Joe Horn defenders -- care to explain why you think

[stranger81]

a property crime deserves an extrajudicial death sentence?

I'm all ears . . . .

[acmavm]

1. Are you talking about that bloodthirsty fuckwit in Pasadena, TX?

I say this would be a good time to re-enact another old vigilante act, the lynching. See how the horrible old geeze likes that.

[stranger81]

3. yup, that's the one [n/t]

[The Magistrate]

2. The Cretin Was Looking To Kill Someone, Ma'am

He was dreaming of it for years, you can be sure. He ought to be charged with pre-meditated murder, as it is clearly what he has done. The incident really does not have much bearing on whether people are right or wrong to protect their property with deadly force in the absence of police officers..

[stranger81]

5. I couldn't agree more, but judging from posts on the other threads

about this guy, there are quite a few DUers that believe he was right to try to "protect" his neighbor's property by shooting at prowlers -- and that this trumps the bloodlust we all heard on his 911 call.

[The Magistrate]

7. Sentimentality, Ma'am, Attaches To Many Things Besides Sunsets And Kittens

Some have a sentimental attachment to violence, wholly divorced from its reality, and devoid of calculation concerning if and when it is necessary or appropriate. Fortunately, very few people actually do, in the course of their lives in a civil society, find themselves in situations requiring violence, but this has the effect of leaving some free to dream of it like an un-met lover....

"People who pursue happiness should be wary of catching it."

[alarimer]

10. I guess they figure that some lives are worthless

If you are a criminal, you are "asking for it" in their minds. But now there is no chance at rehabilitation at all.

[karlrschneider]

114. Am I the only one who finds your cloying commentary somewhat disingenuous?

Too much saccharine is as bad as too much vinegar.

[Richard Steele]

139. Probably. nm

[ladjf]

11. It was definitely wrong to shoot the men who apparently were

robbing the neighbors house. For one thing, H:Horn presumed to act on behalf of the neighbor without the neighbor's permission. Perhaps the neighbor's views are like many of ours, don't kill anyone over a trivial piece of property.

I would like to know, however, if the 911 operator had, during his conversation with Horn, alerted the policeman who he said were in the area. If so, why hadn't they arrived prior to the men leaving the neighbor's house?

From Horn's remarks during the phone conversation, it appeared to me that he was quite anxious to kill those men regardless of the extent of their apparent crimes.

[Horse with no Name]

86. And...what if the neighbor paid someone to steal his stuff?

It's not like THAT hasn't ever happened before.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

92. Reminds me of Bernie Goetz

A disturbed racist paranoic who was lauded as a hero for shooting 4 delinquints on the subway.

[KG]

4. yes, i'd be real interested in the justifcation of shooting someone in the back over a TV.

[WGS]

8. He shot them in the back?

I must have missed that part in the article.

[stranger81]

6. No explanations??? Don't tell me all the jokesters on Bluebear's thread

already crawled back under their rocks . . . . .

[alarimer]

9. I've been apalled by the support for this guy

It's very close to a premeditated act. Although I guess (not being a lawyer) murder 2 is probably the appropriate charge. I do not see any justification for what he did. It was not his property and no person was in danger. I know Texas passed a law that went into effect Sept. 1, but I don't know that it allows you to "defend" someone else's property in such a way. Also, why did he even shoot them if they were running away? How does anyone justify that? That is the very definition of cowardice.

I am completely shaken by the amount of support he is getting on this board. This is not a matter of self-defense. He was in no danger. No one else was in any danger. The thieves were unarmed. Texas is a pretty blood-thirsty place so I am not surprised that he would getting support where he lives. But vigilante "justice" is just wrong.

[Hangingon]

13. And you know all these detail how?

[stranger81]

16. we know these details because they've been published and we can read. n/t

[Hangingon]

55. I have yet to read that they were shot in the back.

Perhaps you have read with a bias and included "facts" to fit your preconceptions.

[Catherine Vincent]

84. One was shot in the side and one in the back. nt

[ladjf]

14. It is a difficult thing to face, but, it seems that there are far too

many Americans who are genuinely blood thirsty. Bush and his henchmen know this and profit from it.

[malaise]

103. Close?

It was premeditated.

[Hangingon]

12. Don't worry - Joe Horn will be lynched

Although the Texas penal code allows use of force to protect a third party's property - and there is some indication the guy with crowbar made menacing moves - Horn will spend a fortune on legal defense. He may even do time. The letters in the local paper todaywere supportive of Horn. They must be tired of burgulary, theft and robbery too.

[stranger81]

15. why do you equate requiring him to stand trial and perhaps do time

with a lynching?

[Hangingon]

63. The lynching is being done here by all the posters who have

convicted Horn of murder - a lynch mob like on the old TV westerns. Horn will go before a grand jury and may face criminal trial. He will almost surely face a civil suit. His legal bills will be considerable.

[stranger81]

72. A "lynching" means mob-based extrajudicial vigilantism . . . .

how does that describe trying this man for murder?

[Hangingon]

81. He is being lynched right here -

how well you feign naivete.

[Richard Steele]

142. You're saying a web-discussion is equivalent to a murder. What outrageous nonsense.

Two men are DEAD, and you are trying to say that an unflattering DISCUSSION
of their killer is somehow equivalent? That's one of the most repulsive
things I've seen here lately, even considering all the utter BULLSHIT being
posted by this vigilante's handful of blood-loving fans.

[ladjf]

17. I disagree. Among the large number of people who agree with

his actions, he will become legendary. And while he may have some legal fees to pay, he is likely to bask in the glory of his "courageous act" for the rest of his life. His children may very well boast about how their father shoot those "...... s.o.b's".

Another "hero" has been added to the pantheon of American brutality.

Similar situations are bound to happen in Florida and other states who now have statutes that encourage vigilante behavior.

[Hangingon]

70. Vigilante - the new code word

First, the guy is innocent until proven guilty - remember that or is it inconvenient. Second, he was acting in accordance with the law - see Texas penal code. He was not a part of an organized group as were the earlier vigilantes. He was apparently on his own property when the events took place. Reactions to the news story in the local paper indicate one of the perps had a crowbar and was advancing menacingly. We will have to wait for the investigation concludes to know about that. I wonder how DU will construe neighborhood watch groups? These are organized groups that drive around the city at night. Are these people vigilantes? How about the new "Citizen Journalist" - also know as a person with a cell phone who may well post on You Tube? These citizen journalists seeem to mislead as many people as they educate/

[The Magistrate]

19. He Should Do Time, Sir: He Committed Two Murders

The law you cite had nothing whatever to do with his actions: it was merely a pretext for him to fulfill his long-held fantasies of killing a man, an opportunity he felt life had handed him on a silver platter, that he could not pass up. He was defending nothing; he was indulging his lusts.

[ladjf]

20. You are exactly "on the money" with your analysis of this crime.

[tkmorris]

31. Forgive me, because I am no defender of Mr. Horn, but

What you just posted is pure opinion, nothing more. It is an opinion I largely agree with, but when it comes to prosecuting the man it would be dangerous to rely to heavily upon it.

[Hangingon]

66. Wow! I bet you reached this indepth analysis by reading the

posts here on DU. Have you ever met this man? Know anything about his community? Know about the level of criminality there? Well my hat is off to anyone who can look at gossip and hearsay and come up with firm conclusions about the actions of others. But you don't need my congratulations. I see your analysis has the support of at one other whacko.

[LanternWaste]

80. Listening to the actual 911 call...

Listening to the actual 911 call, it's pretty indicative that the individual wanted to do this. To say otherwise is to allow judgment to be clouded by righteous bias.

And is the magistrate's opinion going to decide the court case one way or another? Will his opinion lead to an increase or reduction in jail time? A guilty or innocent conviction?

Isn't an opinion board the prime place to put conjecture and opinion?

And, judging by your righteous indignation at someone for having the temerity to have an opinion, we can safely assume you have no opinions on this matter? Or any matter?

[Hangingon]

82. I too listened to the 911 call...

It was clear to me that Horn wanted to stop the crime in progress. It was also clear that he would defend himself if threatened.

I don't understand the paragraph about the magistrate.

An opinion board is a great place to offer opinion. The conjecture you refer to seems to me to simply add details that reinforce the prevailing opinion that Horn committed murder. That is still to be determined. Many of the supposed facts are yet to be established - were they shot in the back, where did Horn encounter the burglars, was he threatened. Those of us who don't jump to conclusions are free to offer our opinion too.

Yes I have opinions. I didn't know I had "righteous indignation". I suppose that give the vast amount of righteous indignation expressed here I should recognize it. I do react to the "he is guilty of first degree murder" statements when I feel that is still to be established. Yes, I also have opinions on many matters including the right of a citizen to act within the law in protecting property.

[SharkSquid]

88. He allegedly committed two murders

Just like the dudes he shot allgedly were robbing the joint.

Presumption of Innocence, its not just for O.J.

[lumberjack_jeff]

164. If it was his intent to indulge his blood lust...

... then why did he call the cops?

The transcripts suggest that he was on the phone with 911 for a significant period waiting for the cops to arrive.

When they didn't and the thieves appeared to be leaving, he went outside. At that point the facts are unclear, but the thieves were shot at a range of "less than 15 feet", and on the homeowners property. They clearly left the neighbors house and approached the homeowner.

Your view depends on the assumption that their intent was benign when they went onto his property and approached him. I find this doubtful.

In my opinion, there's less justification for our lynching of this guy than there was for our lynching of the Duke Lacrosse players.

[The Magistrate]

182. My Position, Sir, Does Not Depend On The Burglars' Benign Intent

It rests on the man's words in conversation with the dispatcher, and on his subsequent actions. He declared his intention, and did not even go through the motions of attempting to compel them to halt by threat of imminentf force.

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. Nor did the previously-convicted felons go through the motions of fleeing

... when caught in the act of yet another felony.

They instead approached the armed homeowner.

I do think it's tragic all around. The burglars were someone's loved ones. That said, burglary is, and should be, an inherently risky livelihood.

It is very difficult to ascertain what happened on the homeowners lawn. We know that he was being approached by two men that he had observed committing a felony and that the homeowner was in a state of anxiety because of the slow police response.

If the DA presses charges for murder, he should not have me on his jury.

[The Magistrate]

192. We Also Know, Sir, the Man Declared He Was Going Out To Kill Somebody

And was stupid enough to do it to a tape recorder.

He saw his chance and he took it: all the rest is rationalization and a transparent attempt to cloak his murderous intent in the law.

[lumberjack_jeff]

194. His "murderous intent" is hardly clear. If it were, he wouldn't have called the cops.

Nor would he have waited on the phone for a significant length of time for them to arrive. Nor would he have felt obliged to wait until the robbers approached to within 15 feet of him and his home.

It's not rationalization, it's innocent-until-proven-guilty.

[The Magistrate]

196. You Are Not Thinking This Through, Sir

He stated he intended to kill, before he left the house.

He left the house and killed.

He felt sure the law would cover him, particularly that it would cover him in killing a couple of young Blacks, and so he waited for the police in confidence he would be in no trouble.

People using a shot-gun shoot close in; it works much better that way, as you doubtless know.

His intention to kill, out of his own mouth, was fixed before he went out, which makes whatever the details of the confrontation irrelevant regarding his state of mind, and removes any possible argument he was reacting in accordance with reasonable belief, as the law requires, in the situation he contrived by leaving the house armed against the instructions of the police department.

[CT_Progressive]

18. Ok, I'll explain why (again).

First, lets talk about a criminal inside your own home.

OK, clearly, if I am home and I walk in on a criminal inside my house committing a property crime, my life is in danger. The moment I see them and they see me, the situation has changed from a property crime to a life/death situation. They could be armed with a weapon or could be jacked up on drugs. The law of the United States grants me the right to self-defense at this moment, and I am free to take the criminals life. Society considers this legal and moral.

Now, lets talk about the guy in Texas.

Here is Texas law:

=============================================
§ 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.

=============================================

As you can see, 9.43 transfers this Right to self-defense, which I described above, to a neighbors property.

Now, I don't agree with this law, but its a law in Texas. This man has the legal right to do what he did due to 9.43 above.

While I don't think he did the right thing, I will defend him because he did a legal thing. Just like I will defend a KKK member's Right to Free Speech, even if I abhor that speech. Its called "being liberal."

[The Magistrate]

21. The Man's Action Does Not Meet The Tests Of This Law, Sir

§ 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.


There was no reasonable belief, or ground for reasonable belief, deadly force was immediately necessary, or that use of less than deadly force would have exposed the man substantial risk of death or injury.

[CT_Progressive]

22. That's for the court to decide, not you or I.

I believe the shooting was good, you don't.

I'm sure the jury will be equally split.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. LOL

You decide that the law excuses him for murder, but it's up for the courts to decide the other way around?

:rofl:

[CT_Progressive]

26. No, its only my opinion that the law is on his side.

The courts will decide it one way or the other, I'm sure. Assuming the D.A. brings a case against him.

[The Magistrate]

29. So You Agree, Sir, He Should Be Arrested And Put On Trial?

[CT_Progressive]

34. No, as D.A. I would not arrest him.

But its possible the actual D.A. will.

[The Magistrate]

40. Then Your 'Courts Will Decide' Statement, Sir, Was Tactics, Not True Position?

The local district attorney certainly should work to secure an indictment from the grand jury.

[CT_Progressive]

47. I am trying to give my opinion as a non-legal-authority, and at the same time

answer your question (which can really only be answered by a trained legal person).

My layman's opinion: no trial, he is covered. I disagree morally, but support him legally (just like my KKK/Free speech analogy).
Legal opinion: No idea, but the real D.A. will determine this (what I referred to as "courts will decide").

[The Magistrate]

57. Fair Enough, Sir

[stranger81]

30. If you believe the shooting was "good," then what's your

supporting argument under this statute -- which you admit is applicable?

If your response is just to plead off that the courts will decide, then you don't have an argument at all.

[CT_Progressive]

36. I think the following protects his actions:

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 the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;

I am not a lawyer nor the D.A. so this is just a layman's opinion here.

[The Magistrate]

37. As Indicated Above, Sir, It Does Not Come Close To Meeting The Tests Of 9.42

[CT_Progressive]

42. Well, I disagree. The way I read 9.42 is this:

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary 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

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary 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 he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary 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 he reasonably believes that 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.

[stranger81]

49. and for all the reasons in my first response to you, Horn can't

meet the requirements of this bolded section -- he had no reasonable belief, and can make no cognizant argument that he did, particularly when the police were telling him NOT to use deadly force.

[CT_Progressive]

51. I'm not sure that's correct.

Its clear from the audio tape that he believed that if the cops didn't get there in time, that the crooks would "get away". He even says that on the tape.

That's pretty ironclad evidence of meeting the criteria for 9.42.

[stranger81]

53. that's why the law requires the objective standard of a "reasonable person"

instead of Horn's subjective -- and objectively unreasonable -- feelings at the time. You totally misunderstand what the "reasonable person" standard is -- it is not based on what Horn subjectively thought, but what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.

[CT_Progressive]

61. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm no expert in these things. But

... if, for example, I was in my own house and a burglar came in, and I feared for my life and killed him, I think it would be my state of mind that would "be on trial", not "a reasonable persons state of mind."

In other words, I think it matters what I was actually thinking, how scared I was personally, the emotions I was feeling, did I really fear for my life, etc. I don't know of any cases where the person's feelings were dismissed/ignored and "reasonable person" was used. but again, I'm no law expert.

[stranger81]

74. what matters is whether what you were actually thinking comports with

what an objectively reasonable person would have thought.

[whoneedstickets]

62. Who makes the reasonable person judgement?

A jury! Ergo, there is some gray area in this case. I bet he walks.

[stranger81]

73. The jury only makes this decision if the court first concludes that

there is a dispute of fact as to which reasonable persons could disagree. No such factual dispute exists here -- only a dispute as to how the law should be applied, which is a job for the court and not the jury.

[whoneedstickets]

77. Only in so far as charges are pressed or an indictment issued...

..once trial time comes, nothing prevents the defense from making its case on these points.

[stranger81]

90. unless the judge has already decided the issue as a matter of law

and rules that there is not enough evidence to send his defense to a jury -- in which case, when trial time comes, he gets to say nothing at all about this -- the court will already have ruled.

[The Magistrate]

54. You Mistake What Constitutes 'Reasonable Belief', Sir

He had no grounds for reasonable belief deadly force was necessary to prevent flight.

The facts of the matter are that by his own words, he went out armed with the stated intention of killing regardless of what situation he would encounter, and acted on that intent. He did this in defiance of the instructions of the police dispatcher, and in the knowledge police officers were en route to the scene. His actions were neither reasonable nor necessary.

[aikoaiko]

59. Pardom me jumping in,

but I think he'll be able to sell that the burglars were fleeing, there were no police in sight, and he was too old to use his strength to compel them not to flee.

[Guaranteed]

140. And THAT is what makes it murder. He wasn't acting on any "reasonable belief" at all,

he didn't even act like it.

He said over and over that he was going to kill them- before even knowing what he would encounter if he did go outside. Then he went outside and did it.

[The Magistrate]

193. Exactly, Sir

As you know, it is not as if some visceral objection to violence shapes my view in this matter. It is my considered view this was an instance in which the use of this degree of violence by this man was not warranted by the situation, nor in conformity with even the lax Texas law covering the situation.

[whoneedstickets]

39. This debate over the law only demonstrates that there is enough gray area...

..for the TEXAS jury to split or acquit. I'd say 10% chance of conviction, 60% chance of a split jury and 30% of outright acquittal.

[stranger81]

43. I'm sorry, but there's no legitimate debate over this law.

To qualify under Section 943, you have to meet the test of Section 942, and no one on this thread has even forwarded an argument as to how he meets the elements of Section 942. A jury won't even decide this question -- it's a matter of law for the court to decide if Horn has no evidence to sustain a showing under Section 942. Summary judgment or JMOL.

[CT_Progressive]

48. Read reply #37

[stranger81]

50. read and responded to.

And for the record, I am a lawyer.

[tkmorris]

45. Very odd phrasing in that law

It would appear that Mr. Horn would be easier to defend in his use of deadly force if it had occurred "during the nighttime". I don't spend a great deal of free time in legal libraries but I have never seen that concept codified into law before.

[stranger81]

46. it was in a lot of nineteenth century statutes

and apparently that's where TX still is in terms of its jurisprudence.

[hfojvt]

68. there is an OR in there

2A and 2B hold, as well as 3A

3B does not hold, but the law says 3A OR 3B.

[The Magistrate]

76. All the Particular Conditions, Sir

Require the reasonable belief standard to have been met, and it is not met by this man's actions in the situation.

[hfojvt]

78. it seems that he could reasonably believe that they would escape

with the property if he did not shoot them

[The Magistrate]

79. He Knew The Police Were On the Way, Sir

They would have been apprehended. He was instructed by the dispatcher to stay inside, and made very clear he was going out to kill someone. He did not respond to a situation, he took one as a pretext to indulge a pre-disposition to kill.

[ladjf]

23. You have made an ironclad case that will undoubtedly

save Horn from prosecution. However, those who wrote that law are guilty of inciting the crime of murder and should therefore be prosecuted.

[CT_Progressive]

24. That's a whole 'nother ballgame, there.

:)

[stranger81]

28. One simple, easy reason why you're completely wrong.

I'm going to ignore the first situation, because (a) the "US" does not recognize any such doctrine -- it's a matter of state law, for each state to decide; and (b) it's not what happened here.


As for your second situation -- defense of a third party's property, the statute clearly states that it applies ONLY when "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." In this case, Horn would NOT have been justified in so protecting his own property because Section 9.42 states that deadly force may only be used to protect one's property if "(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."

Here, because (1) Horn was ON THE PHONE WITH POLICE DISPATCHERS, who instructed him NOT to do exactly what he did; (2) Horn could not have "reasonably believed" that the property could not be protected by "any other means;" and (3) Horn could not have "reasonably believed" that use of less than deadly force to stop the burglars would expose him or others to a "substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." Even if one of them had a crowbar, he didn't have to take a fatal shot to stop them -- neither one of them had firearms.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[CT_Progressive]

33. Actually, you misquoted the law.

If you parse legal text, you need to apply each subsection to the parent, redundantly. Like this:


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 the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;
or

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 the actor reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

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 the actor reasonably believes that he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

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 the actor reasonably believes that 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.

So, I'm sorry, but the law does apply.

[stranger81]

38. wrong -- you're ignoring the element of the statute Horn can't satisfy,

and it appears in each of your remodeled versions of the Section above: "

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 under these circumstances, as I explained in my earlier post, he can't make this showing.

[Occulus]

69. No he did not

Read the law more carefully. There are a lot of "and"s and "or"s in there.

I analyze this piece by piece here, but this is the gist of the thing:

1) Section 9.41 doesn't apply because the property was not his; that section deals with one's own property and therefore does not apply. None of the subclauses, on careful reading, appear to apply either;
2) All requirements of sec. 9.42 are unmet; and

3) the language of 9.43 requires that one of the other sections be met. They are not.

This law does not apply to this situation. IANAL, but this isn't opinion speaking here, merely comprehension of the meanings of things like "and" and "or". See the link above for my complete analysis of this law. This isn't a terribly complicated law; being a lawyer certainly should not be a barrier to understanding in this case.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. I think the unstated explanation...

Is that these people are looking for an excuse to murder people too. They've probably waited for years for an excuse.

[stranger81]

32. That's what I think, too . . . . but I bet none of them will own up to it. n/t

[KG]

64. really. i mean whats the use of owning a gun if you can't shoot someone?

[tularetom]

35. I don't think he was "right" but the end result of his action

namely ridding society of two fucking thieves was not necessarily a "bad" outcome.

He should've stayed in his home and let the cops take care of it. It's plain to me he was scared shitless and afraid nobody else was going to "protect" him. Well, he'll be scared of retaliation now for the rest of his life regardless of whether or not he does any time for what he did. And if he goes to jail even for a day he'll be even more scared.

The ends do not justify the means. Horn will have to take whatever punishment is due him. But I have to believe society is better off without these two shitheads in it.

[stranger81]

41. I think society would be better off w/o Horn than the two he shot,

but that's neither here nor there. Just like whether or not society is better off without Horn's victims. Point is, it wasn't up to him.

[The Magistrate]

44. He Was Not 'Scared Shitless', Sir: He Was Happy As A Pig In Shit To Get His Chance At Last

Life had finally presented him with the change to kill somebody, and he was over-joyed to take advantage of it. The tape of his exchanges with the dispatcher leave no room whatever for reasonable doubt of that.

[Tejas]

91. on the phone/outside is 2 different things.

Similar to being on a keyboard vs face to face. Sure, he might've been upset while on the phone, whole different story being outside faced with two individuals coming into his yard. Bet he was 10 times as scared then.

[The Magistrate]

105. If He Was That Scared, Sir, He Would Have Stayed Indoors

He saw his chance and he took it. Doubtless he has found the reality nowhere near so fun as the fantasy, but voluptuaries of all stripes encounter this peculiar form of agitation and remorse in the wake of excess....

[napi21]

52. Horn did call the police, but for whatever reason, they couldn't

respond to the scene fast enough to capture the criminals. He told them to stop and drop the stolen stuff and THEY decided not to do that. I would be pleased if MY neighbor would do the same for me! You're claiming this to be a death sentence/ Maybe it is, but it was the criminal's choice.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. And you'd be pleased if your neighbor shot the kids who trampled your grass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2315532&mesg_id=2316641

At least you did explain you reasoning.

[napi21]

65. I don't think we're talking about trampeling grass here!

To be honest, I don't have much in my house that anyone would want to steal. I guess my computyer is the most valuable thing since it's less than a year old, but everything else is really not worth anything. But I'd still be really pissed if someone took anything. It's all I have, it works fine, and I don't have the $$ to replace any of it. It's thepersonal attack on YOUR STUFF that gets most people upset!

[seabeyond]

71. hey.... i have to fight with my kids to WALK on the grass. that is what it is for

we were raised believing the grass was to enjoy, walk on and play on, then somewhere along the way we are suppose to stay off the grass and just look at that. screw that shit. i live on huge ass lot. take care of my yard. and am on a corner. a good couple minutes going all the way around to avoid grass. i always applaud those that have the balls to walk across my yard saving time.

so shoot me.... and my reluntant kids that are being pounded in the head about all the friggin rules they are now suppose to follow or fear arrest, tasering, or per napi .... murdered.

[tkmorris]

60. Horrid reasoning

You can't just offer someone a choice of A or B, and tell them that B means you will shoot them. Think of the possibilities if you could.

[napi21]

67. Just deon't do the crime. You look at that as an A or B?

I don't understand that. I physically can't confront anyone. I'm too old, and too small. I don't have any other options to stop a criminal behaviour. Sorry you think I'm an idiot, but damn it, don't take my stuff or that of my friends!

[stranger81]

75. but that evades the core question . . . . assuming one does the crime,

why do you think that killing someone is an appropriate response to theft of property? Do you have any sense of proportionality?

[aikoaiko]

58. Here's why I don't think Horn intended to kill the two bulglars:

He called the police and waited as long as he could before they were about to get away. I do not blame to police for not getting there any faster than they did, but its not like Horn rushed into the house looking to shoot them before the police arrived. eta: And that others would agree in that situation.

If he, as some many imagine, that he pined away for the chance to kill some thieves, all he had to do was not call the police and wait for them to exit. Or better yet, he could have entered the house under the pretense that the homeowners might have been home and were in mortal danger. He could made up a self-defense claim which would have been easy enough. He appears to be someone who is disgusted with crime and is willing to take extreme measures to stop when it happens in front of him as permitted, to some degree, by Texas law. My reading of the Texas laws suggests that he may not have committed murder.

As a gun owner, I don't know if I would have done what Horn did, but I understand wanting to stop people from victimizing others.

[Catherine Vincent]

87. I think he intended to shoot.

Otherwise he would have left his gun locked up.

[Lilith Velkor]

120. He said, "I'm gonna kill 'em" on the phone to the authorities.

That's premeditated murder. If they don't pop him for at least manslaughter, the prosecution is either incompetent or not even trying, both of which are strong possibilities in this case.

[aikoaiko]

135. I've been listening to the tape some more and I can see your point.

[LisaL]

121. He said on 911 tape repeatedly that he is gonna do it, and

then he did it. I certainly wouldn't have done what he did over some property that didn't even belong to me, even if I had a gun. That said, I don't think he will be convicted for this.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. I don't have much sympathy for the victims

Because I consider getting shot to be one of the many hazards that should rightfully be involved with theft.

That said, I don't think we need to be taking justice into our own hands.

[seabeyond]

85. no sympathy for victims BUT i know the difference between right and wrong. n/t

[Disturbed]

89. "ridding society of two fucking thieves was not necessarily a "bad"

outcome. Wow! It is scary that many here feel that robbery is subject to the Death Penalty. Since there were no witnesses to his actions, except the dead men, how will it be determined if he was threatened by either robber?

If this moron shot one of the burglers in the back that would be 1st Degree Murder. He had the time to think about pulling the trigger as the man was fleeing. Do we know if one of them was indeed shot in the back?

[Hippo_Tron]

93. At no point did I say that "Ridding society of two thieves was not necessarily a bad outcome"

It's not about good or bad. It's about the fact that robbing someone means putting yourself in a dangerous situation and I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who die because they put themselves into a dangerous situation for personal gain.

I don't rejoice in their deaths and frankly I have no way of knowing whether or not the world is better off without them. I'm just saying that they are largely responsible for their own fate. When you rob someone, there is always a chance that the person you rob or the crazy next door neighbor will shoot you. If you don't want to get shot, don't rob someone.

[FredScuttle]

94. Kind of like "If you don't want to get raped, don't dress like a tramp"

BillO! Is that you?

[Hippo_Tron]

95. No, it's more like...

If you don't want to get raped, don't go out by yourself, get so drunk you don't know where you are, and bring home a guy you just met.

Dressing suggestively doesn't inherently mean that you are putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

[FredScuttle]

96. So, rape victims bring it on themselves, eh?

Such reckless behavior...going out by oneself, getting drunk, taking a stranger home - why, it's almost the rapist's duty to attack her!
:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FredScuttle]

99. "responsible for getting themselves into that situation..."

responsible for what? Coming into contact with a rapist? Or a murderer?

Are you serious?

[Hippo_Tron]

138. Let me summarize how I feel again and then I don't think there's much more to say

Trespassing is risky and irresponsible behavior and so is getting incapacitated and coming home alone with strange men. It doesn't mean that people should be punished by death or rape for engaging in that sort of behavior.

What it means is that people should be taught that engaging in that sort of behavior is very risky and that risky behavior can come with consequences. It's not about whether they deserve those consequences or not, it's that they are a fact of life.

I'm going to teach my kids not to steal not only because it's wrong and against the law but also because it is risky behavior that could lead to them getting shot. It's not that I think we should live in a world where people can get shot because they are trespassing, but we do live in such a world. Parents should teach their children accordingly.

[FredScuttle]

166. So, what risky behavior did John Wayne Gacy's victims exhibit, Mr. Wizard?

Jeffrey Dahmler's victims?
Ted Bundy's victims?
The Hillside Stranglers' victims?

What, exactly, would you have "taught" these people who were preyed upon, assaulted and viciously murdered by the ultra-insane killers I've listed above? Hmmmm?

You are a fucking joke, my man.

[Hippo_Tron]

184. As I said, you can be shot or raped walking down the street

You increase your odds of it greatly when you engage in risky behavior. I'm done with with this conversation.

[FredScuttle]

187. So I ask you again - what "risky behavior" did the victims of the serial killers exhibit?

They weren't just simply "walking down the street" when they were murdered....they had to have been engaged in some "risky behavior" according to your standards.

Why don't you man up and defend your fucking nonsense instead of running away like a coward?

[Hippo_Tron]

188. Trespassing and stealing = risky irresponsible behavior

Because it greatly increases your chances of being shot than just walking down the street does. You keep trying to imply that I think that they deserve their fate. I don't, mostly because I try not to judge what people do and don't deserve.

I'm merely pointing out that the victims acted recklessly and irresponsibly. Again, that doesn't mean that they deserve a death sentence, but reckless and irresponsible behavior often leads to death whether we like it or not.

[LostinVA]

109. OMG -- why is this post still here???

[Tejas]

144. because...

You keep trying to engage in spinning HT's words into crapola. I'm sure (at least I hope) that anyone else with a grasp on English and sentence structure understands his statements.

bonus points: I do not exactly agree with about 90% of what HT has to say.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

179. What a jerk

[stranger81]

147. dude, if you think that post wasn't highly offensive, you've either got

serious reading comprehension problems or a serious issue with women.

[Tejas]

149. prove it

We're talking use of the English language here. Go right ahead.

The use of the English language and sentence structure by HT is correct, and does not reflect what Lost so childishly tried to say it did.

You would leave your wife/daughter on a street corner in a tight skirt?



edit: my bad, this is after all DU GD. ;)

[stranger81]

152. well, I wouldn't leave my husband on the corner in a tight skirt, but

it's my right to stand on a street corner wearing one if I like without being raped, and without being told by asshats like you that I'm asking for it.

[FredScuttle]

167. The point here is "blaming the victim" doesn't fly on DU

Stating unequivocally, as HT did, that a rape victim who "puts herself in that situation" should expect to get attacked is a disgusting thing to say.

How about "Can us guys learn to keep it in our fucking pants?"

[Hippo_Tron]

189. I'm saying both...

In an ideal world guys would learn to keep it in their pants. We don't live in an ideal world. Plan accordingly.

[stranger81]

148. nobody has to spin HT's words to make them crapola . . . .

they do fine in that regard all on their own.

[Tejas]

150. Walk down a street...

...flashing a fistfull of money, get back to me with the details after you get out've the hospital.

[stranger81]

151. so you can tell me it's my own fault? no thanks.

I don't go out of my way to interact with sexists.

I suppose you'd say Emmett Till got what was coming to him too, right? The fact that people react like animals in certain situations makes it his obligation to expect and avoid it, right?

[LostinVA]

155. Oh brother

I hate it when all the Liberty Baptist kids are out on break.

[LostinVA]

180. You made a wrong turn somewhere

I think it was a right one you missed.

Welcome to Ignore, Glass.

[LostinVA]

108. Ugh --blaming rape victims -- niiiiice

[FredScuttle]

116. Same shit, different day

how are you, Lost?

[LostinVA]

191. Getting ready for the day with the inlaws tomorrow -- you?

[FredScuttle]

198. Hangover management

My brain hurts.

[Catherine Vincent]

158. This woman went out by herself, did she deserve to get raped?:

Nov. 21, 2007, 1:15AM
Homeless Ohio man charged with raping sleepwalking college student

CINCINNATI — A homeless man was indicted Tuesday on charges that he raped a college student while she was sleepwalking along a highway near her home.

The woman, a 23-year-old University of Cincinnati student, woke up during the attack and fought back but could not get away, said Hamilton County prosecutor Seth Tieger.

Dexter Ford, 52, was also charged with felonious assault because he knew he was HIV-positive, Tieger told The Cincinnati Enquirer.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5319305.html

[Tejas]

168. nope - shame the rapist wasn't shot dead

[FredScuttle]

185. You must have a penis roughly the size of a stack of dimes.

n/t

[Tejas]

199. typical response due to *xxxx xxxxxx* syndrome - here's your sign

[Tejas]

200. so........you wouldn't shoot a rapist?

Your choice, just asking.

[stranger81]

201. No, I wouldn't.

And I'm a woman.

[Hippo_Tron]

186. See my posts below, no she didn't deserved to get raped

Just as they didn't deserve to get shot for trespassing.

It's not about whether or not they deserved it or not, it's merely a fact of life. When you break onto somebody's property you greatly increase your chances of getting shot significantly. Parents should teach their children accordingly.

[seabeyond]

100. would there be sympathy for this man if one of those two men gun pulled a gun

and shot him dead. he put himself in a dangerous situation.

[karlrschneider]

97. A lot of people are awfully cavalier when the property in question is someone ELSEs.

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

101. i had my car stolen out of my garage. i got it back. they made it from texas to az

one of the riders walked to my house a good couple of miles to apologize to me for going with the person who had stolen my car. he was not prosecuted. i then gave him a ride home and we had a good chat. an 18 yr old with his girlfriend and her brother. no i would not have wanted a single one of those persons shot dead for the theft of my 40k car.

not so cavalier karl. just my priorities, life and things, seems to be different from your priorities. things seem to be the ultimate for you. not so much for me. not at all. they are just things, stuff, clutter

[karlrschneider]

102. Yes, my priorities obviously are different. I've worked my ass off for >50 years

including serving in the military to get the 'stuff' I have. I am NOT rich and I am NOT stingy...hell, I could have taken many opportunities to GET rich if I'd been willing to shit on other people but I didn't do that. If somebody, most any stranger even, asks me for some help - I never refuse. There's no NEED to steal -from me, or from anybody else.-

And here is another observation you will not like but you cannot deny the fact of it: If the 2 burglars hadn't been
Hispanic or another ethnic minority they would have gotten one HELL of a lot less defense around here. You know
that's true.

[Bluebear]

104. 'If the 2 burglars hadn't been Hispanic or another ethnic minority' - why are you a Democrat again?

[karlrschneider]

111. Does being a Democrat mean I can't comment on an obvious truth?

Are you challenging the truth of what I said? Do so at your own delusional peril. I am NOT DEFENDING anything here, nor am I condemning it, simply saying what the politically-correct (and often hypocritical) TRVE PROGRESSIVES never will.

[seabeyond]

113. yes i challenge you to prove the only reason people bothered with death because it is minority

i challenge you to PROVE that if it were two male, we would not be bothered by the death. i challenge you to prove it. because i can equally say,.... i am saying truth, that regardless of color of skin we would be bothered by murder.

[karlrschneider]

118. Not you personally, no...but the lack of empathy from a lot of DUers would be deafening.

You know that's a fact, denying it is just silly.

[seabeyond]

119. i dont know that to be a fact and to qualify by saying otherwise is silly

does not strengthen your argument or make it true. we will have to see examples along the way and see if a white male is abused if he is stood up for here on du. but to suggest just cause a minority gives them a grace, i dont know, i am seeing an awfully lot of people agreeing with you. i dont think minority status is necessarily giving them a free ride on du.

even my republican, nra, texan, concealed weapon permit holdin husband says it was absolutely wrong to murder these men. IF it was someone in HIS house, shoot them dead he says. then i suggest to him that even at that point, being confident that he is, he would access the situation and not blindly shoot them dead but see if holding them to police come or wounding would be possible. and he agreed, he would access situation first. dead is not his given answer to the situation

[karlrschneider]

125. I refuse to get in a dither about the death of a couple of scumbags when good people

are dying for way less of a good reason. What the hell is so special about THOSE two guys?....we are all better off
without them.

[seabeyond]

130. none of it matters, except.... these men were murdered.

it is that simple. and murder cannot be endorsed by the people. it will continue to escalate. we HAVE to say NO to murder.

plain, simple murder.

the next person may decide the scumbag is the 13 year old obnoxious teenage kid down the street that dared to walk on their grass.

[karlrschneider]

162. You are more concerned with the rights of criminals than those of

victims. My priorities are exactly 180 degrees away. You won't change your mind and you sure as hell won't change mine so I won't be commenting on this episode any further.

[stranger81]

165. Joe Horn IS a criminal, NOT a victim. [n/t]

[karlrschneider]

170. In your opinion...but a lot of DUers are far more concerned with the comfort of scumbags

than of honest actual victims. If you haven't noticed that, you must be blind. I want a lot more Joes around.

[seabeyond]

172. that is bullshit that has been falsely spouted out by the eye for an eye crowd

just yell at people they are more into comfort of scumbag. you are wrong. they are wrong. no one owns and accepts repercussion for own action as i do and give to others. it is recognizing right from wrong karl. you are the one sittin in wrong and then coming up with all kinds of ways to validate that wrong. and one of the ways is to give us something we are not, regardless of the number of times WE tell YOU otherwise. you ignore what we say and put it into your slant to validate your argument.

[karlrschneider]

173. I am putting you on ignore

...

[seabeyond]

181. shakin head.... whatever n/t

[seabeyond]

169. your analysis is wrong. let ME tell you what i am more concerned with. life vs things

i am more concerned with life than i am with things. it has been said to you many times, many different ways, then you tell ME what i am more concerned with, yet everytime you are wrong

i am more concerned with LIFE than i am with THINGS>

[Lilith Velkor]

122. I guess you weren't here when those two white boys got shot over a bale of hay

Were you? :eyes:

[karlrschneider]

123. It was one not two and the defenders of that particular thief were a different subset of DU

mostly. I find your sig line somewhat ironic...unless you think stealing represents integrity.

[seabeyond]

133. i was in that thread. and i was not defending the man that murdered that boy either

over a rottin, moldy, old, wet bale of hay

[Lilith Velkor]

137. Apparently you think lying does.

Not to mention your insinuation that stealing justifies fucking homicide. What the hell is your problem?

And don't think I've overlooked your pathetic attempt to make this about race. Could that be part of the problem?

[NorthernSpy]

153. Excuse me? I participated in both discussions, and I took the same stance in both...

Were the defenders of the man who shot a kid in the back over a bale of hay also "a different subset of DU"? I forget.


:eyes:

[seabeyond]

132. i didnt work my brain too hard, but i was remembering at least one example

recently

yup

two kids over a bale of hay. and probably the same people were rootin for the old man to get off the hook cause the kids dared to take an old, rottin, wet and moldy bale of hay to play it safe in target shooting

yup

defended those kids right to live too.

here is the perfect example, another example why we cannot allow the decision of execution of wrong duers.... i personally felt those kids were ultimately trying to be responsible using that old, useless bale of hay when target praticing. who would have thunk.... it was a death sentence.

[seabeyond]

110. ya... and i got my things by sittin on my ass and not doing squat. again,

as hard as i work for stuff, stuff isnt a high priority in my life, and doesnt even come close to life

second,.... murder is it, regardless of the gender or race or religion or age, .... i have stuck up for every group there is when it comes to murder, ... well about anything i feel strongly about. i call bullshit that it has to do with race. for the first 20-30 posts of this subject i didnt have a clue of the race, but i did have a clue to murder of two people. but what i will not do is dismiss a persons worth because of gender, race, religion or age

[karlrschneider]

112. It must be nice to live in that Garden of Eden you operate there.

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

115. it is what we create karl. if i am in eden, and then do i assume

you live in what? hell. it is what we create. and things being so damn important that you are willing to take a life, i can understand the hell.

[karlrschneider]

117. Well, there are plenty of places on earth that look like hell. I don't want any part

of them, so I do whatever is necessary to repel the demons from my immediate vicinity. I am more than willing to be charitable to the deserving, just don't ask me to be an unwilling victim. It ain't gonna happen.

[entanglement]

124. Patently ridiculous - what does their race have to do with this?

The rash action of Horn was borderline premeditated murder - and would still be condemnable no matter the race of the burglars.

BTW, here's an observation from ME you won't care for - you are a racist. Lots of *very* ugly posts from you in the past. Who can forget "I'll use the N-word"? and other such gems from your bigoted self?

The good news (bad news for you bigots) is that most of the bigotry is from the 50+ crowd. The younger generation is *much* better.

[karlrschneider]

126. I suggest you utilize the ignore button.

..

[Paladin]

159. If The Burglars Had Been White Instead Of Hispanic.....

....there's a good chance the old lunatic wouldn't have shot them at all.....

[NOLALady]

106. Let's see.

Mr Horn killed the two Black guys because they were stealing His neighbors stuff that was most likely covered by insurance.

Makes sense to me.

[karlrschneider]

128. All of a sudden they became black guys?

How the hell did THAT happen?

[Catherine Vincent]

136. Mr. Horn referred to them as "black guys" when the dispatcher asked for a description.

[Tejas]

141. try to keep up, the media said Hispanic (hint: Puerto Rico)

According to every article out there, the thieves were Hispanic. Therefore karlrschneider's question deserves some kind of (sensible) answer from NOLALady.



edit: spelling

[Catherine Vincent]

157. I am keeping up.

Horn referred to the guys as "black guys" to the 911 dispatcher. We didn't find out until afterwards that they were black hispanics.

[karlrschneider]

161. Do you have a valid link to support that assertion?

...

[Catherine Vincent]

163. You should listen to the full tape when Horn called 911.

The dispatcher asked if they were white, black or hispanic and Horn said they were black guys.

[karlrschneider]

174. I listened to some of it and did not hear that part. That's why I asked for a link.

...

[Catherine Vincent]

175. Here:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937

They start talking about it right at the 40 second mark.

[karlrschneider]

190. Yup he did say that.

I hadn't heard it before.

[alarimer]

107. The guy is a piece of shit

and his supporters are nuts. What he did was morally wrong, regardless of the law. I do not believe it is justifiable to kill someone is defense of someone else's property and I hope the courts clarify that issue. If I were on the jury, I'd give him the death penalty, if it was it my power to do so.

[karlrschneider]

127. If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

:eyes:

[RB TexLa]

129. They could have my neighbors lined up shooting them one by one, if they aren't on my property, they

aren't my problem, gun stays put.

[NorthernSpy]

154. wow... you must really hate your neighbors!

:wtf:

[RB TexLa]

156. No, I just mind my own business

[lumberjack_jeff]

Interesting. I'm glad you're not my neighbor. n/t

[RB TexLa]

195. Right, people just hate neighbors that mind their own business n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

197. Most people who see their neighbors "lined up and shot" might find a way to make it their business.

[aikoaiko]

131. After listening to the 911 tape for the 6th time, I'mbeginning to see why some say Horn murdered the

burglars. I didn't hear it the first couple of times, but then I did.

[seabeyond]

134. i dont hardly ever agree with you, BUT.... you try to be fair

you really try. i value that in a person, greatly.

[aikoaiko]

176. Thanks ;-)

Let it be note for the record that I was reasonable. Once. ;)

[Paladin]

160. God Knows I Hardly Ever Agree With You....

...but I too appreciate your re-evaluation of the incident.

[aikoaiko]

177. You're welcome

I can hear it now, in some of the things he said.

[slackmaster]

171. His state of mind was inappropriate, based on what he told the dispatcher

:hi:

[aikoaiko]

178. Yes, the way he was thinking (as demonstrated by what he said) is not good.

:hi:

[Rex]

143. There is no excuse for what he did. Could have let the cops handle it.

Bloodthirsty asshole now has blood on his hands...guess hell will save him a seat at the table.

[tabasco]

146. Our devolution into materialism makes it inevitable that property is valued more than human life.

Children are trained to be consumers from the time they are born.

Things mean more to us than humanity.

Things mean more to us than justice.