they do stand for justice, its for those who share their skin color, period. Organizations like these in most case encourage division between the whites and blacks. The Black Panthers don't care about equality any more than the KKK, what they do care about is the sole protection of members of their own race, and in some cases other minorities. I think there is a large racist element that plays a big part of this organization, in an ongoing attempt to blame the white man for the racism issues in American society. Anyone who knows better sees that this is a two way street, and racism today is every bit as much a part of black society as white society.
Now as for if the Black Panthers are encouraging the pathology of crime and violence in society by giving support in this particular case, it depends on the extent of what they are doing. Ive seen this kind of thing lead to more harm than good. I your familiar with the Crown Heights Riot for example. In this case you had Al Sharpton encouraging an emotional crowd to take a traffic accident that killed a young black girl, personally. He lead a heated mob in New York with some people holding up hate signs against white Americans. The riot lead to the stabbing to death of an innocent white male local, and there are people today who call Al Sharpton a hero, when he's nothing more than a Racist Bigot.
I'll tell you right now that I don't like racism, whether it be from a white or black person, and I hold anyone whether they be the black panthers, the KKK, Al Sharpton, or even one of my neighbors, to the same standard.
There is no doubt that the two men shot were up to no good. They were found with stolen money on them. And they were stopped. Horn was probably so focused on the two burglars that he did not realize the police were there. Had he given warning to the burglars to halt, he would have opened up an opportunity for the burglars to shoot him. Had he seen the burglars earlier, such as when they were entering the house instead of leaving, there would have been more time for the police to arrive and things probably would have turned out much differently. Horn was doing his best to protect his neighbors and their property, and yes he was probably angry about his neighborhood being targeted. He has also made a statement to any other criminal who may want to target the neighborhood. Bravo. As for the two burglars and any other person who commits crime against another...if death is too high a price then maybe they should seek an honest line of work and stop preying on other people. People are getting very fed up with crime and being victimized. Maybe if criminals were more in fear of getting killed for their efforts there would be less of it. As it is currently, they spend a brief time in jail and get let out to further pursue their "careers".
I heard the local Police Chief on TV say the men were within 8 feet of this man and on his property.
This after robbing his neighbor. My understanding of TX law is he had every right to shoot.
And it turns out this pair had long rap sheets AND were illegal aliens.
This after robbing his neighbor. My understanding of TX law is he had every right to shoot.
And it turns out this pair had long rap sheets AND were illegal aliens.
The police have obviously failed to protect the neighborhood. The 9-11 dispatcher advises Horn to stay hidden in his home rather than protecting his (or his neighbor's) property. Another example of the failure of government to do its job while it pretends that it can protect everyone at all times.
According to the police, Horn confronted the burglars on his own property. He ordered them to stop, and they failed to comply. This could be interpreted as an aggressive move. The undercover officer on scene said the men were shot when they were closer to Horn than when he confronted them. Those facts don't seem to add up, so maybe I'm missing something.
In any event, relying on the police to protect you or your family or your property is ridiculous. The police are not there to protect you, they are a reactive force (in general) not a proactive one. They cannot protect you, they can only catch the people who harm you after the fact.
Is Horn a hero? No, but he did protect his own property with his actions.
Is Horn a vigilante? No, he was protecting his property and his neighborhood.
2.)Are Horn's actions covered under Texas law?, why or why not?
I believe they fall under the Castle laws in Texas. Texas recently passed a "Shoot First" (or Stand Your Ground) law which went into effect in September. This law is broader than others that only allow action in home invasion situations.
3.)In lending support and sympathy to the (now dead) thuggish criminal element, is the New Black Panther Party only further encouraging the pathology of crime and violence in society?
They are showing themselves to be a bunch of idiots. They should find a better use of their time than defending criminals.
According to the police, Horn confronted the burglars on his own property. He ordered them to stop, and they failed to comply. This could be interpreted as an aggressive move. The undercover officer on scene said the men were shot when they were closer to Horn than when he confronted them. Those facts don't seem to add up, so maybe I'm missing something.
In any event, relying on the police to protect you or your family or your property is ridiculous. The police are not there to protect you, they are a reactive force (in general) not a proactive one. They cannot protect you, they can only catch the people who harm you after the fact.
Is Horn a hero? No, but he did protect his own property with his actions.
Is Horn a vigilante? No, he was protecting his property and his neighborhood.
2.)Are Horn's actions covered under Texas law?, why or why not?
I believe they fall under the Castle laws in Texas. Texas recently passed a "Shoot First" (or Stand Your Ground) law which went into effect in September. This law is broader than others that only allow action in home invasion situations.
3.)In lending support and sympathy to the (now dead) thuggish criminal element, is the New Black Panther Party only further encouraging the pathology of crime and violence in society?
They are showing themselves to be a bunch of idiots. They should find a better use of their time than defending criminals.
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 19 2007, 03:38 PM)
I heard the local Police Chief on TV say the men were within 8 feet of this man and on his property.
This after robbing his neighbor. My understanding of TX law is he had every right to shoot.
And it turns out this pair had long rap sheets AND were illegal aliens.
I heard that the men were shot in the back? This after robbing his neighbor. My understanding of TX law is he had every right to shoot.
And it turns out this pair had long rap sheets AND were illegal aliens.
I have also seen someone question as to where the stolen goods were found after the shooting. Obviously if they were shot in the back they would have dropped them on the spot. But more importantly under texas law if he warned them and they dropped the goods and were fleeing under texas law Horn would then be in the wrong. If in a neighbors yard and fleeing (shot in the back) without stolen goods.
I also question the officers statements as he was hiding so he would not be shot, hard to say he saw what was going on when on record of saying he was hiding....
QUOTE(inventor @ Dec 20 2007, 01:45 PM)
I heard that the men were shot in the back?
I have also seen someone question as to where the stolen goods were found after the shooting. Obviously if they were shot in the back they would have dropped them on the spot. But more importantly under texas law if he warned them and they dropped the goods and were fleeing under texas law Horn would then be in the wrong. If in a neighbors yard and fleeing (shot in the back) without stolen goods.
I also question the officers statements as he was hiding so he would not be shot, hard to say he saw what was going on when on record of saying he was hiding....
I have also seen someone question as to where the stolen goods were found after the shooting. Obviously if they were shot in the back they would have dropped them on the spot. But more importantly under texas law if he warned them and they dropped the goods and were fleeing under texas law Horn would then be in the wrong. If in a neighbors yard and fleeing (shot in the back) without stolen goods.
I also question the officers statements as he was hiding so he would not be shot, hard to say he saw what was going on when on record of saying he was hiding....
I'll never understand why this mess is now racial. I'll never understand why someone can't say "what a tragedy that these men died... but they shouldn't have been there".
I'll never understand why an old man who clearly would've had to let the burgalars go (the police would've never made it) is now on trial in society's eyes.
It's beyond me that in the US, if someone is in the act of committing a crime and gets shot, that it's now the shooter on trial. I am a gun owner, and if someone were in my neighbor's home, I'd probably shoot too. He was an old man and probably should've shot them in the legs, but it didn't happen that way.
Get over it. The justice system failed. These men had been in jail before, which obviously didn't work. Something has to be done, albeit not killing people, but if the government can't get it done... well...
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 20 2007, 12:20 PM)
QUOTE(inventor @ Dec 20 2007, 01:45 PM)
I heard that the men were shot in the back?
I have also seen someone question as to where the stolen goods were found after the shooting. Obviously if they were shot in the back they would have dropped them on the spot. But more importantly under texas law if he warned them and they dropped the goods and were fleeing under texas law Horn would then be in the wrong. If in a neighbors yard and fleeing (shot in the back) without stolen goods.
I also question the officers statements as he was hiding so he would not be shot, hard to say he saw what was going on when on record of saying he was hiding....
I have also seen someone question as to where the stolen goods were found after the shooting. Obviously if they were shot in the back they would have dropped them on the spot. But more importantly under texas law if he warned them and they dropped the goods and were fleeing under texas law Horn would then be in the wrong. If in a neighbors yard and fleeing (shot in the back) without stolen goods.
I also question the officers statements as he was hiding so he would not be shot, hard to say he saw what was going on when on record of saying he was hiding....
I'll never understand why this mess is now racial. I'll never understand why someone can't say "what a tragedy that these men died... but they shouldn't have been there".
I'll never understand why an old man who clearly would've had to let the burgalars go (the police would've never made it) is now on trial in society's eyes.
It's beyond me that in the US, if someone is in the act of committing a crime and gets shot, that it's now the shooter on trial. I am a gun owner, and if someone were in my neighbor's home, I'd probably shoot too. He was an old man and probably should've shot them in the legs, but it didn't happen that way.
Get over it. The justice system failed. These men had been in jail before, which obviously didn't work. Something has to be done, albeit not killing people, but if the government can't get it done... well...
wow so you are saying because billions in dollars were stolen by defense contractors and no trials people should go in there a blazing. after all, many of these defense contractors have been caught several times in their past with stealing the American peoples money. and in their corruption some could argue soldiers have died because of their theft.
Again he was specifically told not to go out there by the police. He said no and said he was going to go out there and kill them. He by his actions put the police officer was putting the police lives at risk.
I've read through this thread a few times now, and it seemed to me that there were so many misconceptions and assumptions and suppositions, particularly from the "shoot first" crowd, that I had to do some serious research to get to the heart of it. So, that said, let's be about it....
In Nebraska's opening post, he quotes most of the relevent sections of the new law:
To that I would only add this:
Now, looking at all of this, it's quite clear that Mr. Horn is, legally at least, in the wrong. Why?
First, his defense under the first two parts, fails out-right, in that this crime did not take place at night. The 911 call was placed at about 2PM. And additionally, during the call, as you'll be able to see from the transcript, Horn says he can't believe that this is happening in broad daylight.
Second, while the first two sections say that the person can use such force if he believes that there is no other way to recover or protect the property, that statement is still predicated on the fact that the crime has to happen during the nighttime.
Lastly, as is also noted in the call transcript, Mr. Horn did not know these neighbors well at all. I think he would be hard pressed to show written prior authorization to protect their property, he was not employed by them contractually to protect them, and they most assuredly were not immediate family members, nor were they under Mr. Horns care.
Now, let's turn our attention to the transcript of the call, up until the shooting:
Now, as we have discovered, Horn shot both men in the back, while he maintains that they were "lunging" at him. Question: How do you lunge at someone with your back turned to them?
In addition, I looked up the address listed in the transcript (which I deliberately withheld here, but is easy enough to find). These are basically "zero lot-line homes". That means there is very little space between the homes, about enough for a side door from the garage to swing completely open without hitting the fence, on each side of the fence.
In other words, at the time Mr. Horn goes from his side window, to the front door, after seeing the suspects leave the neighbors house, they were already onto his property, because of how little room there was. From the police report released, it's apparent that at the time he yelled, "Move, you're dead!", they saw him at about the same time and began moving away from him. The police officer that arrived on the scene just as they were leaving and Mr Horn came out of his door, confirms this.
The officer had to duck, because Mr Horn swung his shotgun on one suspect who was running toward the street, and fired in the general direction of where the officer's car was, hitting and killing the first suspect. Then, Mr Horn swung back towards the neighbor's house, where the second suspect had already almost cleared the yard, and fired again, killing the second man.
In my opinion, Mr Horn, at the very least should be charged with a number of crimes. Failure to follow the lawful directions of a representative of the police department (the dispatcher). Reckless endangerment, for firing his weapon without clearing fields of fire, and voluntary manslaughter.
Mr Horn on more than one occasion in the 911 call, made it plain he was looking to go out and force a confrontation, so he could shoot something (or someone). While Mr Horn was inside his home, he was in no imminent danger. He put himself in the position of being in danger, after being repeatedly told not to, and on review of the 911 call its obvious he knew the repercussions. Its clear he knew if he went outside he was going to shoot somebody, and rationalized his actions under the guise of the law that had recently been passed. He said he had the right to protect himself. But he wasnt protecting himself, he pursued the conflict. He was the one who escalated the situation.
Now, this being Texas, even if he should be charged by the Grand Jury, I think it highly unlikely that he'll be convicted of the deaths of these two criminals. But he should be. Because no man under our system of justice is entitles to be cop, judge, jury, and executioner all at once. Not over property, at any rate. I can't think of a single man-made thing that's worth someone's life.
In Nebraska's opening post, he quotes most of the relevent sections of the new law:
QUOTE
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
To that I would only add this:
QUOTE
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 person 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 person reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the property; and
(2) the person reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property in writing;
(
he has a legal or contractual duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
the third person whose land or property he deadly force to protect is the person's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the person, or is under the person's care.
(1) the person reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the property; and
(2) the person reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property in writing;
(
he has a legal or contractual duty to protect the third person's land or property; orthe third person whose land or property he deadly force to protect is the person's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the person, or is under the person's care.
Now, looking at all of this, it's quite clear that Mr. Horn is, legally at least, in the wrong. Why?
First, his defense under the first two parts, fails out-right, in that this crime did not take place at night. The 911 call was placed at about 2PM. And additionally, during the call, as you'll be able to see from the transcript, Horn says he can't believe that this is happening in broad daylight.
Second, while the first two sections say that the person can use such force if he believes that there is no other way to recover or protect the property, that statement is still predicated on the fact that the crime has to happen during the nighttime.
Lastly, as is also noted in the call transcript, Mr. Horn did not know these neighbors well at all. I think he would be hard pressed to show written prior authorization to protect their property, he was not employed by them contractually to protect them, and they most assuredly were not immediate family members, nor were they under Mr. Horns care.
Now, let's turn our attention to the transcript of the call, up until the shooting:
QUOTE
Horn: Not my address, next door. Uh, I've got a shotgun. You want me to go stop them?
Dispatcher: Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shootin' somebody over, OK?
Horn Gives a decription of the two suspects- then--
Horn: Hurry up and catch these guys, will you? I'm not gonna let 'em go. I gotta be honest with you, I'm not, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this s---. I'm not gonna hang up, but I'm not gonna put up with this stuff, man. This is just ridiculous.
Dispatcher: Yes sir, it is.
Horn: Broad daylight - I don't know if they're armed or not. I know they got a crowbar, because that's what they broke the window with.
Dispatcher: Which window did they go in through?
Horn: The side window by where the fence is, so nobody could see them. Right hand side, looking from the front. Man, this is scary. I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Can you see anything at all?
Horn: No, I can just see where they went into the house. I can't see in the house.
Dispatcher: I understand that, but you can see where they entered in?
Horn: Yes.
Dispatcher: So they might slip out the same way, or can you see the front of the house?
Horn: I can't see the front of the house, but if I'm going out there, I'm taking my shotgun, I swear to God.
Dispatcher: No-
Horn: I'm not gonna let 'em get away with it. I'm not takin a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot.
Dispatcher: No. stay in the house. Don't go out there, OK? I know what you're feelin', but it's not worth shooting sombody over, OK?
Horn: I don't want to, but if I go out there to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?
Dispatcher: No, I don't want you to go out there. I just asked if you could see anything out there.
Horn: I can see a little bit of the driveway, but I can't see the front.
Dispatcher: Can you see anything at the front of the house, like a vehicle they came in or anything?
Horn: No
Dispatcher: Let me know if you can see anything at all from where you're at. Don't go outside, OK? ...Mr Horn, you still there?
Horn: I'm here. I can't see anything out the front. I can't tell if they stole anything and are gettin' away or not.
Dispatcher: OK. That's alright.
Horn: Well, over there - I would assume - I hope not.
Dispatcher: Ok. I mean, you know your neighbors?
Horn: No I really don't know these neighbors. I know the neighbors on the other side really well. I can assure you if it had been their house, I'd have already done something. Cause I know them really well, and, you know.
Dispatcher: Mr Horn? I want you to listen to me very carefully, OK?
Horn: OK.
Dispatcher: I got officers comin' out there. I don't want you to go outside of that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand, when those officers are poking around over there.
Horn: I understand that sir, but you know I have a right to protect myself and you understand that too.
Dispatcher: Yes Sir.
Horn: And the law's been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself. And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon.
Dispatcher: No, it's not. I'm not sayin' that. I'm not wanting you to, you know--
Horn: Hes coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. Im sorry, but hes coming out the window.
Dispatcher: Dont, dont dont go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?
Horn: Damnit, they just stole something. Im going after them, Im sorry.
Dispatcher: Dont go outside.
Horn: I aint letting them get away with this s--t. They stole something. They got a bag of something.
Dispatcher: Dont go outside the house.
Horn: Im doing this!
Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.
Horn: Im sorry. This aint right, buddy!
Dispatcher: Youre going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I dont care what you think.
Horn: You want to make a bet? I'll kill 'em!
Dispatcher: OK? Stay in the house.
Horn: Theyre getting away!
Dispatcher: Thats all right. Propertys not worth killing someone over, OK?
Horn: [curses]
Dispatcher: Dont go out the house. Dont be shooting nobody. I know youre (PO'd) and youre frustrated, but dont do it.
Horn: They got a bag of loot.
Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag ... which way are they going?
Horn: Im going outside. Ill find out.
Dispatcher: I dont want you going outside, Mr. Horn.
Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and Im going.
Dispatcher: Dont go outside.
Horn: [yelling] Move, youre dead!
[Sound of shots being fired]
Dispatcher: Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shootin' somebody over, OK?
Horn Gives a decription of the two suspects- then--
Horn: Hurry up and catch these guys, will you? I'm not gonna let 'em go. I gotta be honest with you, I'm not, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this s---. I'm not gonna hang up, but I'm not gonna put up with this stuff, man. This is just ridiculous.
Dispatcher: Yes sir, it is.
Horn: Broad daylight - I don't know if they're armed or not. I know they got a crowbar, because that's what they broke the window with.
Dispatcher: Which window did they go in through?
Horn: The side window by where the fence is, so nobody could see them. Right hand side, looking from the front. Man, this is scary. I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Can you see anything at all?
Horn: No, I can just see where they went into the house. I can't see in the house.
Dispatcher: I understand that, but you can see where they entered in?
Horn: Yes.
Dispatcher: So they might slip out the same way, or can you see the front of the house?
Horn: I can't see the front of the house, but if I'm going out there, I'm taking my shotgun, I swear to God.
Dispatcher: No-
Horn: I'm not gonna let 'em get away with it. I'm not takin a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot.
Dispatcher: No. stay in the house. Don't go out there, OK? I know what you're feelin', but it's not worth shooting sombody over, OK?
Horn: I don't want to, but if I go out there to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?
Dispatcher: No, I don't want you to go out there. I just asked if you could see anything out there.
Horn: I can see a little bit of the driveway, but I can't see the front.
Dispatcher: Can you see anything at the front of the house, like a vehicle they came in or anything?
Horn: No
Dispatcher: Let me know if you can see anything at all from where you're at. Don't go outside, OK? ...Mr Horn, you still there?
Horn: I'm here. I can't see anything out the front. I can't tell if they stole anything and are gettin' away or not.
Dispatcher: OK. That's alright.
Horn: Well, over there - I would assume - I hope not.
Dispatcher: Ok. I mean, you know your neighbors?
Horn: No I really don't know these neighbors. I know the neighbors on the other side really well. I can assure you if it had been their house, I'd have already done something. Cause I know them really well, and, you know.
Dispatcher: Mr Horn? I want you to listen to me very carefully, OK?
Horn: OK.
Dispatcher: I got officers comin' out there. I don't want you to go outside of that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand, when those officers are poking around over there.
Horn: I understand that sir, but you know I have a right to protect myself and you understand that too.
Dispatcher: Yes Sir.
Horn: And the law's been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself. And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon.
Dispatcher: No, it's not. I'm not sayin' that. I'm not wanting you to, you know--
Horn: Hes coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. Im sorry, but hes coming out the window.
Dispatcher: Dont, dont dont go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?
Horn: Damnit, they just stole something. Im going after them, Im sorry.
Dispatcher: Dont go outside.
Horn: I aint letting them get away with this s--t. They stole something. They got a bag of something.
Dispatcher: Dont go outside the house.
Horn: Im doing this!
Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.
Horn: Im sorry. This aint right, buddy!
Dispatcher: Youre going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I dont care what you think.
Horn: You want to make a bet? I'll kill 'em!
Dispatcher: OK? Stay in the house.
Horn: Theyre getting away!
Dispatcher: Thats all right. Propertys not worth killing someone over, OK?
Horn: [curses]
Dispatcher: Dont go out the house. Dont be shooting nobody. I know youre (PO'd) and youre frustrated, but dont do it.
Horn: They got a bag of loot.
Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag ... which way are they going?
Horn: Im going outside. Ill find out.
Dispatcher: I dont want you going outside, Mr. Horn.
Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and Im going.
Dispatcher: Dont go outside.
Horn: [yelling] Move, youre dead!
[Sound of shots being fired]
Now, as we have discovered, Horn shot both men in the back, while he maintains that they were "lunging" at him. Question: How do you lunge at someone with your back turned to them?
In addition, I looked up the address listed in the transcript (which I deliberately withheld here, but is easy enough to find). These are basically "zero lot-line homes". That means there is very little space between the homes, about enough for a side door from the garage to swing completely open without hitting the fence, on each side of the fence.
In other words, at the time Mr. Horn goes from his side window, to the front door, after seeing the suspects leave the neighbors house, they were already onto his property, because of how little room there was. From the police report released, it's apparent that at the time he yelled, "Move, you're dead!", they saw him at about the same time and began moving away from him. The police officer that arrived on the scene just as they were leaving and Mr Horn came out of his door, confirms this.
The officer had to duck, because Mr Horn swung his shotgun on one suspect who was running toward the street, and fired in the general direction of where the officer's car was, hitting and killing the first suspect. Then, Mr Horn swung back towards the neighbor's house, where the second suspect had already almost cleared the yard, and fired again, killing the second man.
In my opinion, Mr Horn, at the very least should be charged with a number of crimes. Failure to follow the lawful directions of a representative of the police department (the dispatcher). Reckless endangerment, for firing his weapon without clearing fields of fire, and voluntary manslaughter.
Mr Horn on more than one occasion in the 911 call, made it plain he was looking to go out and force a confrontation, so he could shoot something (or someone). While Mr Horn was inside his home, he was in no imminent danger. He put himself in the position of being in danger, after being repeatedly told not to, and on review of the 911 call its obvious he knew the repercussions. Its clear he knew if he went outside he was going to shoot somebody, and rationalized his actions under the guise of the law that had recently been passed. He said he had the right to protect himself. But he wasnt protecting himself, he pursued the conflict. He was the one who escalated the situation.
Now, this being Texas, even if he should be charged by the Grand Jury, I think it highly unlikely that he'll be convicted of the deaths of these two criminals. But he should be. Because no man under our system of justice is entitles to be cop, judge, jury, and executioner all at once. Not over property, at any rate. I can't think of a single man-made thing that's worth someone's life.
QUOTE
In other words, at the time Mr. Horn goes from his side window, to the front door, after seeing the suspects leave the neighbors house, they were already onto his property, because of how little room there was. From the police report released, it's apparent that at the time he yelled, "Move, you're dead!", they saw him at about the same time and began moving away from him. The police officer that arrived on the scene just as they were leaving and Mr Horn came out of his door, confirms this.
The police chief of the town interviewed on TV told it differently. He said as the guys began to move one of them actually moved closer to Horn. Thus he may have felt more threatened and just fired. And they were on his land.
I believe he was entirely in the right but a jury with all the facts will make the call.
I am with Amlord on this one. It is obvious that our law enforcement in this country cannot protect us or out property and these criminal illegal aliens knew it. Horn maintains that when he told them to stop they came toward him and only stopped and turned when they saw the shotgun.
IMO this is a justified use of deadly force in TX.
QUOTE
But he should be. Because no man under our system of justice is entitles to be cop, judge, jury, and executioner all at once. Not over property, at any rate. I can't think of a single man-made thing that's worth someone's life.
This is your opinion and I tend to agree somewhat but in TX this is not the case. You cannot protect property if the people who steal it know they can just run to avoid apprehension.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Dec 28 2007, 08:13 PM)
Now, this being Texas, even if he should be charged by the Grand Jury, I think it highly unlikely that he'll be convicted of the deaths of these two criminals. But he should be. Because no man under our system of justice is entitles to be cop, judge, jury, and executioner all at once. Not over property, at any rate. I can't think of a single man-made thing that's worth someone's life.
Nite Guy... first of all Happy New year. Your Christmas present was that I didn't post for a few weeks. That's all you get.
I don't have time or energy to fight the indiscretions of the rest of your post, so I'll leave you with this paragraph.
First of all, the law does protect Mr. Horn in Texas, which is exactly why a story of this scale has resulted in no indictment. Obviously you've misunderstood the law somehow. I'll leave that alone, as Al Sharpton isn't protesting in the DFW area here for a reason. Maybe because the lawyers in the Rainbow Coalition (or NAACP) know they have no leg to stand on.
Secondly, I AGREE with the idea that no property is worth a life. The problem I have with your logic that he should be tried for voluntary manslaughter is simply that had these men been let go, chances are they would not have been caught. Furthermore, they were convicts of prior arrests. The system is flawed in the sense that had an apathetic cop (which there are... many of) showed up, these men would've been long gone.
It's 100% obvious that the penal system failed these men. They were not rehabilitated and very obviously didn't fear prison again or being caught. Unfortunately, the shots killed them.
Are there property thefts that should end up in people being shot? Maybe. I can tell you positively that if a man were in my home I'd shoot him. However, due to my background I'm confident that it would be to wound and not fatal.
That all being said, these weren't head shots. Mr. Horn had a 12ga shotgun apparently with a choke in it. The pattern (according to what I've read) was just too large at the close range. I doubt he meant to kill them, as they were shot in the body. He was just an old man that probably wasn't proficient with the gun.
It's sad that they died. It really is. However, the liberal notion that someone shouldn't be allowed to shoot men in the process of robbing a neighbor is absurd. They should. There are still parts of America where the word "neighbor" means something. Apparently, even IF he didn't know his neighbors well, he felt some sense of community and believed he should stop this.
Is it racism? of course not.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 3 2008, 02:53 PM)
You cannot “protect” property if the people who steal it know they can just run to avoid apprehension.
If you are referring the right to shoot people because the Texas law states at night you can vs during the daytime, that argument is not valid. Because then there would be no reason to differentiate day vs night time with wording in the law, that clearly shows the intent of the legislators. With your other argument/position on the flawed system; So do you think someone has the right to shoot speeders? after all the government is not able to stop them and they are killing people. Shouldn't everyone just go out and pull a gun and shoot, after all they may be repeat offenders. specifically how should society draw the line, as I said before should people go into defense contractors who are not being charged with billions in obviously stolen money? After all of all the top defense contractors which one is not a serial thief? Our justice system just does not stop them from repeat billion dollar thefts. which in the end makes the USA weaker and causes more Americans to die.
Aevans
Then such laws are obscene. If there is a loophole of night time to lock this guy away then, he should be locked away.
On to the question of racism... possibly. Obviously their lives weren't more important than the stolen loot they were carrying off. But your apologetic action is deeply concerning. Here is what you said that floored me.
How can you be a reasonable person and say this.... HOW?!?!?
the transcripts
Add to that they are shot in the BACK. You can't lodge backwards!!!!
Just like every right winger I ever met, you are living walking, breathing contradiction .... and you don't even know it. Do you remember what you wrote 3 or 4 paragraphs up?? let me remind you:
You said:
You honestly don't see how the above statement is in direct contradiction to:
WOW!!
QUOTE
First of all, the law does protect Mr. Horn in Texas, which is exactly why a story of this scale has resulted in no indictment. Obviously you've misunderstood the law somehow. I'll leave that alone, as Al Sharpton isn't protesting in the DFW area here for a reason. Maybe because the lawyers in the Rainbow Coalition (or NAACP) know they have no leg to stand on
Then such laws are obscene. If there is a loophole of night time to lock this guy away then, he should be locked away.
On to the question of racism... possibly. Obviously their lives weren't more important than the stolen loot they were carrying off. But your apologetic action is deeply concerning. Here is what you said that floored me.
QUOTE
That all being said, these weren't head shots. Mr. Horn had a 12ga shotgun apparently with a choke in it. The pattern (according to what I've read) was just too large at the close range. I doubt he meant to kill them, as they were shot in the body. He was just an old man that probably wasn't proficient with the gun.
How can you be a reasonable person and say this.... HOW?!?!?
the transcripts
QUOTE
Dispatcher: Youre going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I dont care what you think.
Horn: You want to make a bet? I'll kill 'em!
snip
Dispatcher: Dont go outside.
Horn: [yelling] Move, youre dead!
[Sound of shots being fired]
Horn: You want to make a bet? I'll kill 'em!
snip
Dispatcher: Dont go outside.
Horn: [yelling] Move, youre dead!
[Sound of shots being fired]
Add to that they are shot in the BACK. You can't lodge backwards!!!!
QUOTE
It's sad that they died. It really is. However, the liberal notion that someone shouldn't be allowed to shoot men in the process of robbing a neighbor is absurd. They should. There are still parts of America where the word "neighbor" means something. Apparently, even IF he didn't know his neighbors well, he felt some sense of community and believed he should stop this.
Just like every right winger I ever met, you are living walking, breathing contradiction .... and you don't even know it. Do you remember what you wrote 3 or 4 paragraphs up?? let me remind you:
You said:
QUOTE
Secondly, I AGREE with the idea that no property is worth a life.
You honestly don't see how the above statement is in direct contradiction to:
QUOTE
However, the liberal notion that someone shouldn't be allowed to shoot men in the process of robbing a neighbor is absurd. They should.
WOW!!
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jan 3 2008, 04:47 PM)
First of all, the law does protect Mr. Horn in Texas, which is exactly why a story of this scale has resulted in no indictment. Obviously you've misunderstood the law somehow. I'll leave that alone, as Al Sharpton isn't protesting in the DFW area here for a reason. Maybe because the lawyers in the Rainbow Coalition (or NAACP) know they have no leg to stand on.
Then perhaps you can enlighten me, aevans. Just what was it I got wrong. Enabling someone to shoot in the protection of even a neighbors property, according to the law, which I posted, requires a whole series of circumstances, none of which were met by Joe Horn. Not a single one. It wasn't night time, it was the middle of the afternoon. He had no agreement with the neighbors to protect their property, it wasn't a relative's property, and he wasn't hired by them to protect it in any fashion.
So, tell me again, what exactly is it I'm missing. 'Cause I don't think I missed a thing.
QUOTE(aevans176)
Secondly, I AGREE with the idea that no property is worth a life. The problem I have with your logic that he should be tried for voluntary manslaughter is simply that had these men been let go, chances are they would not have been caught. Furthermore, they were convicts of prior arrests. The system is flawed in the sense that had an apathetic cop (which there are... many of) showed up, these men would've been long gone.
Wrong again, aevans. Look at the transcript again, and re-read the stories on this case. The fact is, the police were there in time to apprehend these guys. But Joe Horn was so damned busy swinging his gun to and fro, that before the officer could get out of his car, he had to duck, believing that Horn may in fact shoot him! I'm tired of hearing from you and others here, that the cops would never have gotten there on time, because IT'S NOT TRUE! They were there.
And I'm not saying he should be charged with manslaughter for shooting them. I'm saying he should be charged with manslaughter for shooting them outside of all of the relevant portions of the law that would have protected him if he had followed it, and because he was told no less than 14 times by police not to go outside and confront these guys.
But he went out despite being told not to, and was the one directly responsible for escalating the situation. Then, he shot them, with no reason to believe that they were a threat to him, since they were running away from him!
QUOTE(aevans176)
Are there property thefts that should end up in people being shot? Maybe. I can tell you positively that if a man were in my home I'd shoot him.
As would I, in all likelyhood. But these two weren't in his home, were they? They were no threat to him, as long as he stayed in his home, and they were outside. The only possible way they could become a threat to him, was if they were to enter his house, or he were to go outside, against multiple orders to stay inside by the police. But then, how could they have been a threat to him, if they were running away from him, the second they saw him, and had to be shot in the back?
QUOTE(aevans176)
However, due to my background I'm confident that it would be to wound and not fatal.
Yeah? Good luck with that one. I used to shoot competitively, and even I'm not that confident, aevans. Not to mention, every bit of training I've ever taken, be it military, or through my brother, a former policeman, was to shoot center mass, and keep firing until said target is down.
QUOTE(aevans176)
It's sad that they died. It really is. However, the liberal notion that someone shouldn't be allowed to shoot men in the process of robbing a neighbor is absurd.
You know I do so get tired of the way you and your ilk toss the word "liberal" about. As if all "liberals" wanted to get rid of guns, and get on their knees, and beg some robber not to hurt them. Or the notion that these two guys had to be killed, or even shot in broad daylight, like in some bad western. That's what's absurd.
QUOTE(aevans176)
They should. There are still parts of America where the word "neighbor" means something. Apparently, even IF he didn't know his neighbors well, he felt some sense of community and believed he should stop this.
Well whoop-dee-doo! You know what, about 20 years ago or so, I felt a sense of community, and believed that some one should stop what was happening, too. I heard sudden screaming from my next door neighbor's house, and the sound of breaking glass one night. I grabbed a handgun, told my wife to call the police, and got outside the door just in time to see a guy trying to climb out of a bedroom window.
I drew down on the guy as soon as he cleared the window, and ordered him to stop. When he turned to run and saw I was armed, and that he had nowhere to go, he gave up. I held him until police arrived, about a minute later, and he was taken into custody. Turns out he had gotten in through a front window that the neighbors left unlocked, and was looking to rape their 17 year old daughter, who's screams it was I heard.
But, I didn't feel the need to pull the trigger, and bear in mind, that it was night-time, so I probably would have had a better reason to, than if it had all happened at 2 in the afternoon.
Mr Horn's problem is, he read only what he wanted to into the new law, and considered himself some kind of John Wayne or "Dirty Harry" kinda guy. In reality? Not so much. Tough guys who bear no consequences for their actions only show up in the movies.
Just a few comments.
First, police are not really charged with being bodyguards; their main job is to gather evidence after a crime is committed and to apprehend suspects. By being visible, they provide some general deterrent effect, but by no means does the existence of a professional police force replace or subsume the right to self-defense.
Second, common law recognizes the right to be secure in your person and property. Only in recent years have we tended to say let the theft go, as no property is worth killing a criminal. This sentiment stems from the existence of property insurance as much as anything, but I can think of lots of items of my property which no insurance payment could replace, either at all or to my satisfaction. I'd rather be secure in my person and property than rely upon the "good hands people".
Third, if neighbors kept an eye out for each others' persons and property as Mr. Horn did, crime of this type would go way, way down.
Fourth, what purpose would it serve to put an old man like this in prison? I guess it would prevent him from defending his or his neighbor's home ever again.
Fifth, I would welcome him as my neighbor, any time.....
First, police are not really charged with being bodyguards; their main job is to gather evidence after a crime is committed and to apprehend suspects. By being visible, they provide some general deterrent effect, but by no means does the existence of a professional police force replace or subsume the right to self-defense.
Second, common law recognizes the right to be secure in your person and property. Only in recent years have we tended to say let the theft go, as no property is worth killing a criminal. This sentiment stems from the existence of property insurance as much as anything, but I can think of lots of items of my property which no insurance payment could replace, either at all or to my satisfaction. I'd rather be secure in my person and property than rely upon the "good hands people".
Third, if neighbors kept an eye out for each others' persons and property as Mr. Horn did, crime of this type would go way, way down.
Fourth, what purpose would it serve to put an old man like this in prison? I guess it would prevent him from defending his or his neighbor's home ever again.
Fifth, I would welcome him as my neighbor, any time.....
Quick
Most importantly, is sending him to jail shows that we as a society have a limit to acceptable behavior and the killing of Human beings with out due process.
Honestly, how can you not read this story and not come to the conclusion that Horn thought himself within his rights to be Judge, Jury, and executionor. He made very clear his intentions to kill the men robbing his neighbors house.
It's called Karma!!! He wanted to make a point by mercilessly killing these human beings, and we as a society should make a point by issuing a severe charge and sentence.
Personally I don't think Joe Horn will ever see justice, so I can only hope of Justice of a biblical kind for this "tough guy"... an eye for an eye they say.
QUOTE
Fourth, what purpose would it serve to put an old man like this in prison? I guess it would prevent him from defending his or his neighbor's home ever again.
Most importantly, is sending him to jail shows that we as a society have a limit to acceptable behavior and the killing of Human beings with out due process.
Honestly, how can you not read this story and not come to the conclusion that Horn thought himself within his rights to be Judge, Jury, and executionor. He made very clear his intentions to kill the men robbing his neighbors house.
It's called Karma!!! He wanted to make a point by mercilessly killing these human beings, and we as a society should make a point by issuing a severe charge and sentence.
Personally I don't think Joe Horn will ever see justice, so I can only hope of Justice of a biblical kind for this "tough guy"... an eye for an eye they say.
I just wanted to drop a few comments on this one:
I don't know if Joe Horn is the kind of guy who shoots robbers indiscriminate of race, gende, religion, sexuality, etc. I don't know if this is the sort of dude who would have shot two elderly white catholic women in the act of robbing a house. Maybe so, maybe not.
But, as a southerner, I don't see any contradiction in the fact that he could have acted on racial assumptions or animosity while defending his Vietnamese neighbor's house. I can imagine -- and know plenty of people -- who would have no problem with a Vietnamese neighbor, but would walk around with a vocabulary rich in racial slurs to diminish the plight of black, hispanic, or Jewish people. Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American, is the governor of Louisiana, for one thing, and, as a former resident of New Orleans, I can tell you. Louisiana sure as the dog slobbers is not no post-racial society.
But I don't want to fixate on the racial aspect of this: I just want to say that the offensive word here is 'vigilante.' Not only is stolen property not worth "shooting someone over," as the dispatcher clearly pointed out -- it isn't worth compromising the authority of the law.
I agree 100 percent. Look, I believe in a legal system that hunts down thieves with everything it has, and if tonight I come home to an empty apartment, I'm going to say that again in italics, bold, underline. But I'd rather live in a system where the cops inefficiently pursue robbers, than in a society where the next Joe Horn is going to have to decide if the guy hopping into the window of his neighbor's house is a cat burglars or a house sitter who locked his keys inside.
I don't know how this provision will pan out for Joe Horn: does the law allow him to protect his neighbors house, under the assumption that his property is also under some kind of threat? Not sure. To me, his conversation with the dispatcher signaled that his intent wasn't so much to protect his own possessions as it was to keep those guys from "getting away with it."
But if precedent is set, and that becomes how we interpret this provision, I think it could become a fairly problematic law. It's not hard for me to spot the gross inadequacies of a law that lets property owners protect their neighbors home by virtue of proximity. Like I said, today it's two cat burglars, tomorrow its two teenagers goofing around after dark. The role of determine who is and isn't a threat to one's property should belong to the property owner in question, not his neighbor.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 9 2007, 04:13 PM)
BTW-Painting this as an act of racial hatred is complicated, due to the fact that Horn was defending the home of his Vietnamese neighbor. I'm personally miffed as to why the New Black Panther Party is involved in this at all. It's simply a case of over-reacting on Horn's part. I think he would've shot the robbers, no matter what color they were.
I'm personally miffed as to why the New Black Panther Party is involved in this at all. It's simply a case of over-reacting on Horn's part. I think he would've shot the robbers, no matter what color they were.I don't know if Joe Horn is the kind of guy who shoots robbers indiscriminate of race, gende, religion, sexuality, etc. I don't know if this is the sort of dude who would have shot two elderly white catholic women in the act of robbing a house. Maybe so, maybe not.
But, as a southerner, I don't see any contradiction in the fact that he could have acted on racial assumptions or animosity while defending his Vietnamese neighbor's house. I can imagine -- and know plenty of people -- who would have no problem with a Vietnamese neighbor, but would walk around with a vocabulary rich in racial slurs to diminish the plight of black, hispanic, or Jewish people. Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American, is the governor of Louisiana, for one thing, and, as a former resident of New Orleans, I can tell you. Louisiana sure as the dog slobbers is not no post-racial society.
But I don't want to fixate on the racial aspect of this: I just want to say that the offensive word here is 'vigilante.' Not only is stolen property not worth "shooting someone over," as the dispatcher clearly pointed out -- it isn't worth compromising the authority of the law.
QUOTE
And I'm not saying he should be charged with manslaughter for shooting them. I'm saying he should be charged with manslaughter for shooting them outside of all of the relevant portions of the law that would have protected him if he had followed it, and because he was told no less than 14 times by police not to go outside and confront these guys.
I agree 100 percent. Look, I believe in a legal system that hunts down thieves with everything it has, and if tonight I come home to an empty apartment, I'm going to say that again in italics, bold, underline. But I'd rather live in a system where the cops inefficiently pursue robbers, than in a society where the next Joe Horn is going to have to decide if the guy hopping into the window of his neighbor's house is a cat burglars or a house sitter who locked his keys inside.
I don't know how this provision will pan out for Joe Horn: does the law allow him to protect his neighbors house, under the assumption that his property is also under some kind of threat? Not sure. To me, his conversation with the dispatcher signaled that his intent wasn't so much to protect his own possessions as it was to keep those guys from "getting away with it."
But if precedent is set, and that becomes how we interpret this provision, I think it could become a fairly problematic law. It's not hard for me to spot the gross inadequacies of a law that lets property owners protect their neighbors home by virtue of proximity. Like I said, today it's two cat burglars, tomorrow its two teenagers goofing around after dark. The role of determine who is and isn't a threat to one's property should belong to the property owner in question, not his neighbor.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 11 2008, 02:16 PM)
Quick
Most importantly, is sending him to jail shows that we as a society have a limit to acceptable behavior and the killing of Human beings with out due process.
Honestly, how can you not read this story and not come to the conclusion that Horn thought himself within his rights to be Judge, Jury, and executionor. He made very clear his intentions to kill the men robbing his neighbors house.
It's called Karma!!! He wanted to make a point by mercilessly killing these human beings, and we as a society should make a point by issuing a severe charge and sentence.
Personally I don't think Joe Horn will ever see justice, so I can only hope of Justice of a biblical kind for this "tough guy"... an eye for an eye they say.
QUOTE
Fourth, what purpose would it serve to put an old man like this in prison? I guess it would prevent him from defending his or his neighbor's home ever again.
Most importantly, is sending him to jail shows that we as a society have a limit to acceptable behavior and the killing of Human beings with out due process.
Honestly, how can you not read this story and not come to the conclusion that Horn thought himself within his rights to be Judge, Jury, and executionor. He made very clear his intentions to kill the men robbing his neighbors house.
It's called Karma!!! He wanted to make a point by mercilessly killing these human beings, and we as a society should make a point by issuing a severe charge and sentence.
Personally I don't think Joe Horn will ever see justice, so I can only hope of Justice of a biblical kind for this "tough guy"... an eye for an eye they say.
I laugh at responses like yours. If you do not burglarize other's homes, people like Joe Horn will not shoot you. Pretty simple, right and wrong. Once you do the wrong thing, you shouldn't whine about the consequences. It's not like Horn hopped in his car, chased them for two hours, and then shot them--in vigilante style. The two burglars were shot on the scene, loot in hand, in the act. Too bad for them.
The first professional police force in the US was constituted in NYC about 1840 or so. Prior to that, your neighbors were all you had, and use of deadly force to defend property was perfectly acceptable--and it still should be.
With all of the mess he stirred up, I bet Horn wishes he'd never shot these two men (who both were illegal immigrants with prior records, by the way). Also, I have no intention of arguing legal technicalities here. But, he should not be prosecuted, and in no way was there a miscarriage of justice--these gentlemen got just what they deserved. In fact, if everyone where armed at home with a willingness to use the weapons, home invasion would go way, way down.
Here is an interesting link to some video of a protest about the Horn incident:
http://texasfred.net/archives/807
QUOTE(quick @ Feb 14 2008, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 11 2008, 02:16 PM)
Quick
Most importantly, is sending him to jail shows that we as a society have a limit to acceptable behavior and the killing of Human beings with out due process.
Honestly, how can you not read this story and not come to the conclusion that Horn thought himself within his rights to be Judge, Jury, and executionor. He made very clear his intentions to kill the men robbing his neighbors house.
It's called Karma!!! He wanted to make a point by mercilessly killing these human beings, and we as a society should make a point by issuing a severe charge and sentence.
Personally I don't think Joe Horn will ever see justice, so I can only hope of Justice of a biblical kind for this "tough guy"... an eye for an eye they say.
QUOTE
Fourth, what purpose would it serve to put an old man like this in prison? I guess it would prevent him from defending his or his neighbor's home ever again.
Most importantly, is sending him to jail shows that we as a society have a limit to acceptable behavior and the killing of Human beings with out due process.
Honestly, how can you not read this story and not come to the conclusion that Horn thought himself within his rights to be Judge, Jury, and executionor. He made very clear his intentions to kill the men robbing his neighbors house.
It's called Karma!!! He wanted to make a point by mercilessly killing these human beings, and we as a society should make a point by issuing a severe charge and sentence.
Personally I don't think Joe Horn will ever see justice, so I can only hope of Justice of a biblical kind for this "tough guy"... an eye for an eye they say.
I laugh at responses like yours. If you do not burglarize other's homes, people like Joe Horn will not shoot you. Pretty simple, right and wrong. Once you do the wrong thing, you shouldn't whine about the consequences. It's not like Horn hopped in his car, chased them for two hours, and then shot them--in vigilante style. The two burglars were shot on the scene, loot in hand, in the act. Too bad for them.
The first professional police force in the US was constituted in NYC about 1840 or so. Prior to that, your neighbors were all you had, and use of deadly force to defend property was perfectly acceptable--and it still should be.
With all of the mess he stirred up, I bet Horn wishes he'd never shot these two men (who both were illegal immigrants with prior records, by the way). Also, I have no intention of arguing legal technicalities here. But, he should not be prosecuted, and in no way was there a miscarriage of justice--these gentlemen got just what they deserved. In fact, if everyone where armed at home with a willingness to use the weapons, home invasion would go way, way down.
Here is an interesting link to some video of a protest about the Horn incident:
http://texasfred.net/archives/807
you laugh... but you didn't debate. let's not evenargue legality since you don't want to. Let us go from a moral or philosophical point of veiw.
Let's think about this for a second.
By your logic, security Guards at a mall should shoot our children if they were to be mischevious and shoplift??
By your logic, teachers at school should shoot students who get in fights...
By your logic, we should shoot people driving oer the speed limit.
The sad thing is... you don't even know this is your logic, do you?? This is how silly your logic is.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 14 2008, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE(quick @ Feb 14 2008, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 11 2008, 02:16 PM)
Quick
Most importantly, is sending him to jail shows that we as a society have a limit to acceptable behavior and the killing of Human beings with out due process.
Honestly, how can you not read this story and not come to the conclusion that Horn thought himself within his rights to be Judge, Jury, and executionor. He made very clear his intentions to kill the men robbing his neighbors house.
It's called Karma!!! He wanted to make a point by mercilessly killing these human beings, and we as a society should make a point by issuing a severe charge and sentence.
Personally I don't think Joe Horn will ever see justice, so I can only hope of Justice of a biblical kind for this "tough guy"... an eye for an eye they say.
QUOTE
Fourth, what purpose would it serve to put an old man like this in prison? I guess it would prevent him from defending his or his neighbor's home ever again.
Most importantly, is sending him to jail shows that we as a society have a limit to acceptable behavior and the killing of Human beings with out due process.
Honestly, how can you not read this story and not come to the conclusion that Horn thought himself within his rights to be Judge, Jury, and executionor. He made very clear his intentions to kill the men robbing his neighbors house.
It's called Karma!!! He wanted to make a point by mercilessly killing these human beings, and we as a society should make a point by issuing a severe charge and sentence.
Personally I don't think Joe Horn will ever see justice, so I can only hope of Justice of a biblical kind for this "tough guy"... an eye for an eye they say.
I laugh at responses like yours. If you do not burglarize other's homes, people like Joe Horn will not shoot you. Pretty simple, right and wrong. Once you do the wrong thing, you shouldn't whine about the consequences. It's not like Horn hopped in his car, chased them for two hours, and then shot them--in vigilante style. The two burglars were shot on the scene, loot in hand, in the act. Too bad for them.
The first professional police force in the US was constituted in NYC about 1840 or so. Prior to that, your neighbors were all you had, and use of deadly force to defend property was perfectly acceptable--and it still should be.
With all of the mess he stirred up, I bet Horn wishes he'd never shot these two men (who both were illegal immigrants with prior records, by the way). Also, I have no intention of arguing legal technicalities here. But, he should not be prosecuted, and in no way was there a miscarriage of justice--these gentlemen got just what they deserved. In fact, if everyone where armed at home with a willingness to use the weapons, home invasion would go way, way down.
Here is an interesting link to some video of a protest about the Horn incident:
http://texasfred.net/archives/807
you laugh... but you didn't debate. let's not evenargue legality since you don't want to. Let us go from a moral or philosophical point of veiw.
Let's think about this for a second.
By your logic, security Guards at a mall should shoot our children if they were to be mischevious and shoplift??
By your logic, teachers at school should shoot students who get in fights...
By your logic, we should shoot people driving oer the speed limit.
The sad thing is... you don't even know this is your logic, do you?? This is how silly your logic is.
When someone comes into another's home--their home, mind you, not some punk shoplifting, or some kid shooting spitballs, as you suggest--they have crossed the line. If you've ever been burglarized, and I have, you feel insecure in your own home for weeks. Every sound, even ones you are used to hearing, become a threat. You are not able to relax, much less sleep.
Horn has no criminal record (unlike the illegal immigrants with long criminal records who were shot--I do not believe they were schoolkids) and did nothing but defend his neighbor's home--debating whether this falls "technically" under the elements of the Texas statute are mental masturbation.
No, I understand. I understand you are uninformed, inexperienced, and one who concocts ridiculous, ill-conceived attempts at analogies. What is there to debate? You are not worthy of a debate.
QUOTE
When someone comes into another's home--their home, mind you, not some punk shoplifting, or some kid shooting spitballs, as you suggest--they have crossed the line
A line?? What line?? An imaginary line? An arbitrary line??
Your logic was if someone is doing something illegal, and you kill them in the process of doing something illegal, then it is OK because they should not have been doing it in the first place. Do you deny this is your logic??
Your words exactly
Quick
QUOTE
If you do not burglarize other's homes, people like Joe Horn will not shoot you. Pretty simple, right and wrong. Once you do the wrong thing, you shouldn't whine about the consequences.
QUOTE
No, I understand. I understand you are uninformed, inexperienced, and one who concocts ridiculous, ill-conceived attempts at analogies. What is there to debate? You are not worthy of a debate.
Worthy enough to get you talking out the side of your backbone. You said when some one does wrong they can not cry about the consequences.
Were the people Joe Horn killed, killed in the protection of any ones life??
No!!
So defense of another human life is not a criteria neccessary to take a human life while committing a crime.... this is your criteria.. not mine, I'm not worthy of such superior wisdom that flows through your mind.
Now we have the criteria you set forth. If you are doing a crime and someone kills you, it is your own fault. Is there anything else I am missing from your logic? Oh I forgot.. that imaginary line!!
Is assault illegal??
yes
Is speeding illegal??
yes
Is shoplifting illegal??
yes
Now YOU SAID that if someone is killed when they do wrong then we shouldn't whine about it. Those are your words and your logic, o'master-debater-for-whom-i-am-not-worthy.
I'll just watch my step around you from now on, I don't want to trip over all these metaphoric lines that allow murder which you seem to drop.
Who knows I might of stepped over a line just debating you with my lowly logic. 
I am curious to know quick's moral justification for property being worth more than human life. Which property? Let's get specific. Is a television worth more than someone's life? Jewelry? Cash? Shoes? Replaceable. Broken windows and doors? Fixable. Stopped heartbeat? Harder to fix. Murder may be justified in defense of life, but to commit murder for the sake of property is morally bankrupt. Now, I might try and physically stop someone from breaking my beautiful Martin acoustic guitar, but I'm not going to shoot them for it!
Yeah, it's no fun feeling uncomfortable. Of course, the people you shot dead are never going to feel anything, ever again. But then, if someone's life is worth less to you than a good night's sleep, I suppose any argument about ethics is going to fall on deaf ears.
You have great audacity, claiming droop is not "worthy of a debate," when all you've offered is morally repugnant unbalanced equations where property is worth more than life, and your only sideline on that is a dubious argument from "tradition." Personally, I'd like to think we've progressed quite a ways since the 19th century.
QUOTE
When someone comes into another's home--their home, mind you, not some punk shoplifting, or some kid shooting spitballs, as you suggest--they have crossed the line. If you've ever been burglarized, and I have, you feel insecure in your own home for weeks. Every sound, even ones you are used to hearing, become a threat. You are not able to relax, much less sleep.
Yeah, it's no fun feeling uncomfortable. Of course, the people you shot dead are never going to feel anything, ever again. But then, if someone's life is worth less to you than a good night's sleep, I suppose any argument about ethics is going to fall on deaf ears.
You have great audacity, claiming droop is not "worthy of a debate," when all you've offered is morally repugnant unbalanced equations where property is worth more than life, and your only sideline on that is a dubious argument from "tradition." Personally, I'd like to think we've progressed quite a ways since the 19th century.
QUOTE(quick @ Feb 15 2008, 12:48 PM)
No, I understand. I understand you are uninformed, inexperienced, and one who concocts ridiculous, ill-conceived attempts at analogies. What is there to debate? You are not worthy of a debate.
Is it ever getting nasty around here.
Quick, you might consider replacing the simplistic with something that approaches profound. We could use a little more depth of thought from you.
Here is the way I look at it.
If somebody is coming onto my property to steal from my home then they are also willing to do harm to who may be inside the home that may prevent them from stealing or could identify them if they get caught. With this in mind, it means they would be willing to do harm to me, or my family. That is where I draw the line. If somebody breaks into my home with the intent to commit a criminal act they will be met with lethal force.
If somebody is coming onto my property to steal from my home then they are also willing to do harm to who may be inside the home that may prevent them from stealing or could identify them if they get caught. With this in mind, it means they would be willing to do harm to me, or my family. That is where I draw the line. If somebody breaks into my home with the intent to commit a criminal act they will be met with lethal force.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Feb 15 2008, 06:56 PM)
Here is the way I look at it.
If somebody is coming onto my property to steal from my home then they are also willing to do harm to who may be inside the home that may prevent them from stealing or could identify them if they get caught. With this in mind, it means they would be willing to do harm to me, or my family. That is where I draw the line. If somebody breaks into my home with the intent to commit a criminal act they will be met with lethal force.
If somebody is coming onto my property to steal from my home then they are also willing to do harm to who may be inside the home that may prevent them from stealing or could identify them if they get caught. With this in mind, it means they would be willing to do harm to me, or my family. That is where I draw the line. If somebody breaks into my home with the intent to commit a criminal act they will be met with lethal force.
That being said Sleeper, what you are saying has absolutely no relevance to this debate. Joe Horn was not protecting his home. Joe Horn was not in a predicament where his life or the the life of his family was in danger. Joe Horn was not acting in the defense of his neighbors.
Joe Horn made it quite clear that they(the robbers) were about to get away. Don't move the goal posts to support your position.
The goal post is as follows: some one is committing a crime no one's life is in danger, and then you run over and kill them. Is this appropriate??
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Feb 15 2008, 05:56 PM)
Here is the way I look at it.
If somebody is coming onto my property to steal from my home then they are also willing to do harm to who may be inside the home that may prevent them from stealing or could identify them if they get caught. With this in mind, it means they would be willing to do harm to me, or my family. That is where I draw the line. If somebody breaks into my home with the intent to commit a criminal act they will be met with lethal force.
If somebody is coming onto my property to steal from my home then they are also willing to do harm to who may be inside the home that may prevent them from stealing or could identify them if they get caught. With this in mind, it means they would be willing to do harm to me, or my family. That is where I draw the line. If somebody breaks into my home with the intent to commit a criminal act they will be met with lethal force.
so exactly where was that line, was it someone stealing your newspaper? or maybe your newspaper got placed on the neighbors and the kid is returning it. Boy I have been known to play some practical jokes on friends and neighbors. with neighbors like you who needs enemy's to kill them?
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Feb 15 2008, 03:55 PM)
Murder may be justified in defense of life, but to commit murder for the sake of property is morally bankrupt.
Murder cannot be justified in defense of life, not by my reasoning. Unlike you, I don't consider all killing to be murder. Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent's life. What Joe Horn did is not murder, because the victims of the homicide (the taking of a person's life, whether innocent or not) are not innocent. Now, if you want to argue proportionality, that's a whole 'nutter matter.
QUOTE('droop224')
some one is committing a crime no one's life is in danger, and then you run over and kill them. Is this appropriate??
Well, it seems to me that if
where the jury, Joe Horn would walk by a hung jury. 
Unfortunately, you've moved the goalposts as well. You've gone from characterizing Sleeper's argument as "kill 'em for any crime" to "any crime, no matter what, where no one's life is in danger". From one extreme to the other. The simple fact is, property does represent part of someone's life. We trade our lives for our property. Do you have a car? How long did you work to get that car? Six months? Two years? Now, do you think killing someone who forces you at gunpoint to work for them for two years would be justifiable? I sure as heck do.
Only a wealthy society luxuriates in the moral confusion that allows someone to steal another person's life's work without the risk of losing their life. Yet, it isn't for the benefit of insuring that the someone's "past life" isn't stolen that I applaud Joe Horn, its protecting someone's future. The thieves are likely to steal again. It may be the next 9 months of your life's work that Joe Horn saved.
But hey, let's move the goalposts again, to illustrate the absurdity of your exercise in field reconfiguration. What if you come upon a serial rapist in the act? Now, the serial rapist has been highly publicized, and he's a polite fellow who always apologizes to his victims before moving on. He's never killed one. The only effective means you have of stopping him from getting away is filling the varmint with lead?
Nobody's life is in danger....
Proportionality is the key. Is it morally justifiable to kill someone shoplifting a candy bar? How about someone who steals the life savings of every blue hair in Florida? Is deadly force justifiable to protect the Mona Lisa from theft, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence?
A thief is simply someone who has made another person their slave, retroactively....
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.