I Told Ya So: Texas Man Cleared for Killing Burglars

Sometimes I just have to whip my hairy little lemur hands in the air and scream, "I told you so!"

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglars while he was talking to a 911 dispatcher won't be going to trial. A grand jury on Monday declined to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in Pasadena, Texas, just outside Houston. [...]

Joe Horn: "I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?"

Dispatcher: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Joe Horn: "Hurry up, man, catch these guys, will you? Because I ain't gonna let them go. I'm gonna kill him."

Dispatcher: "OK, stay in the house."

Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"

Dispatcher: "That's alright."

Joe Horn: (Shouts to suspects) "Move, you're dead."

Three gunshots can be heard on the tape. Both suspects were shot in the back and were pronounced dead at the scene.

Now who was it that was declaring that this man would be convicted of murder, no question? Stand up and be counted, so's I can score petty points of "I'm so right."

-edit-

Since this thread has gotten longish, here's the audio of the full 911 call, which got posted somewhere on page 3 or 4.

Barbaric.

LOL that is a bit much, catidel law? :laugh4:

Good for him. I want to move next door to this guy. Now I will sit back and watch all the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the fate if the criminals in this case....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

LOL that is a bit much, catidel law? :laugh4:

---

Are you referring to the "castle doctrine"? 'Cause that doesn't apply in this case, although many people thought it did. Here's the relevant bit of Texas code:

According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Looks like the grand jury disagrees with you Lemur, my old friend. I tell you thought, if I was your neighbor and saw a couple of fellas stealing your Che t-shirts and collection of pickled aborted fetuses, I'd shoot them for ya. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Good for him. I want to move next door to this guy. Now I will sit back and watch all the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the fate if the criminals in this case....

---

So you believe it to be a good thing to value a TV set over a human life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Good for him. I want to move next door to this guy. Now I will sit back and watch all the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the fate if the criminals in this case....

---

Would you shoot someone in the back if he ran of with your flatscreen? Not really feeling particulary sorry for the criminals but there is such a thing as losing yourselve, shooting someone over something you can easily replace no way. I don't think your laws were meant for this and this really should go to court to see where and how the law applies.

Lemur, meant taking castle law a bit to far, total war lingo, catidel>castle.

Seriously, this man's life wasn't even remotely in danger. And couldn't he have at least fired off a warning shot first? I mean, even if he only had a double-barrel shotgun, it was dark and they might not be able to tell he only had one shot left (and who wants to be the one to get nailed over a TV, anyway?)

Look, until the day that the Worldwide Aryan Conspiracy comes to fruition, and the cops really turn on the people, there's no reason for the people to take the law into their own hands, unless they have absolutely no other option.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:jester:

This thread has got it's trainers on....

A sad day. Guess it is hard for some to see the difference between shooting somebody in his own house in selfdefense and gunning down running thiefs posing no thread to life at all in you neighbours lawn. Coldblooded murder. A crime comitted against helpless men with a clear mind and precise intention against the direct and good advice of an authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

So you believe it to be a good thing to value a TV set over a human life?

---

You mean the "human lives" of these two ciminals (illegal aliens that should not have been here in the first place) http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html
(WOW, mugshots,hmmmm)

Yes, my 5 inch, black and white TV with no screen and smokes when plugged in is worth more than their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

This thread has got it's trainers on....

---

~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

You mean the "human lives" of these two ciminals (illegal aliens that should not have been in this) http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html
(WOW, mugshots,hmmmm)

Yes, my 5 inch, black and white TV with no screen and smokes when plugged in is worth more than their lives.

---

Right on. They should've tried to make an honest living. I mean, you break into a house in Texas, what do you expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

You mean the "human lives" of these two ciminals (illegal aliens that should not have been here in the first place) http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html
(WOW, mugshots,hmmmm)

Yes, my 5 inch, black and white TV with no screen and smokes when plugged in is worth more than their lives.

---

In that case I feel sorry for you. Illegal aliens or not is not the point. In my world I would not kill anyone for pinching a telly, after all you can buy 'em in Wal-Mart from about $70. $70 for a human life is cheap. Very cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

$70 for a human life is cheap. Very cheap.

---

So if we're talking a flatscreen, or maybe a DVD player (built into an Aston Martin), then it's more acceptable to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

You mean the "human lives" of these two ciminals (illegal aliens that should not have been here in the first place) http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html
(WOW, mugshots,hmmmm)

Yes, my 5 inch, black and white TV with no screen and smokes when plugged in is worth more than their lives.

---

You can't be serious. If not they really shouldn't have been there indeed. Protecting private property is one thing but I really wouldn't want to be the type of person that shoots someone for a tv. And that isn't for the mugshotboy's sake.

I guess I shouldn't look suspicious in Texas. Someone might shoot me and say I was a burglar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

So if we're talking a flatscreen, or maybe a DVD player (built into an Aston Martin), then it's more acceptable to you?

---

If any scrote laid his mucky mits on my DB9 I'd ring Dave up pronto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I guess I shouldn't look suspicious in Texas. Someone might shoot me and say I was a burglar.

---

I got an idea, don't commit crime, then you'll just have to worry about the criminals killing you.:beam:

And the moral of the story is: Don't steal other people's crap. Justice prevailed.

No, Panzer. Just... no. :no:

Quote:

---

Good for him. I want to move next door to this guy.

---

Why is that Dave, do you have some fetish about living next to someone who says they made a mistake and if they had the chance again they wouldn't have done what they did ?



So you have this old fella who thinks he knows the law but doesn't , who goes out and executes two criminals after the police have already turned up .

Quote:

---

Seriously, this man's life wasn't even remotely in danger.

---

It was , and that is what the ruling is about , he was in danger once he went out with a gun and started a confrontation .
A great verdict , people are now allowed to shoot in self defense if they instigate an action where they can feel threatened .
But look on the bright , side he was lucky .... lucky the police didn't shoot him when he walked into the street with a gun when they were on the scene looking for dangerous criminals:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

So you believe it to be a good thing to value a TV set over a human life?

---

:bow:

Now that is the real question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Looks like the grand jury disagrees with you Lemur, my old friend.

---

Darling Dave, what the hell are you talking about? I was the one saying no jury would convict him, or even bring charges. I was right. That's the entire point of this thread. Lemur = Right. Sheesh, can't you understand that?

Quote:

---

No, Panzer. Just... no.

---

Those men made a conscious decision to commit to criminal activity and all the inherent risks associated with such an endeavor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

So you believe it to be a good thing to value a TV set over a human life?

---

Easy to say as an observer. Still, what would you do if someone broke into your home and you had a weapon? Let them get away with it because life is so precious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Darling Dave, what the hell are you talking about? I was the one saying no jury would convict him, or even bring charges. I was right. That's the entire point of this thread. Lemur = Right. Sheesh, can't you understand that?

---

My little Pussy Willow, I was commenting on your other post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
LOL that is a bit much, catidel law?

Are you referring to the "castle doctrine"? 'Cause that doesn't apply in this case, although many people thought it did. Here's the relevant bit of Texas code:

According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Kisses...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

My little Pussy Willow, I was commenting on your other post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
LOL that is a bit much, catidel law?

Are you referring to the "castle doctrine"? [quotes on texas law re: property and defense]

---

Dashing, Daring Dave, and this supports your post how? I was quoting the relevant bit of Texas law in support of what the guy did. So how does this justify your "too bad the jury disagrees with you, Lemur" comment?

Look, I love getting love-bites from you, but please read what I write before nibbling on me, okay?

Let's get back to more important matters, like how very right I was. I predicted he wouldn't even be charged. Several Orgahs pooh-poohed me at the time. You know who you are! I want all of those Orgahs who said I was wrong to now go to their User Profile and write "Lemur was right" a hundred times.

-edit-

Wait a minute, I think I see where the misunderstanding happened. It's all my fault. I said that the "castle doctrine" didn't apply in this case, which is correct. Then I quoted a bit of a different statute, the part that does apply. But I phrased it in such a way that you could read it and think I was quoting the castle doctrine.

Ugh. My bad! Once again:

Castle doctrine does not apply in this case.

However, there is a relevant Texas law which does, and which covers exactly the circumstances which occurred. Here are excerpts from that law:

According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Hope that goes some small way to clearing up teh confusion. And I'm still right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Darling Dave, what the hell are you talking about? I was the one saying no jury would convict him, or even bring charges. I was right. That's the entire point of this thread. Lemur = Right. Sheesh, can't you understand that?

---

ROFL!!

No. He doesn't!!!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!

Next thing, Crazed Rabbit will start posting here asking why Lemur wants to ban hand guns!!

Teh deaf. Teh blind. Oh, teh dialogue. :wall::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Why is that Dave, do you have some fetish about living next to someone who says they made a mistake and if they had the chance again they wouldn't have done what they did ?

:

---

Not a fetish, just an understanding that the law enforcement in this country is slow to react, court systems are filled with weak justice against criminals, and happy that these two wastes of human skin will never commit a crime again.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Those men made a conscious decision to commit to criminal activity and all the inherent risks associated with such an endeavor.

---

Just like there is work and play there is using the law an living the law, or at least there should be. If we were robots we wouldn't need laws, but we aren't, this sounds like living the law gone wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Easy to say as an observer. Still, what would you do if someone broke into your home and you had a weapon? Let them get away with it because life is so precious?

---

Sooo ... death penalty for burglars and thieves? And I thought cutting off hands was already pretty harsh punishment...

And to answer your question (although you did not ask me) - when someone stole something from me, my first thought was definitely not "Gosh - if I had a gun now I would so kill this guy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

Those men made a conscious decision to commit to criminal activity and all the inherent risks associated with such an endeavor.

---

Based on that I would suggest that people also should be shot on the spot for e.g. speeding or drunk driving (even more so as these people are a direct threat to the safety and lives of other people)

If a grand jury failed to indict him, it must've been pretty clear cut. Ever hear the saying "A DA could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwhich?" Basically, the grand jury said there wasn't even enough evidence of a crime to even warrant a trial.

Thank you, Xiahou, for explaining what a Grand Jury does. If any Orgahs are curious to read more about this, please note that Wikipedia has a helpful article here. If you believe that Wikipedia is a tool of the liberal elite latte-sipping commies, Conservapedia has an article here.

Quote:

---

Not a fetish, just an understanding that the law enforcement in this country is slow to react

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Pehaps you had better choose another case to rave about then as the police were on the scene while this old fella was still on the phone being told to stay in his house .

Quote:

---

Sooo ... death penalty for burglars and thieves? And I thought cutting off hands was already pretty harsh punishment...

---

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Based on that I would suggest that people also should be shot on the spot for e.g. speeding or drunk driving (even more so as these people are a direct threat to the safety and lives of other people)

---

thats completely nailed em on that arguement:2thumbsup:

The thugs themselves are responsible for their own deaths, and no one else. Focusing the discussion on a terrified old man, the victim, completely misses the cause in order to scrutinize the effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Sooo ... death penalty for burglars and thieves? And I thought cutting off hands was already pretty harsh punishment...

And to answer your question (although you did not ask me) - when someone stole something from me, my first thought was definitely not "Gosh - if I had a gun now I would so kill this guy".

---

Not exactly what I said.
I said If you had a weapon and someone was robbing your home, what would you do? rather than what you would be thinking if someone were to rob your home.
So you already have a weapon, would you use it at all or just let him steal everything right in front of you? How would this be modified if he were to break into the kids' room (with intention of stealing only, but you can't know this)?

I don't think they should get a death penalty in court, but I think the person being robbed should be able to defend themselves with deadly force without being jailed themselves rather than stand idly by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Based on that I would suggest that people also should be shot on the spot for e.g. speeding or drunk driving (even more so as these people are a direct threat to the safety and lives of other people)

---

I completely agree. If I ever caught someone speeding or drunk driving on my property, I'd chase them off guns a' blazing as it would be very dangerous on such a small lot.

Quote:

---

Focusing the discussion on a terrified old man, the victim, completely misses the cause in order to scrutinize the effect.

---

How was he a victim ?
Or given that he chose to leave his home and confront two people despite the advice of the dispatcher how was he terrified ?
He is only a victim in that he thought he knew the law but didn't so he was a victim of his own ignorance , and he was ony terrified in that choosing to take the action in ignorance of the law meant he got scared about a possible prosecution .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Thank you, Xiahou, for explaining what a Grand Jury does. If any Orgahs are curious to read more about this, please note that Wikipedia has a helpful article here. If you believe that Wikipedia is a tool of the liberal elite latte-sipping commies, Conservapedia has an article here.

---

https://img399.imageshack.us/img399/4831/rofldr0.gif

Lemur, your belief in human reason is truly touching. But don't you see it? They're off already on the usual rants, as if nothing happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

So you already have a weapon, would you use it at all or just let him steal everything right in front of you? How would this be modified if he were to break into the kids' room (with intention of stealing only, but you can't know this)?

---

If somebody like in the original case stole something from me (or a person I know) and was already running away (and this has happened to me) - I can only repeat that I did not feel like killing him.
Sure ... I was upset and angry - but killing? Sorry, I do not like my stuff that much that I would kill for it. The breaking into the kids' room is an entirely different situation and chances are that if I had any kind of weapon I would use it in such a situation - but as I said - completely different scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

He is only a victim in that he thought he knew the law but didn't so he was a victim of his own ignorance , and he was ony terrified in that choosing to take the action in ignorance of the law meant he got scared about a possible prosecution .

---

Another one who isn't reading what I posted. There is a law in Texas that covers this situation, and it's clearly on his side.

Details can be found here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I completely agree. If I ever caught someone speeding or drunk driving on my property, I'd chase them off guns a' blazing as it would be very dangerous on such a small lot.

---

:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Dashing, Daring Dave, and this supports your post how? I was quoting the relevant bit of Texas law in support of what the guy did. So how does this justify your "too bad the jury disagrees with you, Lemur" comment?

Look, I love getting love-bites from you, but please read what I write before nibbling on me, okay?

Let's get back to more important matters, like how very right I was. I predicted he wouldn't even be charged. Several Orgahs pooh-poohed me at the time. You know who you are! I want all of those Orgahs who said I was wrong to now go to their User Profile and write "Lemur was right" a hundred times.

-edit-

Wait a minute, I think I see where the misunderstanding happened. It's all my fault. I said that the "castle doctrine" didn't apply in this case, which is correct. Then I quoted a bit of a different statute, the part that does apply. But I phrased it in such a way that you could read it and think I was quoting the castle doctrine.

Ugh. My bad! Once again:

Castle doctrine does not apply in this case.

However, there is a relevant Texas law which does, and which covers exactly the circumstances which occurred. Here are excerpts from that law:

According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Hope that goes some small way to clearing up teh confusion. And I'm still right.

---

My misunderstanding, allow me to say...
Lemur was right!!! Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!

Oh, Lemur was right BTW...:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How was he a victim ?

---

:laugh4:

How were the two men any more victims?

I don't think it's physically possible for me to get tired of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I don't think it's physically possible for me to get tired of that.

---

Good Lord, DevDave actually went and did it ... :stunned:

That makes three of us who are, properly speaking, in and of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If somebody like in the original case stole something from me (or a person I know) and was already running away (and this has happened to me) - I can only repeat that I did not feel like killing him.
Sure ... I was upset and angry - but killing? Sorry, I do not like my stuff that much that I would kill for it. The breaking into the kids' room is an entirely different situation and chances are that if I had any kind of weapon I would use it in such a situation - but as I said - completely different scenario.

---

Sorry someone stole from you, hope you got it back ~:)

But the case here was that he witnessed them in the process of removing goods (they were crawling out of a window) and then running out with things rather than seeing them as they were already running away. Also, he went out and told them to stop, but instead of running with or without the things, they actually came up to him (entering his property) and threatened him.

In response to the question aimed at me, it's proportional action. If you advocate the death penalty for murder, that I could understand. At one point in my life I felt the same. As SC eloquently put it, killing a bloke for nicking your record player [I'm an old fogey :wink:] is a bit OTT.

Hey, I just had a thought.......they wern't atheist homos as well were they? :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Another one who isn't reading what I posted. There is a law in Texas that covers this situation, and it's clearly on his side.

---

Yes but he was ignorant of that law wasn't he

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Not exactly what I said.
I said If you had a weapon and someone was robbing your home, what would you do? rather than what you would be thinking if someone were to rob your home.
So you already have a weapon, would you use it at all or just let him steal everything right in front of you? How would this be modified if he were to break into the kids' room (with intention of stealing only, but you can't know this)?

I don't think they should get a death penalty in court, but I think the person being robbed should be able to defend themselves with deadly force without being jailed themselves rather than stand idly by.

---

Well of course Ser would invite them to sit down and have a calm discussion on the reasons why these criminals (law deprived individuals for the PC crowed out there) were put into this position by the evil capitalists and how they should join and overthrow their oppressive governments. Then they would join hands and skip down the road in solidarity and love and all crime would cease. Global warming would end, George Bush would be hung, and no one would ever be hungry or cold again. Universal healthcare for everyone...

Allow me to try to resolve this issue. And I'm gonna put it in big, bold letters so nobody can miss it.

They were running away.

Had the two men been killed inside his house, it would have been justified, because the man could argue that his life was in danger.

But his life was not in danger. They were running away. And it wasn't even his house being robbed. He had no reason to follow them outside and place himself, the two robbers, AND POSSIBLY INNOCENT BYSTANDERS in jeporady.

To continue this further, I might also add that, had the robbers been unarmed, and had the man followed them outside with a baseball bat and disabled them, without killing them, there still would be no problem. The two men could be arrested and prosecuted, and the guy would get his precious damn TV back.

But killing them is vigilante justice, and our society has agreed that, outside of your home, the only people allowed to use lethal force in the pursuit of justice are the authorities.*

*Well, up until now, anyway. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Another one who isn't reading what I posted. There is a law in Texas that covers this situation, and it's clearly on his side.

Details can be found here.

---

I was just about to link that article, it gives detail that other coverage seems to lack. One salient piece of information is that the burglars were indeed on Horn's property at the time they were shot. More and more, it sounds to me like Horn was well within the law in his actions. That doesn't make him a hero, but it certainly doesn't make him a criminal either.

What I'd really like to read, if someone can find it, is the full transcript of the 911 call. I've read several different "versions" of it already and I'm wondering how much creative editing the papers are doing to make it better fit their stories.

You can listen to what appears to be an unedited version here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Allow me to try to resolve this issue. And I'm gonna put it in big, bold letters so nobody can miss it.

They were running away.

Had the two men been killed inside his house, it would have been justified, because the man could argue that his life was in danger.

But his life was not in danger. They were running away. And it wasn't even his house being robbed. He had no reason to follow them outside and place himself, the two robbers, AND POSSIBLY INNOCENT BYSTANDERS in jeporady.

To continue this further, I might also add that, had the robbers been unarmed, and had the man followed them outside with a baseball bat and disabled them, without killing them, there still would be no problem. The two men could be arrested and prosecuted, and the guy would get his precious damn TV back.

But killing them is vigilante justice, and our society has agreed that, outside of your home, the only people allowed to use lethal force in the pursuit of justice are the authorities.*

*Well, up until now, anyway. :shame:

---

Well, let's see.
1. They were in the process of stealing when he noticed them and called 911.
2. He only went outside when they ran with the goods and crossed his property
3. He told them to stop but they didn't.
4. He shot, but we don't know if the intended to kill with those shots.
5. You expect a 61 year old man to keep up with two young men and manage to beat them with a baseball bat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You can listen to what appears to be an unedited version here.

---

Excellent, thank you. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I was just about to link that article, it gives detail that other coverage seems to lack. One salient piece of information is that the burglars were indeed on Horn's property at the time they were shot. More and more, it sounds to me like Horn was well within the law in his actions. That doesn't make him a hero, but it certainly doesn't make him a criminal either.

---

But this sure is a precedent nonetheless, from now on the machine will refer to a case where... well this does take it a bit far no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Well of course Ser would invite them to sit down and have a calm discussion

---

Actually, being the nice guy that I am, I would help them carrying the heavy stuff to their van like a good boyscout. :sweatdrop:

Death for everything by on-site civilian court!


octosquid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Well, let's see.
1. They were in the process of stealing when he noticed them and called 911.
2. He only went outside when they ran with the goods and crossed his property
3. He told them to stop but they didn't.
4. He shot, but we don't know if the intended to kill with those shots.
5. You expect a 61 year old man to keep up with two young men and manage to beat them with a baseball bat?

---

How the hell come didn't the neighbor do something? And why did he bother to go outside to begin with? They weren't his goods and he was only putting himself in danger. They were his neighbor's responsibility, not his. And by shooting he was putting people in danger, regardless of if he intended to kill.

And for that matter, what if he had missed them both and hit someone's kid? What if he had hit someone's kid in the process of firing a warning shot?

Oh, and for the record, my 62 year old father could easily catch up to any two burglars and beat the living :daisy: out of them with a bat. He even has a giant Louisville slugger to do the trick.

Actually after listening to the tape just now, he saw them break in, take stuff and then come out again. He waited about 6:40 minutes on the line telling the dispatcher about the burglary before going out to warn/shoot them because they entered his frontlawn.

His neighbors weren't in at the time of the burglary btw and there are no other people nearby mentioned.

Quote:

---

You can listen to what appears to be an unedited version here.

---

And it appears Horn was a bloody idiot intent on nothing but killing .
He isn't going to go outside because to do so will be too dangerous then he goes outside .

Wasn't he lucky the police outside didn't shoot him .

Still wasn't his business, even if they were on his lawn. It wasn't his house being robbed. And the rest of my points stand.

And for that matter, it should be illegal to shoot someone on your lawn to begin with. Unless they come inside the house, there's just not enough justification to use lethal force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

He waited about 6:40 minutes on the line telling the dispatcher about the burglary before going out to warn/shoot them because they entered his frontlawn.

---

If I understood the tape correctly, he decided to go outside when he saw them carrying "loot" - when he actaully went outside he said that he did not see where they were going. He only mentioned that they were on his frontlawn when he went back in.
It does not seem that he went outside because they entered his property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

And for that matter, it should be illegal to shoot someone on your lawn to begin with. Unless they come inside the house, there's just not enough justification to use lethal force.

---

It's not though. The emotional/moral arguments are separate from the legal one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If I understood the tape correctly, he decided to go outside when he saw them carrying "loot" - when he actaully went outside he said that he did not see where they were going. He only mentioned that they were on his frontlawn when he went back in.
It does not seem that he went outside because they entered his property.

---

That doesn't really matter though. There was no law prohibiting him from going on his own front porch. If he then saw two known burglars on his property and felt at all threatened by their actions (the only other witness, a plain clothes officer who had arrived on the scene said at least one of them initially appeared to run at Horn), he was within the law to shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That doesn't really matter though. There was no law prohibiting him from going on his own front porch. If he then saw two known burglars on his property and felt at all threatened by their actions (the only other witness, a plain clothes officer who had arrived on the scene said at least one of them initially appeared to run at Horn), he was within the law to shoot.

---

I am not questioning that what he did ultimately was within the law - based on the information I can see in this thread I simply have my doubts that his actions were justified (and I certainly disagree with some general views in this thread with regard to what is justified and what not)

Lemur was indeed correct.

Its obvious to me that even if the old man was cleared by the grand jury because he was within the technical aspect of the law, that he did not meet the intent of the castle defense law. The law was intended to allow people to defend their home and property against theft and invasion by those who they believed "intended" to harm them. When he placed himself into the deadly situation against the advice of the 911 operator, I believe he removed the reasonable aspect of the law.

Well, Lemur, YOU WERE RIGHT. But this 2nd ammendment supporter wishes you weren't. This guy sounds like Charlie freaking Bronson out there. Shooting people in the back as they're running away from you... reasonable fear for one's life.... :dizzy2:

I don't argue that the police are woefully inadequate, and they themselves would tell you that it is their job to maintain civil order first, investegate crimes that have occurred second, and then if time allows, prevent crime third.

And that's why there's things like the Castle Domain precedent. But this guy antagonized them, and from what I can tell, they were non-confrontational.

When I went for my concealed-carry permit, the rule on 'fear for your life' was that there was no other option, you could not avoid the situation. That's clearly not the case here. This guy should have stayed in his house. Dialing 9-11 was the right thing to do.

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them.

I wonder Wayne LaPierre will publish this in the next Rifleman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's not though. The emotional/moral arguments are separate from the legal one.

---

No, it's not... if laws are immoral, they are wrong. If this man was fully within his rights, then the laws need to be reformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them.

---

He saw them smash the window in with a crowbar before crawling thru broken window to gain entry to the house. Minutes later, he saw them leave thru the same window carrying a sack of "loot". I think he was fairly safe in assuming they weren't helping his neighbor move.

Furthermore, if I was helping my friend move via a broken window and then while crossing thru the neighbor's yard, the neighbor pointed a shotgun at me and said "move and you're dead", I would probably stop... :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them.

---

He told the dispatcher that he saw them break in with a crowbar...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Furthermore, if I was helping my friend move via a broken window and then while crossing thru the neighbor's yard, the neighbor pointed a shotgun at me and said "move and you're dead", I would probably stop... :idea2:

---

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying? ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I am not questioning that what he did ultimately was within the law - based on the information I can see in this thread I simply have my doubts that his actions were justified (and I certainly disagree with some general views in this thread with regard to what is justified and what not)

---

I think even Horn now says he regrets having gone out on his porch. I think the whole situation was unfortunate- but the easiest way for it all to have been avoided would've been for the burglars not to rob some strangers house....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying? ~:eek:

---

I would be supremely interested in what he was saying. :yes:

Nobody's arguing the robbery wasn't wrong.* What we're arguing was wrong was the whole shooting thing.

*Of course, I can't speak for all my liberal hippie friends here... i'm sure there's at least one nut out there who thinks the robbers should have gotten away with it because they were illegal immigrants. But no sane person is arguing that the robbery wasn't wrong.

Edit: seriously, Xiahou, you do know what a redneck vigilante is, right?

Okay, put it this way: if you were in a back alley in Harlem I know you wouldn't be, but for argument's sake, it's basically an equivalent situation for these guys) and a giant black guy came out of a door with a handgun and said, "Freeze, sucka!" don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Okay, put it this way: if you were in a back alley in Harlem I know you wouldn't be, but for argument's sake, it's basically an equivalent situation for these guys) and a giant black guy came out of a door with a handgun and said, "Freeze, sucka!" don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

---

I lol'd.

So is a TV worth a human life? Gosh, I don't know. Undoubtedly the price of a pound of flesh has fluctuated wildly over the last few hundred years.

However what we don't know is...

1) The economic situation of the person whose house was broken into. Were they well off? Were they 'comfortable'? Were they in debt? Did they own the house lock, stock & barrel or did they have a mortgage? Were they barely able to make their mortgage payments or were they behind? Was the owner, a woman (per the 911 recording), insured against theft? If she was what if the items that were stolen were not covered by insurance or were undervalued by the assessors? What if she was barely making ends meet and this theft would have pushed her irrevocably into the red? Was she young or old? Employed or unemployed? Did she have a medical condition that required considerable personal expenditures to treat? Etc., etc., etc.

2) The value of the loot. What would these robbers have made off with had they been allowed to escape? A nice pile of cash taken from the mattress? Antiques? Jewelry and/or irreplacable family heirlooms?

3) The respective criminal records of the thieves. Were these first time thieves or experienced pros? How many lives did they violate prior to this incident? It turns out that both of these thieves were illegal immigrants from Columbia. Did they have a criminal record in Columbia? Did they have difficulty securing low skilled labor jobs with local contractors & businesses or did they simply refuse to pursue a life of hard work and opted for the risky but profitable career of burglary?

It's one thing to say no life is worth taking over a color TV but we rarely consider how the actions of thieves affect those whose rights and property they violate.

Obviously my position on this matter goes without saying. Personally I believe if you're dumb, desperate and contemptuous enough to rely on criminal acts to make ends meet then you deserve what miserable end the Fates spin for you.

Quote:

---

don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

---

I would definitely think of panicking and running. He might like throwing lollipops in refrigerators and exclaiming his ability to do so. I don't know. But if someone told me to freeze in a commanding tone that implied ability to act with deadly force, I'd stop breathing to satisfy those requirements. A shotgun click would confirm my fears.

I think that he was within his rights to shoot the two offending criminals. I have no problem with someone like that living next door. If he eagerly pursued them with a shotgun, then I would question his legality, but if my neighbor's house was being broken into, I would call 9-1-1 first, then the cop who lives a couple houses down. The police are great, but I doubt they'll get back in time.

If someone was taking my television, VCR and all, I'd call emergency first, then try to get my stuff back. It's my stuff! While you all may speak platitudes about 'material things being immaterial' or something like that, I'd be hitching up with a baseball bat/golf club/vehicle and chasing after the thief. I care about my stuff, and it makes a conversation piece.

I don't like vigilantes on the most part, but if the authorities cannot or are unable to act I would take force into my own hands, be-darn the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

So is a TV worth a human life? Gosh, I don't know. Undoubtedly the price of a pound of flesh has fluctuated wildly over the last few hundred years.

However what we don't know is...

---

I can shed some light on 2) and 3):

2)From what I've read, the value of the stolen "loot" was approximately $2000. That'd be a lot of money for me to lose, but it could be downright crippling for some.

3)At least one of the burglars had a criminal record and had been previously deported on drug charges.

Quote:

---

Obviously my position on this matter goes without saying. Personally I believe if you're dumb, desperate and contemptuous enough to rely on criminal acts to make ends meet then you deserve what miserable end the Fates spin for you.

---

I think this is more or less where my opinion is settling. If, instead of being killed by a law-abiding suburban home owner, they had been killed during a drug deal gone bad- would we even be talking about this? Either way, crime is a dangerous career choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying? ~:eek:

---

Guess they should have learned the language of the country in which they are ILLEGALLY within...:laugh4:
Bang!!!