Donate Money to Joe Horn Defense ?
After seeing a few programs on the news I decided he was within the law and did a good thing. If he is charged and goes to trial, would you donate to his defense fund ? I think I might.
0
-
I doubt he'll be charged, but I would likely chip in 0 -
I heard Jesse Jackson is involved with lobbying and petitioning the local DA, governor and mayor to bring charges. I think things will be politicized enough that charges will be brought. I dont think he would be convicted though. I will help him out for a good defense though. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
You go too far out on a limb.....be prepared for a fall.....[B)]
He's gonna do time....and he should! [:o)]
Wanna bet?0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
You go too far out on a limb.....be prepared for a fall.....[B)]
He's gonna do time....and he should! [:o)]
Personally I think what he did was okay. However, I just cant see 12 people convicting him. I also think he did a great service in reducing future crime.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by dano
You go too far out on a limb.....be prepared for a fall.....[B)]
He's gonna do time....and he should! [:o)]
Wanna bet?
Lucky for me....I don't need the $$.
But...I'll bet ya a case of beer....[:p]
Are we allowed to pick our favorite type?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Civil Rights
After seeing a few programs on the news I decided he was within the law and did a good thing. If he is charged and goes to trial, would you donate to his defense fund ? I think I might.
I wouldn't. He went beyond what is reasonable force.
Think about this; He is going to do time. If he gets off, a precedent is set and anybody who has been robbed or otherwise, has gripe with someone, can just shoot them. The system isn't gonna let this happen.0 -
from what i heard he probably has a good legal reason for the shooting. when he exited his house one or both of the robbers had an instrument in their hand and were approaching him. this fulfills the legal requirement for Joe Horn to "have reasonable fear for his own life or well being" and thus he is allowed to use whatever force necesarry. 0 -
The only thing more obvious than your BS anecdotes is your ignorance of the situation. He is 100% justified under Texas Law.
What the drive-by Media thinks, is irrelevant.
What the prosecutors and cops think is irrelevant.
The only thing that's relevant is whether a Grand Jury, made up of his peers will avise to prosecute or "no bill".
I'm better the latter.
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
quote:Originally posted by Civil Rights
from what i heard he probably has a good legal reason for the shooting. when he exited his house one or both of the robbers had an instrument in their hand and were approaching him. this fulfills the legal requirement for Joe Horn to "have reasonable fear for his own life or well being" and thus he is allowed to use whatever force necesarry.
Mr. Horn was warned REPEATEDLY by the 911 dispatcher, NOT to leave his home and approach the bad guys.
[^]
Thats true and it sounds bad and incriminating on the tape. However, he had the LEGAL right to exit his house. Its his property and he is allowed to be armed on his own property.0 -
He shot 2 men in the back with a shotgun. Seems against the law to me. Even though they were crooks. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
Mr. Horn was warned REPEATEDLY by the 911 dispatcher, NOT to leave his home and approach the bad guys.
By doing so, he just signed off on his own incarceration order. [^]
I wasn't aware that a 911 dispatcher is the Supreme law of the land in Texas.
I'll take a case of Killian's BTW0 -
quote:Originally posted by Horney toad
He shot 2 men in the back with a shotgun. Seems against the law to me. Even though they were crooks.
Yup. Wasn't even his own property. You simply can't use deadly force to protect mere property, especially if it's not yours.0 -
Local thugs have put out a "hit" on Horn.
Inside or outside of the gates.
Houston Chronicle.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
Can anyone C&P the Texas law that states you have the right to leave the safety of your house / property while in pursuit of a criminal, and shoot him dead?
I'd like to look it over. [:)]
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
Yup. Wasn't even his own property. You simply can't use deadly force to protect mere property, especially if it's not yours.
Two for one....I love it
? 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.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
Texas statutes aside, Horn's own verbal declaration of using deadly force is what is gonna do him in.
Is admitting you're wrong really that difficult?0 -
Horn had the legal right to step outside of his property while armed. When he was then outside the men appeared before him and he felt his life was in danger. In my opinion that gives him the legal right to use deadly force.
I hadnt heard though that he shot them in the back ? Has that been confirmed by the coroner or police dept ? If so that doesnt bode well for him. Also, does anyone know what shot he was using and what distance he shot them at ? Seems unlikely to me that he could kill someone with a single shot with say #8 from more than 15 feet.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
Having been in LE for over 29 yrs., has given me incredible insight. [;)]
It has also appearently given you an incredible ability to completely ignore what the law says.....0 -
The dispatcher knew there was a plainclothes cop outside the residence and knew the perps weren't going anywhere. But did he tell the shooter this? Nope. Why? Two roaches squished and NO paperwork. Maybe? Politics will decide this one. In any reasonable jurisdiction, Mr. Horn would go down---hard.
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
No law in the land states that I have to kill an unarmed criminal. My job is to apprehend....not condemn and execute.
That is EXACTLY what Mr. good neighbor Horn did. [xx(]
Nice dodge. I clearly cited a Texas law which states that Mr. Horn's actions were permitted by law.
No law said he "had" to kill the perps....Fortunately, the law on the books didn't say he "had" to let them go either.
I prefer Longnecks, BTW0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
quote:
I hadnt heard though that he shot them in the back ? Has that been confirmed by the coroner or police dept ? If so that doesnt bode well for him. Also, does anyone know what shot he was using and what distance he shot them at ? Seems unlikely to me that he could kill someone with a single shot with say #8 from more than 15 feet.
Initial police reports state that both suspects were shot in the side / back. True or not....anyone's guess.
"Seems unlikely to me that he could kill someone with a single shot............"
Unlikley or not....two perps dead. [xx(]
What if it was your house, and joe horn was YOUR neighbor? Would you be so quick to condemn him? If he was my neighbor mortgage my house to defend him! [:X]0 -
if he had shot two teens with no criminal record i dont think i would have supported him. however, these were 40 yr old illegal aliens with LONG career criminal records who were under investigation by the feds. i say good riddance and thank you to joe horn. 0 -
Do you think that "justice" has anything to do with what happens next? How about the "law"? Media, politicians and the like are going to spin this thing so hard no one will see the "right story".
The sad part about this is that we as a country are driven to rely more and more on someone else to decide for us what to do. We rely on others for protection. That relationship in and of itself gives an edge to the "criminals". We are forced to allow others to make decisions "in our best interest". Me, I would like to decide for myself what is best for me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
quote:Originally posted by Civil Rights
if he had shot two teens with no criminal record i dont think i would have supported him. however, these were 40 yr old illegal aliens with LONG career criminal records who were under investigation by the feds. i say good riddance and thank you to joe horn.
From the sounds of it, I don't think it would have made any difference to Mr. Horn. [:)]
I don't think Mr. Horn had the ability to split hairs.
he sure did save LEGAL AMERICANS a fortune! the man should run for congress! and after we get him drinking with teddy we could stage a duel...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by dano
Can anyone C&P the Texas law that states you have the right to leave the safety of your house / property while in pursuit of a criminal, and shoot him dead?
I'd like to look it over. [:)]
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
Yup. Wasn't even his own property. You simply can't use deadly force to protect mere property, especially if it's not yours.
Two for one....I love it
? 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.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
your ability to cut and paste, as well as change the color of text, is truly remarkable.
However, I still stand by my assertion.
If you look at the statute, it requires the third person to have reasonably believed the use of force or deadly force was justified AND an act of thievery or interference was being committed. No where in the section you have posted does it tell us when a person IS justified in using force or deadly force to protect property, the required circumstances, etc. Those are to be found in sections 9.41 and 9.42 (the sections you didn't post), as 9.43 makes clear. Find and post them and if they plainly state that a private citizen is indeed entitled to shoot an unarmed thief exiting an empty house in the back with a shotgun, I'll gladly concede the point.0 -
I would donate money even though he shot them in the back! [:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by dano
Having been in LE for over 29 yrs., has given me incredible insight. [;)]
It has also appearently given you an incredible ability to completely ignore what the law says.....
No law in the land states that I have to kill an unarmed criminal. My job is to apprehend....not condemn and execute.
That is EXACTLY what Mr. good neighbor Horn did. [xx(]
I was not aware that Mr Horn was a policeman, if he is not why is he supposed to apprehend them. He is John Que Public doing what he thought best and I hope he comes out Okay when this is all done and the riots are over.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Civil Rights
if he had shot two teens with no criminal record i dont think i would have supported him. however, these were 40 yr old illegal aliens with LONG career criminal records who were under investigation by the feds. i say good riddance and thank you to joe horn.
And how could Mr. Horn possibly have known this when he killed them?0 -
The last Horn I remember on trial was Tom. There was a lot of doubt that he was guilty, but they hung him anyway. [:0][:(] 0 -
I read that he shot them in the back!!! I'm not a real big fan of back shooters. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
Okay, so I've taken some time and given this whole issue a lot of thought. I've kept an open mind, thought of others, just not myself, and am now considering going to church more often than I do. I also plan to contribute more to charites, do some volunteer work, help out in some homeless kitchens, and last but not least, give some of you clueless members more credit than I usually would.
After all the smoke cleared, I realized something very important.
I'm still right and the vast majority of you are still oh so wrong. [:D]
Taking the "high road" are we....not a bad place to be.....better sighting opportunities......0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments