This guy didn't need no stinkin taser.
- Thread starter Wumpus
- Start date
In a case legal experts say may "stretch the limits" of the state's self-defense laws, a Pasadena man shot and killed two suspected burglars during a confrontation as they attempted to flee his neighbor's property Wednesday afternoon.
In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.
"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'
"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."
After the shotgun blasts, the telephone line went dead. But the neighbor called police again and told a dispatcher what he had done.
When police arrived moments later, they found two dead men in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive. One was across the street, and the other had collapsed two houses down behind a bank of mailboxes in the Village Grove East subdivision.
Up to the grand jury
Police said the neighbor, whose name was withheld Wednesday, appeared calm as he retraced his steps for police.
"He was well composed and knew what he was doing," Mitchell said. "He was protecting the neighbor's property."
It will be up to a Harris County grand jury to decide if the man committed a crime by opening fire, police said.
Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor.
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in his favor, LaFon said.
"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.
The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.
The neighbor, however, would have been on much safer legal ground if he had been trying to protect his own property, LaFon said.
Failed to stop
Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said the neighbor told investigators that he knew the next-door residents were not home. The man told investigators that he encountered the pair when they exited his neighbor's through a gate leading to the front yard.
Corbett said the neighbor asked the men, one of which was carrying a white bag, to stop, but they did not.
When police arrived the shooter was sitting on the ground and appeared to be very upset, Corbett said. "There was some discussion about calling an ambulance for him," Corbett said.
As of noon Thursday, no charges had been filed, Corbett said.
The shooter was very cooperative with police and lead officers though a run-through of what happened at the scene and later made a statement at the police station.
The white bag one the dead men had been carrying contained a large amount of cash that had apparently been taken from the house, Corbett said.
Two windows in the back of the house had been broken, one possibly as an entrance and the other as an exit, Corbett said. One was a regular window, but the other was translucent glass blocks. It was the sound of breaking glass that alerted the shooter, Corbett said.
Police have not found the families of the dead men, who both are in their 30's. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had paper indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, he said.
Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with blasts from a 12-guage shotgun.
The neighbor fired twice. One shot struck one of the suspected burglars in the chest, and the other was struck on the side.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.
But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.
A state senator who authored a law passed this year giving Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force said he did not believe the legislation he spearheaded would apply to the Pasadena case, based on the sketchy facts that have emerged so far.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, said the so-called castle doctrine law he wrote doesn't apply to people protecting their neighbors' property.
The measure "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Wentworth said. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."
A quiet neighborhood
On Wednesday afternoon, other residents were stunned to exit their homes to find police cars and yellow crime scene tape
Lacey Hernandez, who lives one block from the shooting, was home when she heard two loud pops, but couldn't identify the noise. A short time later, she was leaving to pick up her children from school when she noticed the police cars.
"I was in shock because I never heard a gunshot before," Hernandez said.
She described her neighborhood as very quiet. The subdivision is lined with two-story brick homes with trees in the front yards.
"We leave our garage door open," she said. "We let the kids run the streets just like nothing. Now they will not be playing in the streets."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5303222.html
In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.
"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'
"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."
After the shotgun blasts, the telephone line went dead. But the neighbor called police again and told a dispatcher what he had done.
When police arrived moments later, they found two dead men in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive. One was across the street, and the other had collapsed two houses down behind a bank of mailboxes in the Village Grove East subdivision.
Up to the grand jury
Police said the neighbor, whose name was withheld Wednesday, appeared calm as he retraced his steps for police.
"He was well composed and knew what he was doing," Mitchell said. "He was protecting the neighbor's property."
It will be up to a Harris County grand jury to decide if the man committed a crime by opening fire, police said.
Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor.
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in his favor, LaFon said.
"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.
The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.
The neighbor, however, would have been on much safer legal ground if he had been trying to protect his own property, LaFon said.
Failed to stop
Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said the neighbor told investigators that he knew the next-door residents were not home. The man told investigators that he encountered the pair when they exited his neighbor's through a gate leading to the front yard.
Corbett said the neighbor asked the men, one of which was carrying a white bag, to stop, but they did not.
When police arrived the shooter was sitting on the ground and appeared to be very upset, Corbett said. "There was some discussion about calling an ambulance for him," Corbett said.
As of noon Thursday, no charges had been filed, Corbett said.
The shooter was very cooperative with police and lead officers though a run-through of what happened at the scene and later made a statement at the police station.
The white bag one the dead men had been carrying contained a large amount of cash that had apparently been taken from the house, Corbett said.
Two windows in the back of the house had been broken, one possibly as an entrance and the other as an exit, Corbett said. One was a regular window, but the other was translucent glass blocks. It was the sound of breaking glass that alerted the shooter, Corbett said.
Police have not found the families of the dead men, who both are in their 30's. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had paper indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, he said.
Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with blasts from a 12-guage shotgun.
The neighbor fired twice. One shot struck one of the suspected burglars in the chest, and the other was struck on the side.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.
But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.
A state senator who authored a law passed this year giving Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force said he did not believe the legislation he spearheaded would apply to the Pasadena case, based on the sketchy facts that have emerged so far.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, said the so-called castle doctrine law he wrote doesn't apply to people protecting their neighbors' property.
The measure "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Wentworth said. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."
A quiet neighborhood
On Wednesday afternoon, other residents were stunned to exit their homes to find police cars and yellow crime scene tape
Lacey Hernandez, who lives one block from the shooting, was home when she heard two loud pops, but couldn't identify the noise. A short time later, she was leaving to pick up her children from school when she noticed the police cars.
"I was in shock because I never heard a gunshot before," Hernandez said.
She described her neighborhood as very quiet. The subdivision is lined with two-story brick homes with trees in the front yards.
"We leave our garage door open," she said. "We let the kids run the streets just like nothing. Now they will not be playing in the streets."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5303222.html
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
I own a few guns for recreational shooting (.22 lever action, 2-12 gauge shotguns, a 9mm and a 30-30 (given to me by my grandfather, I really have no use for it as I don't hunt)). Anyways, I have already made the decision not to load any of the guns should an intruder come into the house. It's not worth all the legal crap you need to deal with, I'd rather just call the police and wait it out than risk going to jail for the rest of my life... then again that's in Connecticut, where the gun laws differ slightly from those of Tejas.
The cops can't raise you from the dead, Sugarbush. And an unloaded gun is useless. No one says you have to shoot an intruder, either, even if you have a loaded gun. But if the intruder ends up being armed and dangerous, you've already made a decision to be at his mercy. (None of that means that a gun is anything but a last resort...making your home an unappealing and difficult target for crime is the first priority...but still, I believe in preparation. But if you're not willing or able to use a gun in self-defense, you shouldn't have a loaded one, either.)
That said, in this case, I think our man in Pasadena is going down. (Based ONLY on the scanty info in the article, which is likely incomplete; I'm not trying to hang him myself here...) There's no justification in shooting fleeing thieves. There is in shooting fleeing murderers or attempted murderers (or rapists), but he has no reasonable basis for believing the thieves had committed or threatened to commit a crime of serious violence against a person.
Even under the quoted Texas law, look at 9.24 (A) and (B). [post-edit 7/1/08: I think I meant to type 9.42 (A) and (B), and the following statement is actually inaccurate on closer reading of the statute] There has to be no reasonable alternative. I'd think that would mean showing the thieves were armed, dangerous, and unable to be apprehended by lesser means.
That said, in this case, I think our man in Pasadena is going down. (Based ONLY on the scanty info in the article, which is likely incomplete; I'm not trying to hang him myself here...) There's no justification in shooting fleeing thieves. There is in shooting fleeing murderers or attempted murderers (or rapists), but he has no reasonable basis for believing the thieves had committed or threatened to commit a crime of serious violence against a person.
Even under the quoted Texas law, look at 9.24 (A) and (B). [post-edit 7/1/08: I think I meant to type 9.42 (A) and (B), and the following statement is actually inaccurate on closer reading of the statute] There has to be no reasonable alternative. I'd think that would mean showing the thieves were armed, dangerous, and unable to be apprehended by lesser means.
Last edited:
He's done. 911 told him to stay in house, i.e. his life and/or property were in no immediate danger, the laws does not protect him protecting his neighbor's house. This is manslaughter IMO.
But, fwiw, I keep a shotgun in my house, loaded with very small shot in a small shell (small bird) At close range it's knock down but not deadly and more often than not, just that sound of a shucking shotgun will freeze most people.
But, fwiw, I keep a shotgun in my house, loaded with very small shot in a small shell (small bird) At close range it's knock down but not deadly and more often than not, just that sound of a shucking shotgun will freeze most people.
Or induce them to shoot at you.
If you're going to load the gun, don't use birdshot. Get a real non-lethal round if you must, or go with some 00 or #4 buck that will do the job of stopping an attacker. Guns aren't for posturing; they're for defending yourself when it comes down to that.
And with this guy, the fact that he's 70 might work in his favor. He's allowed the opportunity to defend property by law, and at 70, he couldn't be expected to use physical force to simultaneously restrain two young men...the gun was all he could do. He's got a shot at a defense with that under the Texas laws. It'll come down to what a jury thinks.
Man, now I need to get some of those rubber bullets or beanbags.
He should have gone with the old myth and dragged em back to his property!
Contrary to my earlier (glib) advice:
If you shoot someone with a non-lethal round, he is likely to try and kill you in turn--they don't always work as advertised. (Nonlethal projectiles are for police-type subdual situations with officers working as a team, not personal defense.) And if he doesn't recover and try to kill you, he'll sue your ASS off, and might very well win. And if it kills him, his family will sue your ass off, and they might win.
Unlike if you had a justified reason to shoot him and did so, killing him...the non-lethal round makes your case seem weaker. A jury will believe you if there was a legitimate threat to your life and you responded with deadly force. If you didn't use deadly force, the implication is that there wasn't a real threat to your life.
If you have a gun, be prepared to shoot and probably kill someone with it. It's not a tool for anything else, despite what some apologists might say.
Buy some really kickass pepper spray if you're not willing or able to shoot someone. It'll do you much better than a halfassed shotgun. The days of firing rock salt from a shotgun at people trespassing on your property are gone. Now, you should only use a gun if there's a deadly-force level threat. And if there's a deadly-force level threat to your life or that of another, you should respond in kind if you have the means.
(I also don't know if beanbags and baton rounds are available to the public for the liability reasons mentioned above.)
If you shoot someone with a non-lethal round, he is likely to try and kill you in turn--they don't always work as advertised. (Nonlethal projectiles are for police-type subdual situations with officers working as a team, not personal defense.) And if he doesn't recover and try to kill you, he'll sue your ASS off, and might very well win. And if it kills him, his family will sue your ass off, and they might win.
Unlike if you had a justified reason to shoot him and did so, killing him...the non-lethal round makes your case seem weaker. A jury will believe you if there was a legitimate threat to your life and you responded with deadly force. If you didn't use deadly force, the implication is that there wasn't a real threat to your life.
If you have a gun, be prepared to shoot and probably kill someone with it. It's not a tool for anything else, despite what some apologists might say.
Buy some really kickass pepper spray if you're not willing or able to shoot someone. It'll do you much better than a halfassed shotgun. The days of firing rock salt from a shotgun at people trespassing on your property are gone. Now, you should only use a gun if there's a deadly-force level threat. And if there's a deadly-force level threat to your life or that of another, you should respond in kind if you have the means.
(I also don't know if beanbags and baton rounds are available to the public for the liability reasons mentioned above.)
i doubt that neighborhood will have much of a burglary problem after this 
7400 block.....that's old man Shirley's place. You all want to stay away from there. That old man is crazier than a mad hatter and he has a shotgun, and a life sized Rex Grossman picture.i doubt that neighborhood will have much of a burglary problem after this
HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.
Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.
Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.
"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.
Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.
The two Horn suspected of committing burglary, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.
The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.
"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."
Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.
It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.
Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.
Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.
"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.
Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.
The two Horn suspected of committing burglary, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.
The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.
"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."
Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.
It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.
sweet! 
that completely justifies shooting them thensweet!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html
all i could think when i read the title of the article was, "only in texas."
Essentially that reads as (to me) legalized capital punishment without trial by untrained (often uninformed) laypeople.
*snort* Rule of law? In lala land probably.
*snort* Rule of law? In lala land probably.
So as a cop, you would prefer citizens mete out their own justice and just shoot everyone they see (most likely) committing a crime?sweet!
So its legal for the good old boys in Texas to murder illegals or anyone that looks like an illegal commiting a crime now? Yeehaw, I got me a gun and I'm going to shoot me a Mexican, dispite the cops showing up and the dispatch saying to stay put. WTF?
yes, i have no problem with citizens protecting their own land (or neighbors in their stead)
how retarded have our courts become when your home is no longer your sanctuary. In NC you can only shoot an intruder if it is apparent that the intruder is there to commit a VIOLENT crime against you. everyone knows that the average response time is in the 3 minute range and the court punishment is a joke so what is there to deter an intruder if they know they can just come in and take whatever they want w/out reprise? my family's security, both mental and physical, is worth more to me/them than the life of some piece of dirt that tries to break into my home regardless of intention.
and EOBF, it's not about the "good ole boys" killing "illegals", the part i highlighted in my previous post was just showing the fact that one of the suspects isn't exactly an upstanding citizen...well, not even a citizen at all but he definitely provides no benefit to society by continually committing larceny of air.
Mr Horn should be sitting in jail right now. The US justice system = fail.
Edit: He wasn't protecting anything. The suspects were leaving. He wasn't in any danger (neither were his neighbors as they were not home). He was specifically told not to shoot. He is a redneck who just wanted an excuse to shoot some non white folk.
Edit: He wasn't protecting anything. The suspects were leaving. He wasn't in any danger (neither were his neighbors as they were not home). He was specifically told not to shoot. He is a redneck who just wanted an excuse to shoot some non white folk.
So do you think if the thief gets away with some of your belongings and is arrested 10 minutes later, he deserves a death sentence?
Someone breaks into my house while Im there and armed, they're going to be dodging lead or dead. Who knows these peoples' intentions, and Im not going to waste time asking.
Now this case, with them leaving a currently unoccupied neighbors' place... maybe that's over the line, but I always say that any sense of community is totally lacking from this country, and Id sure be appreciative if my neighbors took to defending my home as they would their own. Plus, now the whole neighborhood is safer.
Does robbery deserve a death sentence? Surely not, but if the law empowers you to be the judge/jury/executioner and criminals are stupid/violent enough to test that system... then they deserve everything they get. No intelligence OR character...what good are they alive?
Now this case, with them leaving a currently unoccupied neighbors' place... maybe that's over the line, but I always say that any sense of community is totally lacking from this country, and Id sure be appreciative if my neighbors took to defending my home as they would their own. Plus, now the whole neighborhood is safer.
Does robbery deserve a death sentence? Surely not, but if the law empowers you to be the judge/jury/executioner and criminals are stupid/violent enough to test that system... then they deserve everything they get. No intelligence OR character...what good are they alive?
Last edited:
I've got to say, the glee some of you seem to be taking in these men being gunned down is pretty disgusting. Clearly they're not the most law-abiding individuals, but they're still human beings and they still had families that never get to see them again.
Also, if you're interested in starting any kind of meaningful discussion, maybe don't link to a race-bating youtube video glorifying an "upstanding white man" shooting Latinos. (Which, as I just noticed, was originally posted on podblanc[dot]com, which is billed as "white nationalism's answer to Youtube.")
Also, if you're interested in starting any kind of meaningful discussion, maybe don't link to a race-bating youtube video glorifying an "upstanding white man" shooting Latinos. (Which, as I just noticed, was originally posted on podblanc[dot]com, which is billed as "white nationalism's answer to Youtube.")
Last edited:
This is a tough one for me. The stubborn individualist in me congratulates Horn for stopping the thieves, even with lethal force. My ethical side, which is strongly against the death penalty, obviously abhors killing to prevent a simple theft.
My cynical and practical side knew Horn would not be charged with a crime in Texas.
I wonder how I would react if I saw someone roll off on my bike and I had a gun in hand.
My cynical and practical side knew Horn would not be charged with a crime in Texas.
I wonder how I would react if I saw someone roll off on my bike and I had a gun in hand.
This is just my opinion... I don't mean act like Im speaking for everyone, but I don't think the "glee" you're referring to is in response to these individuals getting killed. I think it's all about, at it's most basic form, good defeating evil. Good guy beats bad guy, etc. Vigilante justice has always been the stuff of legend.
While racists might take this story with glee, no one in this thread is racist.
These guys were scumbags, one deported for drug dealing. It would not matter much if they were white, black, Asian, or, in this case, Latino.
Maybe that's the problem right there. The only tool that you have to deter theft is something which is designed to do one thing which is to kill.
Maybe that's the answer. Tazers for everyone.
Do you know everyone posting in this tread and their feelings on race? I suspect not. I'm not casting aspersions on anyone in particular, I'm simply stating that making the very first post in this thread a link to a video titled "Upstanding White Man Blows Away Two Thieves" casts a racial tint on the entire discussion that follows, and makes me seriously question the motives of one that would post that link without reservation or disclaimer.
Also, I should point out that the one guy was deported for a "cocaine-related conviction." It may have been dealing, but it doesn't say that anywhere.
Last edited:
Ugh...everything has to have a racial tint on it nowdays...Ooooo look, it's whitey projecting power...Ooooo, it's the browns getting back at whitey with higher oil prices...
How 'bout this, that "cocaine-related conviction" slants like this to me:
Maybe he was from Medellin and was simply "embracing his heritage"...how bout them apples.
How 'bout this, that "cocaine-related conviction" slants like this to me:
Maybe he was from Medellin and was simply "embracing his heritage"...how bout them apples.
While it's fun to root for good triumphing over evil in the movies, this is real. Real people being shot to death. In the real world, we have these things called "shades of gray." Were these men misguided? Certainly. Stupid? Probably. Desperate? Well, obviously. Can you make a legitimate case for them being evil? Evil enough that their deaths should be celebrated?
Last edited:
I didn't force an innocent conversation into a racial framework for no reason. Read at the first post.
As for everything having a racial tint these day, take a moment to look at the world around you, idiot. As far as I'm concerned you anti-PC, "racism-is-dead-so-stop-talking-about-it" reactionaries are far more obnoxious and damaging than those people that play the race card at every opportunity.
This is worrying to me, because as a cop, you shouldn't be looking to these people as dirt, but other human beings. As soon as you are able to recognize them as less than human, it is easier to do atrocious things like war.manimal said:
EXACTLY! There was no danger to this man, they were leaving. What he did was cold-blooded murder.Transcend said:
The point of having courts is so people don't take it into their own hands. Nobody "deserves" anything just because the law is unjust. They are also PEOPLE, they don't need to have a reason to not be dead.BurlyShirley said:
Good vs evil is for movies, there is no inherent good and evil, it is all shades of gray. Vigilante justice has always been the stuff of racism and prejudice as well.BurlyShirley said:
Race is still extremely relevant today, Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't some Racism Jesus. When he died, all of our racism sins did not go away, and there is a lot of prejudice, even with the Civil Rights Act.SecretSquirrel said:
What it basically comes down to, is do you value somebody's life or your neighbor's property more? This man, and some people in this thread, value their neighbor's property more. The simple fact is that the robbers were not a threat, and there was no reason to shoot besides cold blooded murder.
Edit: \/\/\/ I think we all misunderstood your post squirrel, so ignore my above reply if that wasn't what you meant.
Last edited:
I'm sorry...I didn't accompany my post with the appropriate smiley's to convey that arguing about a TEXAS (you guys act surprised about the sh*t that comes from this place) supreme court final ruling is ridiculous.
I'm not saying there's no racism...quite the opposite. Don't think you "know me"...
But when people just start going off and getting pissy, I feel it's my responsibility to bring some levity. Sorry if that was misconveyed.
The whole diatribe thing isn't going get anywhere.
You were saying? Idiot.prana.ferox said:
I'm not saying there's no racism...quite the opposite. Don't think you "know me"...
But when people just start going off and getting pissy, I feel it's my responsibility to bring some levity. Sorry if that was misconveyed.
The whole diatribe thing isn't going get anywhere.
Alright, I apologize for calling you an idiot. I'll amend that to "This post makes you sound like an idiot."
And next time you want to bring "levity" to a discussion, you should try saying something actually amusing.
I posted the link because it was the 911 call. I don't remember it saying "upstanding white man shoots..." when I linked 7 months ago. Did you even watch(listen) or did you just dismiss it because of some tag? I don't even know nor really care what podblanc is.
Here is this one better:
Last edited:
I thought my Medellin reference had merit....sigh...
What bothers me is EVERYTHING has a racial tint. From Obama's fist bump to McCain's being old, white-bread, trophy wife middle america imaging.prana.ferox said:
Sometimes ya just gotta take a step back and look with a critical eye at what the big picture is. No one does that anymore. 24 hour "newz" networks have so much airtime to fill that they have to get caught up in minutiae and it snowballs from there.
Everyone is looking for the hidden meanings. What if (and this is going to sound whacky) there was no underlying racial reason that Mr. Horn shot the burglars? What if it had been two local teens that were drunk and just decided that lifting a stereo was a good idea? Would Mr. Horn have reacted differently in that instant?
I know I don't have enough info or background to even come close to speculating...I'll leave that to you, the professionals.
And now for the funny....
What's the best thing about high school girls?
They stay the same age!!
Ha!
As for the actual situation, I think this guy should be sitting in prison for a long time. He had no right to gun down two people that were evidently running away from him... pretty hard to argue he was in imminent danger.
And I think you should care what podblanc is. Personally, I would try to avoid linking myself with white supremacists on a public forum, but hey, that's just me.
Last edited:
murder, no doubt about it.
it's not defense if your not in danger.
it's not defense if your not in danger.
I based my earlier assessment of the legality of this shoot on Constitutional principles (4th amendment), because this is how I was trained. However, Constitutional principles don't apply here, because the Constitution only governs the conduct of the government with relation to the public. It is entirely irrelevant to the conduct of one private citizen/person to another. (Ed: that is to say that if the shooter had been a police officer, this would be an entirely different ball of wax...both criminal charges and a constitutional tort would potentially be at issue.) And, personally, I don't think I would have shot.
But all that matters here, legally, is Texas law. For everyone saying it was wrong, well, it's fine that you feel a moral outrage, but it's not a failure of justice in the sense that the law was properly applied. What he did does meet the legal test in Texas...he's permitted to use force to stop the robbery, and deadly force if no other option is feasible. Given his age, he had no other feasible means of stopping the robbery, which he was entitled to do.
9.41 makes it clear he can protect property by force. (Note that it does not say you have to be defending yourself to use force--you can force to *recover property*.)
9.42 makes it clear he had a the right to use *deadly* force to protect property in line with 9.41; in his case, being an old man confronting two thieves, the gun was the only reasonable method of force application. (9.42 elements (1), (2)(B), and (3)(B) apply together and complete the statute.)
9.43 (1) makes it clear that he had a right to use force defend the property of another, not contingent on a request by the owner to do so.
Likewise, there is, to my knowledge, no law (not that I'm a Texas state law scholar) saying he is bound to follow the instructions of a dispatcher on the phone. If it had been an officer in person, that might be different. Might make him guilty of failure to obey a police officer in the line of duty, but even then, he's still within the law as far as the shooting was concerned.
The law is pretty clear and the grand jury seems to have applied it to the letter. I think it's right that the prosecutor submitted for an indictment and that a jury of his peers had the final say; however, this certainly isn't an instance of jury nullification. That's no comfort to those of you who think Texas's laws aren't right or nice, but that's probably a good reason not to move to Texas, or to commit a crime there.
MD
But all that matters here, legally, is Texas law. For everyone saying it was wrong, well, it's fine that you feel a moral outrage, but it's not a failure of justice in the sense that the law was properly applied. What he did does meet the legal test in Texas...he's permitted to use force to stop the robbery, and deadly force if no other option is feasible. Given his age, he had no other feasible means of stopping the robbery, which he was entitled to do.
9.41 makes it clear he can protect property by force. (Note that it does not say you have to be defending yourself to use force--you can force to *recover property*.)
9.42 makes it clear he had a the right to use *deadly* force to protect property in line with 9.41; in his case, being an old man confronting two thieves, the gun was the only reasonable method of force application. (9.42 elements (1), (2)(B), and (3)(B) apply together and complete the statute.)
9.43 (1) makes it clear that he had a right to use force defend the property of another, not contingent on a request by the owner to do so.
Likewise, there is, to my knowledge, no law (not that I'm a Texas state law scholar) saying he is bound to follow the instructions of a dispatcher on the phone. If it had been an officer in person, that might be different. Might make him guilty of failure to obey a police officer in the line of duty, but even then, he's still within the law as far as the shooting was concerned.
The law is pretty clear and the grand jury seems to have applied it to the letter. I think it's right that the prosecutor submitted for an indictment and that a jury of his peers had the final say; however, this certainly isn't an instance of jury nullification. That's no comfort to those of you who think Texas's laws aren't right or nice, but that's probably a good reason not to move to Texas, or to commit a crime there.
MD
Last edited: