I was glad to see Mr. Horn was cleared by a grand jury for shooting two two illegal immigrant burglars in his front yard.

Fedor, since this happened in your neck of the woods, what's the reaction down there?

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:
I was glad to see Mr. Horn was cleared by a grand jury for shooting two two illegal immigrant burglars in his front yard. Judging by the crime records of these two guys, society is much safer without them with us anymore.

Fedor, since this happened in your neck of the woods, what's the reaction down there?

Sup KKL,
this one may turn into another Rodney King-type ordeal. i AGREE with the courts decision, here is why:

There are many home invasions, not just here in H-town, but everywhere, where the homeowners are robbed and murdered. i believe Joe Horn was probably thriving off of fear and adrenaline because he witenssed the whole thing, and it was his neighbors/friends house that was getting jacked. this one is borderline self-defense/manslaughter. But i believe it was PURELY self defense, regardless of that hypocrite activist Quanel-X says.

to me, it goes back to a couple of scenarios, what would have happened if he, Joe Horn, waited for the police, would they have caught the robbers to begin with? If not, they most certainly would have come back, which is pretty terrifying thought itself to live with that thought in your mind that the same robbers may come back AT ANY TIME, because they missed their chance to PLOT & STEAL.

If the fuzz did catch them, WHAT WOULD HAVE THE LAW DONE anyway. A slap on the wrist?

But, most importantly, everything goes back to one thing, WHAT IN THE BLUE MONKEY HELL WERE THESE GUYS DOING INVADING A HOME TO BEGIN WITH?

The activist down here bi*** & wil march when a white man, such as this case, defends himself, but where are these activist trying to tell their people they so diligently defend, WHY ARE U BREAKING INTO HOMES ANYWAY??? just to steal what others work so hard for because u r too lazy and unshameful to go and work hard yourself for it? i mean, why can't they march for reasons like that?

i agree with the courts decision THOROUGHLY. i don't wish death upon anyone, but in all honesty, we all have the right to defend ourselves when we are in Joe Horn's situation. I truely believe these robbers would have murdered had they encountered the homeowners because they were obviously prepard for that breaking into someone's house.

Its easy for all of use to say, I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT JOE HORN DID, but adrenaline and fear, i am sure, can be a pretty potent combination.

You know, on one hand, it concerns me that he shot them in the back. On the other hand, I would feel scared and threatened having these guys even within shouting distance of me so I can't put myself in his shoes. Plus, if burglars know that they can attempt a break in and all the property owner can do is yell at them, then where's the deterrent?

Still, even with all the moral ambiguity, I can't believe I live in a country where a guy trying to protect his and his neighbors' property and personal safety becomes the bad guy.

Here's a good idea: let's spilt the country in two. Those who support Joe Horn can go live on one side, those that don't (the activist loonies) can live on the other. I know which side I'll be choosing. Good luck and God bless to those who choose the other. (Ever seen "Escape from New York?")

He's lucky the grand jury was "of his peers" as I believe he is one lucky man that he got off. The audio is very much not in his favor.

Even if he did feel the need to shoot them, he could have stopped them without killing them. However, when one chooses to commit burglary, then one should consider the risk that victims and witnesses may defend the property.

Do I feel sorry for the burglars? Absolutely not. They put themselves in that situation and got what they deserved.

I can't tell from the article, and I had no knowledge of this case before now. I have no problem with using a gun to defend yourself and/or your home -- many states have variations of the "castle doctrine", including Massachusetts. On the other hand, it appears (at least according to the article) the burglars were shot in the back, outside the home, while retreating. If that's accurate, while I'm not an "activist loony", as ecord describes me, then I do have a problem with that, the long criminal records of the victims notwithstanding. And I have to wonder if Mr. Horn would have pulled the trigger if the burglars had been, say, a couple of white teenagers.

Another thought that strikes me is wondering -- wondering -- how likely it is a Texas grand jury would return a bill on a Texan for shooting a couple of illegal Mexicans. I dunno. In any event, it'll be interesting to see if there'll be any federal interest in the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Extensioncord:
You know, on one hand, it concerns me that he shot them in the back.

You may feel differently given the circumstances. According to the police officer at the scene, one of the men ran toward Horn and then quickly turned away. Under these circumstances, I am not conerned he shot them in the back.

quote:

You may feel differently given the circumstances. According to the police officer at the scene, one of the men ran toward Horn and then quickly turned away. Under these circumstances, I am not conerned he shot them in the back.

But KKL, the point to me is that he did turn away and ended the threat. At that point, Mr. Horn's life was no longer in danger, but he still pulled the trigger. But then, I wasn't there, so it's easy for me to second guess the man's actions in the heat of what was happening.

Still, I can't think of a single justification for deliberately shooting anyone in the back, whatever the provocation.

If I saw someone attempting to seriously harm another, I could easily justify shooting them in the back.
Surely that is a single justification, no?

I know that does not apply in this case, but you were the one that could not find a single justification.

Kind of a fuzzy situation, but if he felt either he or his family were threatened, he was justified. I don't personally agree with shooting anyone in the back, though.

quote:

If I saw someone attempting to seriously harm another, I could easily justify shooting them in the back.
Surely that is a single justification, no?

I know that does not apply in this case, but you were the one that could not find a single justification.

Yeah, I can buy that.

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
Kind of a fuzzy situation, but if he felt either he or his family were threatened, he was justified. I don't personally agree with shooting anyone in the back, though.

Well, not necessarily. It depends if Texas is a no-retreat or retreat. In a retreat state, you must do everything you can to get yourself out of the situation before using deadly force, in no-retreat states, you don't have to do that.

Here is NY, you could feel threatened, but you still have to attempt all that is resonable to get away before you use force.

This case is really tricky. If it was his property, I would let him off too. Since it was his neighbors and he shot them while they were running away, it's really hard for me to say he's not-guilty even though I want to. I just don't think this meets the requirements for self-defense. Tough case.

I don't care about the race, or immigration status of the criminals, I'm more looking at the implications of this decision. I don't think it's a good thing to allow people to kill to defend property that isn't theirs or a close relatives.

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
Kind of a fuzzy situation, but if he felt either he or his family were threatened, he was justified. I don't personally agree with shooting anyone in the back, though.

Well, not necessarily. It depends if Texas is a no-retreat or retreat. In a retreat state, you must do everything you can to get yourself out of the situation before using deadly force, in no-retreat states, you don't have to do that.

Here is NY, you could feel threatened, but you still have to attempt all that is resonable to get away before you use force.

This case is really tricky. If it was his property, I would let him off too. Since it was his neighbors and he shot them while they were running away, it's really hard for me to say he's not-guilty even though I want to. I just don't think this meets the requirements for self-defense. Tough case.

Texas = No-Retreat.

Also, in Texas, it is NOT uncommon to find in your homeowners association manual, where it states that all residents withing the residing community are citizens on patrol/COPS. that by all means, basically in short, your house is your house, but the community belongs to all in the community. something like that. there is also a section to where it states & elaborates that each home owner is free practice his/her 2nd amendment rights. (To keep & bear arms).

that right is taken really seriously here in Texas, in fact, i am actually in the process of going getting my license to carry a concealed weapon/gun. Why? because it is my right. Because if of B.S. home invasions such as this. Also, to assure that i don't get ripped off buying my cigars. Just kidding.

two potential burglars, bigger, stronger than I am since I am old. Breaks into my neighbor's place and ransack it for money, I feel obligated to say do something. Go out with a gun to protect myself. One of them act like they are charging me, I think I would've pulled the trigger even if they turned the other way. What if he turned to retrieve a weapon?

quote:

Originally posted by Fedor Skywalker:

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
Kind of a fuzzy situation, but if he felt either he or his family were threatened, he was justified. I don't personally agree with shooting anyone in the back, though.

Well, not necessarily. It depends if Texas is a no-retreat or retreat. In a retreat state, you must do everything you can to get yourself out of the situation before using deadly force, in no-retreat states, you don't have to do that.

Here is NY, you could feel threatened, but you still have to attempt all that is resonable to get away before you use force.

This case is really tricky. If it was his property, I would let him off too. Since it was his neighbors and he shot them while they were running away, it's really hard for me to say he's not-guilty even though I want to. I just don't think this meets the requirements for self-defense. Tough case.

Texas = No-Retreat.

Also, in Texas, it is NOT uncommon to find in your homeowners association manual, where it states that all all residents withing the residing community are citizens on patrol/COPS. that by all means, basically in short, your house is your house, but the community belongs to all in the community. something like that. there is also a section to where it states & elaborates on each home owner are free practice his/her 2nd amendment rights. (To keep & bear arms).

that right is taken really seriously here in Texas, in fact, i am actually in the process of going getting my license to carry a concealed weapon/gun. Why? because it is my right. Because if of B.S. home invasions such as this.

I figured Texas was no-retreat because it is Texas . However, I wasn't sure.

That' an interesting law there. By all means, property rights are extremely important and I think there should be harsher penelties than there are. While citizens on patrol isn't a bad idea, I'm really unsure if they should be able to go to such an extreme. That law makes this an even more interesting, tricky case.

Sure, not a bad idea to have a weapon to protect your home. By all means, you should be able to use deadly force if somebody breaks into your home.

quote:

Originally posted by dstokely:
two potential burglars, bigger, stronger than I am since I am old. Breaks into my neighbor's place and ransack it for money, I feel obligated to say do something. Go out with a gun to protect myself. One of them act like they are charging me, I think I would've pulled the trigger even if they turned the other way. What if he turned to retrieve a weapon?

Good point D,

thats the thing, numbnuts on here and the activist think it is easy to just THINK about what u r doing. u probably can't think with all that adrenaline/fear rushing in your veins. i assume u merely are reacting from instinct.

-FS

If all they'd done was burglarize my neighbor's unoccupied home and as long as they were presenting no physical threat to anyone, I think I'd limit my actions to calling 911 and making sure I could describe them when the time came. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go charging out of my house with a loaded shotgun to confront two younger and stronger thugs who may or may not be armed themselves, and make my wife a widow.

But that's just me.

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:

quote:

Originally posted by Fedor Skywalker:

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
Kind of a fuzzy situation, but if he felt either he or his family were threatened, he was justified. I don't personally agree with shooting anyone in the back, though.

Well, not necessarily. It depends if Texas is a no-retreat or retreat. In a retreat state, you must do everything you can to get yourself out of the situation before using deadly force, in no-retreat states, you don't have to do that.

Here is NY, you could feel threatened, but you still have to attempt all that is resonable to get away before you use force.

This case is really tricky. If it was his property, I would let him off too. Since it was his neighbors and he shot them while they were running away, it's really hard for me to say he's not-guilty even though I want to. I just don't think this meets the requirements for self-defense. Tough case.

Texas = No-Retreat.

Also, in Texas, it is NOT uncommon to find in your homeowners association manual, where it states that all all residents withing the residing community are citizens on patrol/COPS. that by all means, basically in short, your house is your house, but the community belongs to all in the community. something like that. there is also a section to where it states & elaborates on each home owner are free practice his/her 2nd amendment rights. (To keep & bear arms).

that right is taken really seriously here in Texas, in fact, i am actually in the process of going getting my license to carry a concealed weapon/gun. Why? because it is my right. Because if of B.S. home invasions such as this.

I figured Texas was no-retreat because it is Texas . However, I wasn't sure.

That' an interesting law there. By all means, property rights are extremely important and I think there should be harsher penelties than there are. While citizens on patrol isn't a bad idea, I'm really unsure if they should be able to go to such an extreme. That law makes this an even more interesting, tricky case.

Sure, not a bad idea to have a weapon to protect your home. By all means, you should be able to use deadly force if somebody breaks into your home.

thats the thing is that the law now needs to intervene here because he did his part in practicing his rights, while defending the community and also, being a C.O.P. now our court system has decided he fullfilled that service thoroughly and justly. Without passion or prejudice??????????...............ehhhhhhhh thats where its borderline self-defense/manslaughter. Again, the courts have decided and i, in this case, agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Fedor Skywalker:

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:

quote:

Originally posted by Fedor Skywalker:

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
Kind of a fuzzy situation, but if he felt either he or his family were threatened, he was justified. I don't personally agree with shooting anyone in the back, though.

Well, not necessarily. It depends if Texas is a no-retreat or retreat. In a retreat state, you must do everything you can to get yourself out of the situation before using deadly force, in no-retreat states, you don't have to do that.

Here is NY, you could feel threatened, but you still have to attempt all that is resonable to get away before you use force.

This case is really tricky. If it was his property, I would let him off too. Since it was his neighbors and he shot them while they were running away, it's really hard for me to say he's not-guilty even though I want to. I just don't think this meets the requirements for self-defense. Tough case.

Texas = No-Retreat.

Also, in Texas, it is NOT uncommon to find in your homeowners association manual, where it states that all all residents withing the residing community are citizens on patrol/COPS. that by all means, basically in short, your house is your house, but the community belongs to all in the community. something like that. there is also a section to where it states & elaborates on each home owner are free practice his/her 2nd amendment rights. (To keep & bear arms).

that right is taken really seriously here in Texas, in fact, i am actually in the process of going getting my license to carry a concealed weapon/gun. Why? because it is my right. Because if of B.S. home invasions such as this.

I figured Texas was no-retreat because it is Texas . However, I wasn't sure.

That' an interesting law there. By all means, property rights are extremely important and I think there should be harsher penelties than there are. While citizens on patrol isn't a bad idea, I'm really unsure if they should be able to go to such an extreme. That law makes this an even more interesting, tricky case.

Sure, not a bad idea to have a weapon to protect your home. By all means, you should be able to use deadly force if somebody breaks into your home.

thats the thing is that the law now needs to intervene here because he did his part in practicing his rights, while defending the community and also, being a C.O.P. now our court system has decided he fullfilled that service thoroughly and justly. Without passion or prejudice??????????...............ehhhhhhhh thats where its borderline self-defense/manslaughter. Again, the courts have decided and i, in this case, agree.

Yeah, I'm pretty big on propety rights, but I just don't think your property rights should extend to your neighbors property.