Jump to content

Pasadena Homeowner Kills Men Burglarizing Neighbors' House


cottonmather0

Recommended Posts

The building or vehicle must be occupied at the time for the

deadly force provision to apply, and the person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity at the time.

Do a search for the above quote and you will find it. Don't rem where I found it the first time but it is here:

http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn...ll.712a4f3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 363
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The building or vehicle must be occupied at the time for the

deadly force provision to apply, and the person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity at the time.

Do a search for the above quote and you will find it. Don't rem where I found it the first time but it is here:

http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn...ll.712a4f3.html

I prefer not to use the media as a legal resource, I instead pulled up a direct link to the Texas Penal Code as archived on the Official State of Texas Website. Not some media interpretation of the law.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

I can't seem to find the part where it says the word "occupied" anywhere.

Once again it reads like this:

TEXAS PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SECTION 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSONS PROPERTY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is old, can you find a copy of the new bill?

Somewhere I also read and also heard from that reliable news source on the radio that we can use deadly force for criminal mischief. Does that mean people will start shooting all those kids who are breaking car windows? They really need to pass this info out in the schools, neighborhoods, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it covers burglary, just robbery, fear of bodily harm.

In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the exercise of unlawful deadly force by the aggressor or to prevent the imminent commission of an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R...ml/SB00378F.htm

I would say Joes best defense was fear of bodily harm after he went out with the gun. He did not have to stay in the house because a dispatcher told him to.

Had the police arrived in time would they have shot at the buglars running away? I would hope so. It has nothing to do with property, I don't care who takes my property. I don't ever want to go through the terror of someone breaking into my home when I am there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is old, can you find a copy of the new bill?

Somewhere I also read and also heard from that reliable news source on the radio that we can use deadly force for criminal mischief. Does that mean people will start shooting all those kids who are breaking car windows? They really need to pass this info out in the schools, neighborhoods, etc.

The link I provided is the current Penal Code in place. When the Penal Code is changed I am sure the State updates accordingly.

I don't think it covers burglary, just robbery, fear of bodily harm.

In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the exercise of unlawful deadly force by the aggressor or to prevent the imminent commission of an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R...ml/SB00378F.htm

I would say Joes best defense was fear of bodily harm after he went out with the gun. He did not have to stay in the house because a dispatcher told him to.

Had the police arrived in time would they have shot at the buglars running away? I would hope so. It has nothing to do with property, I don't care who takes my property. I don't ever want to go through the terror of someone breaking into my home when I am there.

This verbiage addresses my point exactly. Texas Penal Code does no give "any presumption" in defending ones domain, basically it leaves the option to shoot first and ask questions later. Morally right or wrong is not for me to say, nor is it the legal system, with all the screaming of separation or state and religion by the less conservative section, you are left with written law, stay all emotional ties to the side. It also supports the verbiage in the Texas Penal Code that I posted, it's in the juries hands if the DA decides to prosecute him, there is no direct verbiage one way or another, as to clean cut guilt or innocence. Interesting to say the least. I see quite a bit of room for legal maneuvering one way or the other.

In addition, the Texas Penal Code contains no presumption of reasonableness in defending a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment against unlawful intruders. Instead, Texas juries must decide after the fact whether a victim's actions to protect the victim and his or her family were reasonable or necessary under the circumstances.

This verbiage you posted also does a good thing, it directly addresses the fact that if Mr. Horn is found to be justified in his action by Chapter 9 of the TPC, he is also is immune from Civil Liability, which leaves him not having to worry about being sued over this in civil court, at least at the State level.

Sec. 83.001. New heading: CIVIL IMMUNITY. Provides that a person who uses force or deadly force justified under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable. Deletes existing text relating to an affirmative defense to civil action arising from the use of justifiable deadly force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider this guy a hero. I think he's an idiot. Calling 911 to report a robbery in progress was the right thing to do. But he had no right to walk out there with a gun and turn himself into a self-appointed agent of law enforcement. These guys were not threatening his property or life. I'm not saying that the guys who broke into the house weren't scumbags that deserve to be punished, because I think they were. But that's why we have a legal system, and it's not up to citizens to engage in vigilante justice. The police were on their way and arrived a few minutes later. This neighbor would have been far more useful to call 911, look outside to get a description of the suspects and any vehicles, and stay on the phone with the dispatcher until authorities arrive. He had no more right to go outside and take justice into his own hands with a shotgun than the thieves had to break into the neighbor's house. Why would any sane, thinking, intelligent person go outside in this situation?

Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you want, but everyone deserves equal justice under the law, and that includes a trial by jury. Even the most conservative Americans shouldn't argue with that concept, as it's written into our very own Constitution's Bill of Rights. Tne Constitution says nothing about being shot by the next door neighbor who thinks he knows what's best. I'm not in favor of the state's death penalty, even in the worst criminal cases (I am a supporter of life in prison with no possibility of parole, and prison being true punishment), and I'm even less in favor of a death penalty being carried out by a crazy old man with a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that's what's wrong with society nowadays, and the majority of it comes from Generation X. I guess us old Baby Boomers are fighting a losing battle to try and maintain some sense of right and wrong in this world.

Hmmm... I'm a "Gen-Xer" and I know right from wrong. My friends are of the same generation and know right from wrong. So are many of my co-workers.

I think it's a bit short-sighted to place blame for all of society's ills on a generation that is mostly in its early 30s at this point, especially when much of the increase in violent crime rates happened when my generation was still in elementary school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read yesterday that one was on parole, and both had multple convictions for misdemeanors. I can't find it this morning, but I'll continue to look.

He said: "Move, you're dead.."

Do you think you'd feel the same way if Joe Horn was your neighbor, and it was your house that was burglarized?

No, he said, "BOOM, you're dead." That is what is being quoted this morning and what is on the tape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My scumbag buddies? What the hell are you talking about?

I'm scared that you might get it in your head that I'm a danger to your property and kill me on the spot.

Being opposed to Joe Horn's vigilantism doesn't equate to sympathy for criminals.

If you are stealing my and your neighbor's stuff, and then come walking on my front lawn with a crowbar and a bag of loot, then you ARE a danger. You see how that works ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider this guy a hero. I think he's an idiot. Calling 911 to report a robbery in progress was the right thing to do. But he had no right to walk out there with a gun and turn himself into a self-appointed agent of law enforcement. These guys were not threatening his property or life. I'm not saying that the guys who broke into the house weren't scumbags that deserve to be punished, because I think they were. But that's why we have a legal system, and it's not up to citizens to engage in vigilante justice. The police were on their way and arrived a few minutes later. This neighbor would have been far more useful to call 911, look outside to get a description of the suspects and any vehicles, and stay on the phone with the dispatcher until authorities arrive. He had no more right to go outside and take justice into his own hands with a shotgun than the thieves had to break into the neighbor's house. Why would any sane, thinking, intelligent person go outside in this situation?

Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you want, but everyone deserves equal justice under the law, and that includes a trial by jury. Even the most conservative Americans shouldn't argue with that concept, as it's written into our very own Constitution's Bill of Rights. Tne Constitution says nothing about being shot by the next door neighbor who thinks he knows what's best. I'm not in favor of the state's death penalty, even in the worst criminal cases (I am a supporter of life in prison with no possibility of parole, and prison being true punishment), and I'm even less in favor of a death penalty being carried out by a crazy old man with a gun.

Hmmm... I'm a "Gen-Xer" and I know right from wrong. My friends are of the same generation and know right from wrong. So are many of my co-workers.

I think it's a bit short-sighted to place blame for all of society's ills on a generation that is mostly in its early 30s at this point, especially when much of the increase in violent crime rates happened when my generation was still in elementary school.

Couldn't agree more, and I am definitely not a bleeding heart liberal! I also don't get the Gen-X reference, being as I am also a Gen X'er. I for one have been impressed with how the Gen-Xers have turned out! I thought we were a lost cause for sure ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are stealing my and your neighbor's stuff, and then come walking on my front lawn with a crowbar and a bag of loot, then you ARE a danger. You see how that works ?

Nope. Joe Horn was inside his own house. They didn't come in after him, he went outside with a gun. Joe Horn claims they came in the front yard with him, but only after he said one of them "almost run down the street"

He also said "I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this" and "I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot" before he ever left his house. He wasn't shooting them because they were a danger to him, he was shooting them because they were a danger to his neighbor's property.

Oddly, he also said "the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it". Does anyone know what laws he's referring to here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although not a Texan (I was raised in liberal Massachusetts and now live in California) and my political leanings are left of center, I agree with memebag, ssulivan, parrothead, redscare, and others who don't support vigilantes serving as judge, jury, and executioner. Why this man thought it was justifiable to shoot people who were not threatening him, not stealing his property but his neighbors is beyond my comprehension, but I realize that I don't live in Texas, so just may not get it. My house has burglarized in the past. Thankfully my neighbors did not take it upon themselves to shoot the burglars.

And criticizing Gen Xers--an entire generation-- or any other group is ridiculous, prejudicial and can only be based on stereotypical ideas about various groups. To my way of thinking, maligning an entire group whether it be gays, African Americans, Latinos, women, or Gen Xers impedes discussion rather than facilitating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Joe Horn was inside his own house. They didn't come in after him, he went outside with a gun. Joe Horn claims they came in the front yard with him, but only after he said one of them "almost run down the street"

He also said "I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this" and "I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot" before he ever left his house. He wasn't shooting them because they were a danger to him, he was shooting them because they were a danger to his neighbor's property.

Oddly, he also said "the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it". Does anyone know what laws he's referring to here?

Ok, so you are the type that's gonna wait for the big bad wolves to try to blow your house down before you decide to take action ? Why be reactive, when you can be proactive ? It is AMAZING to me that you can sit there and defend the P.O.S. criminals, cry me a river meme, cry me a friggin' river. I will take 1,000,000 neighbors like Joe Horn over 1 neighbor like the dead criminals. I wonder how many times Joe Horn has been arrested for drugs or arrested for burglary as compared to the dead criminals. Meme, do you know what Joe Horn's rap sheet looks like compared to your criminals you like so much ?

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this is why I said in the OP that I was so conflicted. I think explicitly going outside with the stated intention of "killing" the burglars is definitely murder. It's going to take some good lawyering for him to get off, but I think he will, in the end, I think that's ultimately the just outcome.

For what it's worth, his reference to Sept 1st is the date that the new "Castle Doctrine" went into effect, but I think he was almost certainly misunderstanding it.

The Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And criticizing Gen Xers--an entire generation-- or any other group is ridiculous, prejudicial and can only be based on stereotypical ideas about various groups. To my way of thinking, maligning an entire group whether it be gays, African Americans, Latinos, women, or Gen Xers impedes discussion rather than facilitating it.

It may have more to do with ignorance, and the tendency to glamorize one's youth than stereotyping. Even the slightest amount of research would show that the 60s and 70s were witness to some of the worst crime rates in US history. From 1960 to 1980, property crime rates TRIPLED. Violent crime grew at an even greater rate, continuing to increase until 1991. Both violent and non-violent crime decreased drastically, until approximately 2002, where it stagnated, or slightly increased.

The growth of 24 hour news and the internet probably has more to do with the perception that crime is worse today than in the past, because the statistics simply do not bear it out.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its funny to bash the Gen-X generation, we are the generation going green, finding alternative fuels, recycling, planting trees. Basically trying to save a planet, not destroy it. I think if anything Gen-X is very passive. As a generation we don't seem to be blood thirsty corporate types, that our parents were, that drink and smoke and divorce their spouses and stash millions away. Sure we're a little lazy and we'll inherit those millions, but it seems the generation as a whole wants to save the planet so they have a place to spend those millions. ;)

Gangs and thugs and criminal behavior have nothing to do with Gen-X. Heck pimping rides didn't even become "cool" untill recently. Most of us are too old now to pull that look off without looking ridiculous.

Edited by KatieDidIt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you are the type that's gonna wait for the big bad wolves to try to blow your house down before you decide to take action ? Why be reactive, when you can be proactive ?

Indeed, why not just kill everyone? I'm sure they've all done something. Why bother with due process, a Constitution, or any sort of law? Let's just kill. Kill kill kill!

It is AMAZING to me that you can sit there and defend the P.O.S. criminals, cry me a river meme, cry me a friggin' river.

That sort of amazes me, too, since I never defended criminals.

I will take 1,000,000 neighbors like Joe Horn over 1 neighbor like the dead criminals. I wonder how many times Joe Horn has been arrested for drugs or arrested for burglary as compared to the dead criminals. Meme, do you know what Joe Horn's rap sheet looks like compared to your criminals you like so much ?

What does that have to do with the issue? If Joe Horn was a saint, does that make it OK?

It seems like whenever gays want to get married or kids don't want to pray in school, this is a Christian nation. But whenever folks could love their neighbor, turn the other cheek, shalt not kill, etc., then this is the wild west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, why not just kill everyone? I'm sure they've all done something. Why bother with due process, a Constitution, or any sort of law? Let's just kill. Kill kill kill!

Because the person attempting to kill everyone would be subject to reprisal. It's a pretty good disincentive for murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The social contract that we agree to live requires us to allow the government to enforce the laws, not us personally.

What social contract? I didn't sign anything. I've never sworn an oath to that effect.

I hereby renounce any such explicit or implied agreement.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I mean if we're going to be proactive, as TJones advocates, and kill people without trials, laws, and all that froo-frah, then why bother worrying about reprisal? Reprisal is reactive, not proactive. It happens after the fact. If the person killing everyone kills everyone who might try to kill him first, that's proactive, baby! I don't mean kill some people, I mean kill everyone. Kill them all! Kill kill kill!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean if we're going to be proactive, as TJones advocates, and kill people without trials, laws, and all that froo-frah, then why bother worrying about reprisal? Reprisal is reactive, not proactive. It happens after the fact. If the person killing everyone kills everyone who might try to kill him first, that's proactive, baby! I don't mean kill some people, I mean kill everyone. Kill them all! Kill kill kill!

Hmmm... ok. I'm still not sure how you're connecting a limited set of circumstances under which TJones might take someone's life to that some individual might ought to figure out a way to kill everybody all at once without killing themselves in the process or bringing reprisal upon themselves. It just doesn't make sense.

When you put it the way you have, seems like reactive is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What social contract? I didn't sign anything. I've never sworn an oath to that effect.

I hereby renounce any such explicit or implied agreement.

Really? You know the constitution you live under? You know the laws that govern society? Those comprise the social contract. It is what keeps me from going to my neighbor's house and appropriating items of his that I covet. If you truly wish to renounce all such explicit or implied agreement then I wish you a found farwell as you make your way to Somalia where there is no government to compel you to do anything you do not want to do, while also not enforcing any of your contracts or offering any protection of any kind.

Live Free or Die

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... ok. I'm still not sure how you're connecting a limited set of circumstances under which TJones might take someone's life to that some individual might ought to figure out a way to kill everybody all at once without killing themselves in the process or bringing reprisal upon themselves. It just doesn't make sense.

Try reading TJones post again, then see if it makes more sense. After I described how Joe Horn went went outside to shoot the 2 men because they were a threat to his neighbor's property, TJones said:

Ok, so you are the type that's gonna wait for the big bad wolves to try to blow your house down before you decide to take action ? Why be reactive, when you can be proactive ?

It sounds to me like TJones is saying we shouldn't just use deadly force to defend our lives after they are threatened (reactive), but should instead use it to stop anyone who might possibly eventually threaten our lives sometime in the future (proactive). I suspect everyone might be harboring malice in their hearts, so why not just be proactive and kill them all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... ok. I'm still not sure how you're connecting a limited set of circumstances under which TJones might take someone's life to that some individual might ought to figure out a way to kill everybody all at once without killing themselves in the process or bringing reprisal upon themselves. It just doesn't make sense.

When you put it the way you have, seems like reactive is the way to go.

Niche, I think you're looking a little too deeply here, or taking it too literally, I'm not sure which one. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? You know the constitution you live under? You know the laws that govern society? Those comprise the social contract. It is what keeps me from going to my neighbor's house and appropriating items of his that I covet. If you truly wish to renounce all such explicit or implied agreement then I wish you a found farwell as you make your way to Somalia where there is no government to compel you to do anything you do not want to do, while also not enforcing any of your contracts or offering any protection of any kind.

You can't pin it on me. I never signed it.

Hell, one of my ancestors even voted against it at the constitutional convention of South Carolina in 1788. One of the other of the eleven delegates from his county voted for it against the wishes of his antifederalist constituents. That man and his family were run out of town by vigilantes. My ancestor didn't pack up and head into the western frontier in protest, though.

I'd like to think that he understood as I do: that while I may not recognize the right of the government to place a particular burden on me--only to suggest it--I do recognize that it has the ability to inconvenience me if I choose not to accept that burden, just as I have the ability to escape it by removing myself from the entity's jurisdiction; the best that I can do is to live my life to the fullest in the knowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect world, only a perfect adaptation of it that can be brought about by the discriminating selection of which laws (suggestions) to follow and which to disregard in the knowledge that there may be consequences, and in all other matters that I pursue my own unique set of outcomes such that I am maximally satisfied.

Should the government place such a burden upon me as that I cannot ever be satisfied with my life, then I'd gladly pay homage to my ancestry and take up a new flag.

Live Free or Die

Indeed. I hope you recognize what this phrase means, beyond its application as propaganda.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't pin it on me. I never signed it.

Hell, one of my ancestors even voted against it at the constitutional convention of South Carolina in 1788. One of the other of the eleven delegates from his county voted for it against the wishes of his antifederalist constituents. That man and his family were run out of town by vigilantes. My ancestor didn't pack up and head into the western frontier in protest, though.

I'd like to think that he understood as I do: that while I may not recognize the right of the government to place a particular burden on me--only to suggest it--I do recognize that it has the ability to inconvenience me if I choose not to accept that burden, just as I have the ability to escape it by removing myself from the entity's jurisdiction; the best that I can do is to live my life to the fullest in the knowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect world, only a perfect adaptation of it that can be brought about by the discriminating selection of which laws to follow and which to disregard in the knowledge that there may be consequences, and in all other matters that I pursue my own unique set of outcomes such that I am maximally satisfied.

Should the government place such a burden upon me as that I cannot ever be satisfied with my life, then I'd gladly pay homage to my ancestry and take up a new flag.

Indeed. I hope you recognize what this phrase means, beyond its application as propaganda.

Completely. I understand its meaning. It is a shame it is so easily forgotten under the much more popular "The constitution is not a suicide pact." bleh.

I am a big fan of the antifederalists. As I said, I am quite the libertarian. I agree that you have the right to chose which laws to obey and which to ignore, but, as you have said, one must accept the consequences. I know that if someone ever did something to hurt my child they would have to deal with me directly, but in acting independent of the government, I accept that I will face punishment for my actions.

See, we basically agree with each other and all is well with the world :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am leaning towards Coog's position. These guys would not have gotten shot had they not been breaking into the house.

All these hypotheticals about "forgetting my key" and all are great, but the simple fact is that's NOT what these guys were doing and any reasonable person knows this. Hopefully, if it even gets to that point, any jury that looks into this case will consist of reasonable people.

Joe Horn isn't a wanton murderer and he doesn't deserve to be treated like one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am leaning towards Coog's position. These guys would not have gotten shot had they not been breaking into the house.

Are we sure Joe didn't hallucinate that part?

All these hypotheticals about "forgetting my key" and all are great, but the simple fact is that's NOT what these guys were doing and any reasonable person knows this. Hopefully, if it even gets to that point, any jury that looks into this case will consist of reasonable people.

The problem is, a jury is supposed to look into it before a sentence is passed. We don't know what these people were doing, we only know what Joe Horn thought they were doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try reading TJones post again, then see if it makes more sense. After I described how Joe Horn went went outside to shoot the 2 men because they were a threat to his neighbor's property, TJones said:

It sounds to me like TJones is saying we shouldn't just use deadly force to defend our lives after they are threatened (reactive), but should instead use it to stop anyone who might possibly eventually threaten our lives sometime in the future (proactive). I suspect everyone might be harboring malice in their hearts, so why not just be proactive and kill them all?

Going out and trying to kill all the suspected badguys, BEFORE they have been caught in the act, would be pre-meditated. The difference of what Joe did, was that he actually SAW the two thieves in the act of commiting a crime and were now heading towards his house after the officer asked him, "Where are they now ?" Joe couldn't see them, but knew they were on the move, so he went outside to see where to. SURPRISE, the thieves are now in Joe's frontyard, brandishing a crowbar, and holding the evidence of their crime in the other and they are now only 15 feet away from him, in Joe's frontyard and Joe tells them in no uncertain terms, "Move, and you're dead !" They obviously decided to move, and were shot in the chest, according to the witness.

I will admit, that if I see theives coming out of my neighbor's house, with a bag of loot and a crowbar, and are now coming towards my house to do who knows what. I am not gonna ask them what their intentions are at that point. I am sure I will be able to discern that for myself, then I will tell them, "Move, and you're dead !" That meme, is being proactive. I will not wait for them to break my windows out before I would draw down on them, and if you wait until that happens, YOU might be the one winding up dead by the hands of the robbers, or perhaps just tied up and raped and then robbed. But I am sure that wouldn't be so bad to you, after all, nobody got killed, right ?

Meme, how is it that you know that the theives had no intentions of robbing Mr.Horn's house also ?

The whole fact of the matter is that NONE of this would have happened if 2 scumbags wouldn't have been breaking into houses and stealing people's stuff.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am leaning towards Coog's position. These guys would not have gotten shot had they not been breaking into the house.

True, and I agree with that. I'm not defending their actions. These guys were probably the scum of society. But I am saying that they have a right to a trial by jury, as opposed to trial by crazy next door neighbor with a riffle. Two wrongs don't make a right, and Joe Horn became just as much of a lawbreaker when he walked out the door with that gun and started firing it.

Joe Horn isn't a wanton murderer and he doesn't deserve to be treated like one.

I'm not so sure about that. Self defense doesn't involve going from a place of safety (inside the house behind a locked door) to a place of potential danger (confronting the perps in the yard/street), while telling a 911 dispatcher "I'm gonna go shoot them!" It sounds a lot more like murder to me than self defense, which is what Horn's attorney is claiming it was. When you listen to the entire tape of the call, it really sounds like he was very anxious to go out there and kill him some criminals. Even before he said he was going outside, he said to the dispatcher "I've got a shotgun. Want me to go stop them?" This guy was definitely somewhat of a loose cannon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going out and trying to kill all the suspected badguys, BEFORE they have been caught in the act, would be pre-meditated. The difference of what Joe did, was that he actually SAW the two thieves in the act of commiting a crime and were now heading towards his house after the officer asked him, "Where are they now ?"

What tape are you listening to? Here's the transcript I've seen:

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

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

There's nothing in there that says they were headed to Joe Horn's house.

Joe couldn't see them, but knew they were on the move, so he went outside to see where to. SURPRISE, the thieves are now in Joe's frontyard, brandishing a crowbar, and holding the evidence of their crime in the other and they are now only 15 feet away from him, in Joe's frontyard and Joe tells them in no uncertain terms, "Move, and you're dead !"

Again, where are you getting that? He said "Boom! You're dead!", after going outside with a shotgun. There's no telling where they would have gone if Joe Horn hadn't gone outside.

They obviously decided to move, and were shot in the chest, according to the witness.

What witness?

Meme, how is it that you know that the theives had no intentions of robbing Mr.Horn's house also ?

Huh? I have no idea what their actions were. What are you talking about?

The whole fact of the matter is that NONE of this would have happened if 2 scumbags wouldn't have been breaking into houses and stealing people's stuff.

And? None of this would have happened if lots of things hadn't happened. None of that makes Joe Horn's actions right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What tape are you listening to? Here's the transcript I've seen:

You obviously haven't heard the tape for yourself yet, quit taking a journalists transcription of the tape for your truth, listen to it for yourself for a change.

There's nothing in there that says they were headed to Joe Horn's house.

That's right, if Joe would have taken your passive action, they would have most likely tried to smash one of his windows in, are you gonna argue that they weren't in his frontyard ?

Again, where are you getting that? He said "Boom! You're dead!", after going outside with a shotgun. There's no telling where they would have gone if Joe Horn hadn't gone outside.

So, we should all just cower in our homes whilest bad guys get to run the streets and do as they please until HOPEFULLY they will just go away, especially if you ignore them ?

What witness?

Joe is the witness, I have heard from 2 sources that the dead punks were shot in the chest. If you have some different info as to where they were shot please share.

Huh? I have no idea what their actions were. What are you talking about?

Exactly, you have NO IDEA and neither did Joe, he could only go by what he had already witnessed from the 2 dead losers.

And? None of this would have happened if lots of things hadn't happened. None of that makes Joe Horn's actions right.

It all starts from what the P.O.S. criminals did first, NOT what Joe did last. You want to be a criminal, there are certain risks involved. One of those risks is a man who thinks he has the right to help protect his neighborhood from thieves, and may kill you with a shotgun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously haven't heard the tape for yourself yet, quit taking a journalists transcription of the tape for your truth, listen to it for yourself for a change.
I just listened to it. The transcript is accurate, except that they left out where Horn says "I'm gonna kill 'em", after he sees them leave his neighbors house, before he leaves his own house, while the 911 operator is saying "Stay in the house." That's premeditated murder, regardless of how much loot they stole.He never says they are coming toward his house. The operator asks him if he can see which way they are going and he says he can't, but he's going to go outside and see.So where are you getting your information?
That's right, if Joe would have taken your passive action, they would have most likely tried to smash one of his windows in, are you gonna argue that they weren't in his frontyard ?
If they were in his front yard before he left his house, why couldn't he see which way they were going? Why didn't he tell the 911 operator they were in his front yard?
So, we should all just cower in our homes whilest bad guys get to run the streets and do as they please until HOPEFULLY they will just go away, especially if you ignore them ?
No? Who said that?
Joe is the witness...
Joe Horn isn't a witness to the shooting, he's the shooter. You're really stretching for this, aren't you?
I have heard from 2 sources that the dead punks were shot in the chest. If you have some different info as to where they were shot please share.
What sources?
Exactly, you have NO IDEA and neither did Joe, he could only go by what he had already witnessed from the 2 dead losers.
And neither do you. We can go by what Joe Horn said on the tape (he didn't know where they were heading) or we can just make crap up.
It all starts from what the P.O.S. criminals did first, NOT what Joe did last. You want to be a criminal, there are certain risks involved. One of those risks is a man who thinks he has the right to help protect his neighborhood from thieves, and may kill you with a shotgun.
But we don't want to rely on vigilante's judgement. If Joe Horn thought you were robbing someone, would you rather he wait for the cops or kill you? Do you see the danger of placing our trust in people like Joe Horn?
Methinks memebag would argue with the wind.
It takes 2 to argue.
Actually one was shot point blank in the chest, the other turn to run as he shot and was struck in the side, he managed to make it 75 feet to the mailbox on the side of the street, and bled out behind the mailbox.
Where did you read that? I can't find any new info on the net.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meme, meme,meme, isn't it your stance that Joe should have just stayed in his house, locked behind his door, and waited until the burglars went away, and let the police try to find them later ?

As far as why Joe couldn't see the criminals at that point, perhaps Joe was in a part of his house where his view was obstructed from seeing the two men approaching his house, just because Joe couldn't see them, it doesn't change the fact that the criminals were still walking in his frontyard, now does it ? You still want to argue that they WEREN'T in his front yard ?

Regardless, I'll let the courts decide who is right and who is wrong. My opinion won't sway a prosecutor.

As far where are we getting are information. Why don't you try looking around a little harder, instead of relying on some out of town sources for your news. Here's a little help for you.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/pas...ws/5303222.html

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meme, meme,meme, isn't it your stance that Joe should have just stayed in his house, locked behind his door, and waited until the burglars went away, and let the police try to find them later ?

My "stance" is that Joe Horn shouldn't have said he was going to kill them, then gone outside and killed them.

As far as why Joe couldn't see the criminals at that point, perhaps Joe was in a part of his house where his view was obstructed from seeing the two men approaching his house, just because Joe couldn't see them, it doesn't change the fact that the criminals were still walking in his frontyard, now does it ? You still want to argue that they WEREN'T in his front yard ?

Sure, I'll argue that. I've seen no evidence they were in his front yard when he left his house. Where have you seen any evidence for that?

As far where are we getting are information. Why don't you try looking around a little harder, instead of relying on some out of town sources for your news. Here's a little help for you.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/pas...ws/5303222.html

That's where I'm getting my information. There's nothing on the Chronicle site that I can find that says they were headed to Joe's front yard or into his house. So, where are you getting that information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "stance" is that Joe Horn shouldn't have said he was going to kill them, then gone outside and killed them.

Meme, I have disagreed with a lot of what you have had to say in this debate, but you are dead on right with this statement. This WHOLE mess wouldn't even be a story, or even discussed here, had he not been so verbally excited on the telephone with the dispatcher and used the word, "kill." Once he did that, a whole 'nother can of worms was opened irrespective of the guys "getting away" with the robbery next door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was interesting that the he first said something along the lines of "they are getting away" (not coming at him), then he went outside, shot them, came back, and said they were in HIS yard. It sounds like he changed his story after the shooting.

It should be pretty clear for the investigators whether the bodies were on his lawn or not, and I think that will be one of the deciding factors in this case.

EDIT: The exact quote was "... he's down, he almost run down the street.", and then "I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!". So was the guy in his yard or was he down the street?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meme, I have disagreed with a lot of what you have had to say in this debate, but you are dead on right with this statement. This WHOLE mess wouldn't even be a story, or even discussed here, had he not been so verbally excited on the telephone with the dispatcher and used the word, "kill." Once he did that, a whole 'nother can of worms was opened irrespective of the guys "getting away" with the robbery next door.

Let this serve as an example for all of us. If you're about to kill someone, don't say anything about killing or death. Don't say what it actually is because truth isn't pretty enough. Use PC buzzwords like 'attempt', 'non-lethal force', 'incapacitate', and 'oops' in that order so as to cause someone sentimental and easily swayed by subtle imagery to believe without any actual first-hand knowledge of the events leading to the 'altercation' that you kept a level head and had every intention of not killing a known scumbag that society would've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars sending through the justice system and then incarcerating for several years. But whatever you do, make the scumbag dies. Otherwise he'll just have to be rehabilitated, likely at public expense.

The important thing is to give the pussified masses a nice clean story or they'll gossip about you on an internet forum, attempting to perform deep analysis of the semantics of everything you'd said while under duress. :rolleyes:

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Niche, the reason to keep your fat mouth shut has nothing to do with wussified masses and internet forums, and EVERYTHING to do with criminal law. The vigilante's statements that he is going to leave his home...where he was in no danger...and kill the burglars can be used to infer his intent. Since many of the potential defenses involve "defending oneself or property, and the question of whether the vigilante was repelling an attack, statements of aggression, such as, "I'm going to kill them" put those defenses in jeopardy.

The critical questions in this case is where the burglars were shot, and whether they can be shown to be aggressors or fleeing. Despite claims by many on this thread that they "know" what happened, these facts have not been disclosed. My belief is that if the vigilante was lucky enough to have shot the burglars on his own property, the DA will let him skate. If he shot them while they were fleeing...in other words, if he was not in danger...he will be indicted. The law on this has not changed. I do not believe the vigilante had any right to kill the burglars if he was not in fear for his life. His statements make it pretty clear he was not.

NOTE: The terms I used have the meaning that Texas law gives them. I do not wish to debate whether posters agree with the law or the definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...