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
-
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
your ability to cut and paste, as well as change the color of text, is truly remarkable.
However, I still stand by my assertion.
Your inability to do your own research is truly remarkable. I posted the link so I wouldn't have to post the other (less relevent) statutes. For someone who passed the bar, I didn't expect to have to spell this out in crayon.......
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
? 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.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm0 -
quote:Originally posted by TwoDogs
Local thugs have put out a "hit" on Horn.
Inside or outside of the gates.
Houston Chronicle.
Well maybe Mr. Horn will get a chance to kill a few more of these doodoobags!
Got Guns?0 -
Greetings,
Count me in! We dont have too much around here but, we don't owe too much either. I can spare some for Joe Horn if the need arises.
Machinist Mate 1st Class, United States Navy (Retired)0 -
I predict that Mr. Horn will be charged to curb any vigilantism and to keep the liberal media and anti-gun voters happy. However, I also predict the trial will end in a mistrial due to a hung jury. Nonetheless, Mr. Horn will still have some hefty legal bills, both criminal and civil, as he will likely face "wrongful death" suits from the families of the dirtbags. 0 -
Dano: The problem is: How many times in your LE career has pointing a gun at a crook and demanding that they freeze simply started a long and tiring foot chase?
I agree that his words caught on the 911 tape are not the best for keeping Mr. Horn on the street. But any lawyer can twist the words around to mean anything they want.
Horn killed two scum bags that the federal government failed in their duty to keep out of this country.
The prosecutor will go for a grand jury. And anybody that thinks a grand jury "is a jury of your peers" needs some education.
If the grand jury indicts, no jury will find Horn guilty.
But then the feds will try Horn for violation of the crooks civil rights and Horn will spend several years in prison, if the current federal prosecutors are still in office.
I also find it interesting, as the defense of Horn will find it to be a tool for acquittal, that the dispatcher could have told Horn that the police were on scene, and that there was no need for Horn to go outside. Just enough truth to keep Horn inside and out of trouble, so why did they not use it?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Spider7115
I predict that Mr. Horn will be charged to curb any vigilantism and to keep the liberal media and anti-gun voters happy. However, I also predict the trial will end in a mistrial due to a hung jury. Nonetheless, Mr. Horn will still have some hefty legal bills, both criminal and civil, as he will likely face "wrongful death" suits from the families of the dirtbags.
You might be right about the reason why he might be charged. This part reminds me of the Marine who shot and killed another Marine for running away from him on his post after being told to halt. He was charged and fined .19 cents(?) for the cost of the round, and then handed his orders for a change in duty station. Horn's attorney appeared on Fox News, (O'Reilly), last night and identified himself as Joe Horn's friend, so he might get a huss on attorney fees if in fact he is a friend.0 -
dano, are you related to the perps or what? I think Mr.Horn did a great thing for this country.Maybe if more neighbors did the same thing our jails wouldn't be as crowded.Somebody had to start cleaning this country up,so way to go Mr. Horn. 0 -
dano, I'm not willing to kill someone who is stealing ny neighbors TV. I'm as "law and order" as anyone,but I aint shooting anyone until they threaten my family or me..... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
your ability to cut and paste, as well as change the color of text, is truly remarkable.
However, I still stand by my assertion.
Your inability to do your own research is truly remarkable. I posted the link so I wouldn't have to post the other (less relevent) statutes. For someone who passed the bar, I didn't expect to have to spell this out in crayon.......
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
? 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.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
next time, use magic marker and big block letters. crayon is way to confusing to lawyers.[:p][;)]
I honestly didn't see the link in your previous post. Too busy countin' all my lawyer money I guess.
I will admit that the other sections do support the contention that deadly force CAN (not necessarily will) be justified to protect property in Texas, even another's property. They are definitely in the minority on this issue though. Not all the facts are known by us, and likely never will be, but from all appearances it seems that Mr. Horn acted within the law, and is justified in the shooting. My previous position has now been modified based upon a more complete understanding of the law. Thanks, RackOps.
BTW, I still take issue with your assertion that the other sections are somehow less relevant. 9.41 and 9.42 give us much-needed and essential background and foundational circumstances to determine when a such a shooting is justified. 9.43, standing on its own, is not the end of the story, as any lawyer could tell you.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
I still take issue with your assertion that the other sections are somehow less relevant. 9.41 and 9.42 give us much-needed and essential background and foundational circumstances to determine when a such a shooting is justified. 9.43, standing on its own, is not the end of the story, as any lawyer could tell you.[;)]
On that point, you are correct...."Less relevent" was a poor choice of words and not exactly what I was trying to say.
I didn't want to clutter the post with statutes that most folks aren't going to read anyways, which is the same reason I highlighted what I considered the most important part.
Anyways, out of curiousity, I looked up Kentucky's laws in dealing with this same scenerio. As I expected, shooting thieves is A-OK, whether they are fleeing or not [^]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
I still take issue with your assertion that the other sections are somehow less relevant. 9.41 and 9.42 give us much-needed and essential background and foundational circumstances to determine when a such a shooting is justified. 9.43, standing on its own, is not the end of the story, as any lawyer could tell you.[;)]
On that point, you are correct...."Less relevent" was a poor choice of words and not exactly what I was trying to say.
I didn't want to clutter the post with statutes that most folks aren't going to read anyways, which is the same reason I highlighted what I considered the most important part.
Anyways, out of curiousity, I looked up Kentucky's laws in dealing with this same scenerio. As I expected, shooting thieves is A-OK, whether they are fleeing or not [^]
there may be lots of reasons to NOT live in KY, but that's certainly not one of them.
My outlook on this case is altered, if not changed completely. I still think killing to protect property (especially property that is not yours) is wrong, morally speaking, and I take issue with laws that treat life, even criminal life, so cavalierly. Deadly force is justifiable only in the most dire circumstances, IMO.
On the other hand, the positive law of these jurisdictions allow such use of force in such circumstances, and Mr. Horn was well within his legal rights, even if I disagree with his actions on a personal or moral level. As such, he should not be prosecuted.0 -
dano, are you still so sure he's going to be prosecuted?
Looks like you owe me a case of beer [8D]0 -
Like Dano I will not be contributing to his defense. He committed murder, irrespective of how deserving his victims may have been. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments