I Told Ya So: Texas Man Cleared for Killing Burglars

[Lemur]

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.

[InsaneApache]

Barbaric.

[Fragony]

LOL that is a bit much, catidel law?

[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....

[Lemur]

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."

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

[InsaneApache]

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?

[Fragony]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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: 

[InsaneApache]

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

[Oleander Ardens]

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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?

[InsaneApache]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

$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?

[Fragony]

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.

[CrossLOPER]

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

[InsaneApache]

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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

[Reverend Joe]

No, Panzer. Just... no.

[Tribesman]

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 .

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

[JAG]

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

Now that is the real question.

[Lemur]

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?

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[FactionHeir]

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?

[Devastatin Dave]

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...

[Lemur]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.