PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of "Texan Joe Horn" Shooting Case


Pages : [1] 2

jharback
12th December 2007, 17:26
A little background first. Joe Horn (age 61) called 911 and reported that his neighbors house was presently being burgled. While he was talking with the 911 operator the two thieves came out of the house with bags of stolen property. He went outside with his shotgun (against the 911 operators advice) gave the thieves a warning and then blew them both away. Turns out the two thieves (both dead by the way) were illegal aliens. Some people are calling him a hero, some are calling for his head on a plate. Texas politicians have not yet decided whether to bring him up on charges.

What do ya'll think?

Personally, I believe, we need more Joe Horns and there certianly should be no debate as to whether he should be charged with a crime. He was defending his community, his neighborhood, and himself. Good Work Joe Horn.

Jt1200r
12th December 2007, 17:42
give him a medal. when you do illegal things you should be aware of consiquenses(spelling).

Swankster
12th December 2007, 17:44
I heard the 911 audio and although it doesn't exactly make him look to good based on his vocabulary, demeaner and/or personality,let alone his seemingly lack of sense or covet on life; I wouldn't call him a hero, but G'damit I don't blame him for taking some action. He should have hung up the phone first and likely this issue wouldn't have come up.
Swank

XL 50
12th December 2007, 17:59
Joe Horn for Prez!

blakjak
12th December 2007, 18:02
Just from reading this, I'd say that the chances of that neighborhood being robbed again anytime while he lives there is virtually nil. I'd also say that he did the right thing IMO.

buckhorns
12th December 2007, 18:04
Wish he was my neighbor.

Shevieman
12th December 2007, 18:05
I havent heard this yet. Maybe because i never watch the news. But illegals or not. Id buy him a beer just for being a good neighbor!

Y2K
12th December 2007, 18:06
He should have called 911 after he checked on his neighbors house and was confronted in his own yard.
We wouldn't be debating this.;)

rikava
12th December 2007, 18:06
Was he protecting "his" property? NO!
Should he had tried to stop them? yes, and he was doing just that. Untill he took matters in his own hands, thats called vigilantizim......that's illegal.
Were they illegals? yes
Did that give him the right to blow them away? no
As much as the law stacks against him I would still like to say, OH! F___ing Well and forget it, but this is the USA and a vigilante is as illegal and the illegals

shadecorp
12th December 2007, 18:13
:frownthre

Well now, we must explore the P. C. area.

This is new America,

Where the garbage has more rights than the civilized.

jharback
12th December 2007, 18:18
Was he protecting "his" property? NO!

So you have no responsibility to protect your community? You see a couple of hard cases ripping off your neighber you have no responsibility to keep them from ripping off other people? So if it doesn't effect you just turn your back and expect the same from your neighbor?

Were they illegals? yes
Did that give him the right to blow them away? no

I completely agree. I added that to the info because I believe that a lot of the uproar is coming from the illegal alien community and from the crooks. Of course most of it is probably coming from the far left kooks, although, I don't think you'll find many of them in Texas.

XLFREAK
12th December 2007, 18:35
It's pretty sad when you're powerless to defend your property unless you're life is at stake inside your house.
If someone wants to take whatever you own, you can only watch them and call the police to report it.
If we could actually defend our property the thieves would'nt be so bold.
I know this case was his neighbors house being robbed but they were in his property within 7-10 ft. from him when he shot them.
These guys were career criminals who knows when they would end up killing somebody in some future theft or robbery.
As for his respect for life, it seems nowadays you'll get robbed and the criminal will shoot you just for the heck of it.

I wouldn't press charges.

blakjak
12th December 2007, 18:37
:frownthre

Well now, we must explore the P. C. area.

This is new America,

Where the garbage has more rights than the civilized.

Exactly. The law has become more of a hinderance than a help anymore.

Shevieman
12th December 2007, 18:42
I have been robbed MANY times. I have had one car stolen or attempted to be stolen 3 times, another truck i built stolen and never recovered, and 3 other vehicles broken into and the stereo stolen out of them. On my block where i used to live you cant tell me that NO ONE SAW ANYTHING! on any of those cases. However no one reported anything BUT ME. in one case they stole the stereo out of my truck and took a screwdriver out of my tools and used that to break into the neighbors cars. I was the one that found this out, the neighbors didnt know yet and the cops hadnt arrived yet. (and wouldnt for another 2 hours.) I told the cops that the next time it happens dont bother with an ambulance just send a hearse. The cop asked if that was a threat and i told him no thats a !!!!ing promise.

I can put my life on the line in another country for my country but cant protect my neighbor? SCREW PC! these guys ROBBED the neighbor. The neighbor wasnt there to protect themselves. This man didnt just do the right thing. He did THE ONLY RIGHT THING!

If you dont like my views of this.....................then dont read what i have to say!

Shev

Gone
12th December 2007, 18:45
In Texas when a father shot and killed the scum bag that molested his son the judge said he would have done the same thing and dismissed the charge against the father. In Texas, they will give him a brake I hope, in California he would go to prison. If you are willing to confront evil, don't live in California.

CaptEvo
12th December 2007, 18:54
That 911 call is gonna hang if him if anything does. He's telling the dispatcher he's gonna go over there and "shoot" them....dispatcher is repeatedly telling him to stay put. Gonna be a little hard to prove to a jury his life was in imminent danger. Shooting and killing thieving M'fckers may be very satisfactory but I'm not quite sure its legal.

blakjak
12th December 2007, 18:59
Well, I'm saying a prayer that common sense prevails.....

Wheezy
12th December 2007, 18:59
I'm not sure wether I agree with what he did or not, I understand protecting your neighborhood but taking someone else's life to me, wether or not they did anything wrong, is something I dont feel like I have the right to do. People do stupid things, thats just how it is. I bet most of us on here know somebody who has broken into a house or car and stolen something at some point, and even though its wrong and we don't agree with it, we are GLAD that they didnt get killed. I wish the guy would have taken a picture of them instead of killing them, and I know all you "badass" Harley tough guys sre going to be against me on this. I have heard the audio of the 911 call, and this guy sounded like he COULDN'T WAIT to go shoot them. Getting robbed sucks, he was just "being a good neighbor", but for christ's sake he KILLED people for stealing, and you guys are totally cool with that. We are at WAR with a country were people use excessive force for petty crimes (i.e. cutting your hand off for stealing) and I bet about 99% of us support that, even though its not hapening to american citizens. As for my own personal opinion, I dont give a shit who my neighbor is, i'm not putting myself into the situation this guy got himself into for thier crap, thats what insurance is for. Oh, and for the record, I'm NOT left wing and I live in TEXAS. Let the flaming begin.:rolleyes:

doc
12th December 2007, 19:01
That 911 call is gonna hang if him if anything does. He's telling the dispatcher he's gonna go over there and "shoot" them....dispatcher is repeatedly telling him to stay put. Gonna be a little hard to prove to a jury his life was in imminent danger. Shooting and killing thieving M'fckers may be very satisfactory but I'm not quite sure its legal.

I completely agree with this. The 911 tapes are probably gonna be his downfall regardless of whether I think he did right or not. I'm sure there are 12 people in Texas that would agree that he is guilty of a crime.

Wheezy
12th December 2007, 19:02
That 911 call is gonna hang if him if anything does. He's telling the dispatcher he's gonna go over there and "shoot" them....dispatcher is repeatedly telling him to stay put. Gonna be a little hard to prove to a jury his life was in imminent danger. Shooting and killing thieving M'fckers may be very satisfactory but I'm not quite sure its legal.

Ditto, if he was gonna do it, he should have done it then called 911 after. They told him 15 times not to do it, and he did it anyway. I honestly felt for the guy until I heard the tape, now i'm not so sure.

dagsportster
12th December 2007, 19:07
Here's a link with all the 911 calls:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5306638.html

Score two for justice! If this happened anywhere else, I'd say ol' Joe is in trouble (especially if it's true he shot them in the back and not on his property). In Texas, though, I'd be shocked if the grand jury indicts him.

It's interesting that what was stolen was a bag of money and Joe doesn't know his neighbors well. It would be ironic if they were dope dealers that he protected. There's a good Law & Order plot for you...

Y2K
12th December 2007, 19:20
I'm not sure wether I agree with what he did or not, I understand protecting your neighborhood but taking someone else's life to me, wether or not they did anything wrong, is something I dont feel like I have the right to do. People do stupid things, thats just how it is. I bet most of us on here know somebody who has broken into a house or car and stolen something at some point, and even though its wrong and we don't agree with it, we are GLAD that they didnt get killed. I wish the guy would have taken a picture of them instead of killing them, and I know all you "badass" Harley tough guys sre going to be against me on this. I have heard the audio of the 911 call, and this guy sounded like he COULDN'T WAIT to go shoot them. Getting robbed sucks, he was just "being a good neighbor", but for christ's sake he KILLED people for stealing, and you guys are totally cool with that. We are at WAR with a country were people use excessive force for petty crimes (i.e. cutting your hand off for stealing) and I bet about 99% of us support that, even though its not hapening to american citizens. As for my own personal opinion, I dont give a shit who my neighbor is, i'm not putting myself into the situation this guy got himself into for thier crap, thats what insurance is for. Oh, and for the record, I'm NOT left wing and I live in TEXAS. Let the flaming begin.:rolleyes:

Well let's get the facts straight,the way I read it he caught them in the act and then they approached him in his own yard,that's a little different then him running over and just gunning them down as they fled.
None of us were there and saw what happened so it's hard to pass judgment.
If in fact he was faced with them coming at him after he caught them in the act I'd say he may well have been justified,if he had gunned them down trying to escape it's a very different scenario.

sspeer
12th December 2007, 19:22
I'm not defending the burglars, but I personally think it's a punishment not fitting for the crime.

If they walked in on me in my house or were threatening someone and had guns, then I could have a little more sympathy.

How about a warning shot. If I heard that, I'd be dropping the loot and making a run for the border

moto vito
12th December 2007, 19:28
In california they would hang old Joe from the golden gate bridge to make sure no one would ever do that agan.Thats why next year when my wife and I retire we are moving to Austin. Texas,Its like a whole other country!

Paulie420
12th December 2007, 19:32
Well, I don't think the guy should go to prison for murder. Thats for sure.

However, I agree with the last poster that burglary is not crime punishable by death. It's kind of a catch 22, but I think you should be allows to shoot AT a criminal if they won't STOP the buglary... and hell, if the bullet happens to cause death, well thats the buglars bad luck...

I guess the ? asked was do I think this guy should fry. No. I don't.


Also, I am not a "tough" guy... if ANYONE ever COMES INTO my home I don't want to have to WAIT to see if they pose a THREAT to my life. I want to shoot to kill so that ultimately my family is protected. I shouldn't have to wait to see his gun or have him try to attack me. If anyone comes into your home unwanted and unannounced you should be able to fire your gun at them with no recourse. IMO.

Screwdriver
12th December 2007, 19:35
Well....

If it was two legal American/Mexicans then I feel Joe should be prosecuted. Steeling property should not carry a death sentence. Now shooting two people that sneaked into this country to commit crimes should get whatever comes to them. They have invaded a foreign country.

I don't care where you come from or what color your skin is. If you come into this country legally then you deserve everything this country has too offer and are equal to anyone born here. If you come in illegally then you don't deserve anything other then being sent back.

Wheezy
12th December 2007, 19:39
In california they would hang old Joe from the golden gate bridge to make sure no one would ever do that agan.Thats why next year when my wife and I retire we are moving to Austin. Texas,Its like a whole other country!

Hate to dissapoint you, but Austin is as close to California as you can get in Texas

Screwdriver
12th December 2007, 19:46
In california they would hang old Joe from the golden gate bridge to make sure no one would ever do that agan.Thats why next year when my wife and I retire we are moving to Austin. Texas,Its like a whole other country!

In Texas they would execute Joe...just for the hell of it. I am glad some like Texas, but I would never live in there.

Wheezy
12th December 2007, 19:50
Well let's get the facts straight,the way I read it he caught them in the act and then they approached him in his own yard,that's a little different then him running over and just gunning them down as they fled.
None of us were there and saw what happened so it's hard to pass judgment.
If in fact he was faced with them coming at him after he caught them in the act I'd say he may well have been justified,if he had gunned them down trying to escape it's a very different scenario.

From listening to the 911 call, its obvious they posed no threat to him. If they did, then shoot the bastards. I'm not saying they should hang this guy, or that what he did was wrong, just that I dont agree with it, and the FAC that we all need to get straight is that he took someone's life over something that didn't really matter all that much(money, etc). If they were in my house, I would have shot them NO QUESTIONS ASKED, thats the point of the LAW here in Texas. If they were hurting someone or posing a threat to someone, by all means feel free to shoot them. I'm not trying to argue here, just a little different opinion from someone who's a little more cautious of guns and the effects they can have in the hands of the wrong people. Listen to the 911 tape, he decided to shoot them long before he called 911, that doesnt sound like he was in much danger to me.

ed_in_az
12th December 2007, 19:50
In Arizona, and I'm sure even in Texas since we have CCW reciprocity, Joe Horn could only LEGALLY shoot the criminals if they were approaching him. In that case he could claim he felt threatened.

yorgo
12th December 2007, 19:52
Isn't that what neighbors are for? I would do the same if I saw a couple of scum bags robbing my neighbors home.

sportyblue
12th December 2007, 20:12
The way I read it his life was not in danger. I'm not sure what happened out in the yard but by him going out of the house it seems to me he provoked a situation.........
Don't misunderstand me I'd kill someone in a heartbeat IF my life or the life of a loved one was being threatened. This guy used very poor judgement IMHO.

el jinete fantasma
12th December 2007, 20:14
I don't think the citizenship of the criminals has anything to do with anything. Sounds like he saw an opportunity to blew someone away? I admit that I'm not familiar with the case and haven't heard the 911 tapes. From what I read here, he could have just put the fear of God in them with the gun and had them stay put til the police showed.

DRAWTOOL
12th December 2007, 20:25
Hate to dissapoint you, but Austin is as close to California as you can get in Texas

Wheezy be right, you can only fly into Austin on planes with two Left Wings. Now here in the Big City of Olden, Tx., Ol' Joe would be elected Mayor, Chief of Police and Dogcatcher if we had any of those positions. Legally right or wrong Joe let his passion get the better of him, people are tired of Thievin' Ass Wipes, regardless of color. Here we Hang'em and we Hang'em High.

Gone
12th December 2007, 20:36
Wish he was my neighbor.

I havent heard this yet. Maybe because i never watch the news. But illegals or not. Id buy him a beer just for being a good neighbor!

I agree. I keep a 38 on my nightstand and a 32 in my purse...and hubby keeps a few as well. God have mercy on the b#stards that cross my path. Robbery is a high risk occupation. Maybe if we run a few tv announcements (w/subtitles) telling the phuckers that breaking and entering can lead to death, the bleeding hearts will shut up. Almost like a warning on a pack of cigarettes.Good God! Did it really make a difference that they were immigrants. In the same situation, I would've taken care of them whether they were white, black, yellow or blue. In my opinion when they stepped onto someone's property w/mallace on the mind, they thru their lives on the table...too bad they got dealt a bad hand. **sniff-sniff** :rolleyes:

Can't people find better things to focus all their time and energy on. Like maybe causes that actually make a difference and are legitimate. What about child abuse or animal cruelty, where the victim is guilty of no wrong doings? Wouldn't that be better than wasting time on scums who chose their paths?

Just my un-humble opinion.

sportyblue
12th December 2007, 20:49
I agree. I keep a 38 on my nightstand and a 32 in my purse...and hubby keeps a few as well. God have mercy on the b#stards that cross my path. Robbery is a high risk occupation. Maybe if we run a few tv announcements (w/subtitles) telling the phuckers that breaking and entering can lead to death, the bleeding hearts will shut up. Almost like a warning on a pack of cigarettes.Good God! Did it really make a difference that they were immigrants. In the same situation, I would've taken care of them whether they were white, black, yellow or blue. In my opinion when they stepped onto someone's property w/mallace on the mind, they thru their lives on the table...too bad they got dealt a bad hand. **sniff-sniff** :rolleyes:

Can't people find better things to focus all their time and energy on. Like maybe causes that actually make a difference and are legitimate. What about child abuse or animal cruelty, where the victim is guilty of no wrong doings? Wouldn't that be better than wasting time on scums who chose their paths?

Just my un-humble opinion.


He's going to have a hard time proving self-defense I think. I certainly don't like ass wipes just like the next person but by God if I'm going to put myself in a position to do some time it is going to be for a very very good reason and shooting two ass wipes with a bunch of stolen crap is NOT the reason for me to do time. But hey each to there own.

blakjak
12th December 2007, 20:56
IMO

There's not damn thing wrong with killing people who deserve it. There's many that do and get it and many that do and don't get it. I guess the justice system is the best we can do to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

For the love of God, don't ever feel sorry for grown human beings who make a decision and then end up in over their heads. I won't feel sorry for Joe if he ends up in the pokey. It may be a damn shame but he chose to do it and apparently he believed it. I do agree with his actions (though maybe not the thought process).

Feel sorry for the innocent kids who have to suffer and the person whose house gets robbed and their neighbor doesn't give enough of a damn to help out. Feel sorry for people who can't figure out what reality is and that death and the absolute fear of the consequences of your actions NEEDS to be very prevalent, even though so many instances show that it's not.

Feel sorry for those who feel that nothing that we have for ourselves in rights or in personal property is worth protecting at all costs.

Bill2
12th December 2007, 20:57
Well....

If it was two legal American/Mexicans then I feel Joe should be prosecuted. Steeling property should not carry a death sentence. Now shooting two people that sneaked into this country to commit crimes should get whatever comes to them. They have invaded a foreign country.

I don't care where you come from or what color your skin is. If you come into this country legally then you deserve everything this country has too offer and are equal to anyone born here. If you come in illegally then you don't deserve anything other then being sent back.

You know there's a reason breaking into someone home vs. breaking into a building carries different sentences. The reason is when a person breaks into a home the chances are way greater that they run into someone, maybe sleeping or whatever then in quickly goes from a break in to maybe rape, maybe murder, kidnapping, ect. The point being that's what these illegal Columbians where doing breaking into a "home". They where also hardcore gang members that do burglaries all the time. So it was a matter of time before some hard working honest person was raped, killed, you name it by these thugs. So i think mr. horn was standing up for every honest American home owner. With all the crime in the greater Houston area sometimes it takes to long before the law can respond and to many times the thugs get away to maybe come to a home near you soon. Think about it and what a "simple burglary" can turn into in no time flat! These thugs had a super long rap sheet and they ended up where they belong where they can't steal, hurt, kill, and rape honest citizens anymore. Whats even more BS the Houston black panthers are trying to make it a racial thing out of it. There would'nt be as much crime if people looked out for their neighbors instead of just looking the other way. I meant to add it doesnt matter what color a thug is they all deserve the same.

dagsportster
12th December 2007, 21:11
http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/customavatars/avatar9537_12.gif

http://www.myspace.com/thegrlegrl



On a lighter note...NICE holiday outfit! :yikes Your husband hit the jackpot in the wife lottery!

doc
12th December 2007, 21:16
Here's a copy of the Texas CCW Laws (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf). Chapter 2 has the deadly force statutes in it. Looking at subchapter D sections 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43 it looks as though he may have been justified if I am reading it correctly. Maybe a few others could look at it and chime in with their translation.

DIESEL
12th December 2007, 21:22
What happens if the people who were stealing actually had permission to take the items, which Joe had no idea about and he ended their lives?

Different Story.

As far as being illegal. Well, we are supposed to protect our country from all enemies Foriegn and Domestic--so quit sending the National Guard to the border and let angry guntoting rednecks protect our country, would be cheaper in the long run.

Two dead illegal immigrants=population control.

Shooting them in Texas= stroke of luck

I think Joe jumped the gun, so to speak, and he should be thankful if he does not end up in Prison, specifically death row.

terrya88
12th December 2007, 21:31
I guess this is where the "Shoot first, ask questions later" comes into play.

Mistake was being on the phone when he did it.

T

superwarden
12th December 2007, 21:35
I believe that in Texas he was within his legal right, or darn close to it to shoot them two idiots for robbing his neighbor. Either way, he deserves a medal for standing up and fighting for our right to freedom from crime. That man is a citizen, if you stand by and do nothing you are a subject.

Flat Top
12th December 2007, 21:37
I have always been a firm believer in the practice of sending defective materials back to the manufacturer...

sportyblue
12th December 2007, 21:43
IMO

There's not damn thing wrong with killing people who deserve it. There's many that do and get it and many that do and don't get it. I guess the justice system is the best we can do to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

For the love of God, don't ever feel sorry for grown human beings who make a decision and then end up in over their heads. I won't feel sorry for Joe if he ends up in the pokey. It may be a damn shame but he chose to do it and apparently he believed it. I do agree with his actions (though maybe not the thought process).

Feel sorry for the innocent kids who have to suffer and the person whose house gets robbed and their neighbor doesn't give enough of a damn to help out. Feel sorry for people who can't figure out what reality is and that death and the absolute fear of the consequences of your actions NEEDS to be very prevalent, even though so many instances show that it's not.

Feel sorry for those who feel that nothing that we have for ourselves in rights or in personal property is worth protecting at all costs.


I agree kill them if they need it. Do no confuse what is worth protecting at all costs though. The life of a child is worth protecting at all costs and part of protecting that life is having enough self control to NOT blow away a scum bag and leave others to raise your child perhaps while you are doing time.......ie foster care where they will have a high probablity of being subjected to abuse of some kind..... bad abuse in some cases. I was here and I made the choice not to kill.....I will stand on my choice until the day I die. My choice was not based on fear of death or doing time but fear of protecting my child to the very best of my abilities.

ed_in_az
12th December 2007, 21:46
Here's a copy of the Texas CCW Laws (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf). Chapter 2 has the deadly force statutes in it. Looking at subchapter D sections 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43 it looks as though he may have been justified if I am reading it correctly. Maybe a few others could look at it and chime in with their translation.

Based on the reading of those laws:

1. Joe will not be charged

2. God Bless Texas

3. All Americans should be Texans:banana

moto vito
12th December 2007, 22:06
And all those laws were signed in Austin. If you think Austin is like California,you have never been to California. Austin can still be saved if the (RIGHT) thinking people move there. CALIFORNIA IS GONE.

DIESEL
12th December 2007, 22:09
They had the shootee's wife on the news. Looks like we will be supporting them for a while, while she finds another "good father."

It's hard issue either way. I don't agree with the shooting 100% because it has been reported they were shot in the back.

cantolina
12th December 2007, 22:11
I don't know the nuances of the law, but my take is.....

If you're a scumbag, in the act of being a scumbag, you have no rights...

If a citizen blows you away in the act of being a scumbag, thank God for his marksmanship....

Any other thinking is what's WRONG with America today....

Had the "scumbag in question" been IN the guys house, we wouldn't even see this on the news....

I, personally, don't see the difference....

Wheezy
12th December 2007, 22:34
And all those laws were signed in Austin. If you think Austin is like California,you have never been to California. Austin can still be saved if the (RIGHT) thinking people move there. CALIFORNIA IS GONE.

I didn't say it was exactly like California, I said it was the closest thing to California in Texas.

ed_in_az
12th December 2007, 22:34
I am shocked!:wonderlan

After searching our Arizona Revised Statutes it appears Joe could be legal here too.:banana

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.
B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.
C. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.
2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.






I guess I'll stay in Arizona.:clap

el jinete fantasma
12th December 2007, 22:46
Yee Haw, Internet Cowboys!:gun:horseride
:lmaorof

seantx
12th December 2007, 22:46
IF this goes to trial (doubtful) jury selection will be the deciding factor in the case. Killing someone for stealing is pretty much a no-bill here.

His only mistake is that he called 911 two shots too early.

ed_in_az
12th December 2007, 22:50
His only mistake is that he called 911 two shots too early.

THAT could indeed sink him.

ed_in_az
12th December 2007, 22:54
Yee Haw, Internet Cowboys!:gun:horseride
:lmaorof


I see you live in LA.

Try to imagine how wonderful it feels to have the right to say NO to crime and have the "tools" to back it up.;)

If you can't imagine it ... you've lived there too long.:laugh

DRAWTOOL
12th December 2007, 23:00
Yee Haw, Internet Cowboys!:gun:horseride
:lmaorof

Well, we don't have Rodney King to help us all "just get along.";)

bearsfan
12th December 2007, 23:05
You know - if we as Americans would just open our borders and give these "illegal aliens" benefits and jobs, they wouldn't HAVE to break into peoples houses and steal stuff to survive! This would be a non-issue.

Johnny Wolf
12th December 2007, 23:27
Well, we don't have Rodney King to help us all "just get along.";)


Very good point. The very moment after that tape hit the TV airwaves California was changed forever. My Pops, a retired LASD said that before the Rodney King incident most inmates would never even look an officer in the eyes. When they walked down the jail halls they used to get out of the way of officers and push a shoulder against the wall.

Now they taunt the officers by spiting, bumping, name calling etc.

California needs to grow a pair and take lessons from Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

blakjak
13th December 2007, 01:05
Yee Haw, Internet Cowboys!:gun:horseride
:lmaorof

Hey, thanks for helping confirm the stereotype about city slickers and helplessness. ;)

Shevieman
13th December 2007, 01:13
I just have one more thing to say.

THIN THE HERD!

cdb8730
13th December 2007, 01:17
i agree with y2k the call should have been made after the fact........

blakjak
13th December 2007, 01:25
Apparently he hasn't seen "Sling Blade" or he would have followed Carl's lead.

Y2K
13th December 2007, 02:43
From listening to the 911 call, its obvious they posed no threat to him. If they did, then shoot the bastards. I'm not saying they should hang this guy, or that what he did was wrong, just that I dont agree with it, and the FAC that we all need to get straight is that he took someone's life over something that didn't really matter all that much(money, etc). If they were in my house, I would have shot them NO QUESTIONS ASKED, thats the point of the LAW here in Texas. If they were hurting someone or posing a threat to someone, by all means feel free to shoot them. I'm not trying to argue here, just a little different opinion from someone who's a little more cautious of guns and the effects they can have in the hands of the wrong people. Listen to the 911 tape, he decided to shoot them long before he called 911, that doesnt sound like he was in much danger to me.

While I'll agree the tape sounds bad it still doesn't tell the whole story.
I know I couldn't just sit in my house and watch my neighbors be robbed.
I'd have to try and do something,I wouldn't go outside and confront the bastards unarmed that's for damned sure and if the f#$ckers made a move on me I'd let 'em have it.
Who knows what went down in the neighbors house before hand,they could be laying there dead or dying while I sit in my house and watch the perps drive away,I think not.
It's a tough call without seeing what actually went down but one thing is for sure,if the bastards hadn't been doing what they were doing and knowing it was wrong and putting themselves at risk they would be alive today.
I have little sympathy for the illegal alien criminals,they knew damn well that invading someones home is a business that can get you killed.

el jinete fantasma
13th December 2007, 03:00
Hey, thanks for helping confirm the stereotype about city slickers and helplessness. ;)

Interesting interpretation.

Clarinetcat
13th December 2007, 03:25
Here's a copy of the Texas CCW Laws (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf). Chapter 2 has the deadly force statutes in it. Looking at subchapter D sections 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43 it looks as though he may have been justified if I am reading it correctly. Maybe a few others could look at it and chime in with their translation.

I haven't read the deadly force statutes (couldn't open the file for some reason), but they were just discussing this on CNN... apparently in Texas, protecting property of self and neighbors rates almost as high as defending life.

I'd have to agree with Ed_In_Az, according to the LAW, Joe Horn will most likely not be charged with any crime.

easystreet
13th December 2007, 07:34
WOW ! Finally a Neighborhood Watch program with some teeth. :-)

SportsterBart
13th December 2007, 08:24
If there is any crime here it's that he should have kept his mouth shut.

beuz
13th December 2007, 08:49
For me, nobody would be allowed to do it's own justice....
I can understand the temptation to shoot the one who has stolen you but not if this bastard hasn't got a weapon.
It's what the french law calls "légitime défense" in France (legal defense).
The ripost has to be proportional to the attack or you'r a murderer and go to jail for 25 years...

We haven't the same weapon market.
You need to be member of a shooting club, with a special permit you'll have after a year in the club, to buy a gun. The first year, you have to rent the gun at your club..
Only cops and body guards are allowed to carry their guns under their vest.
Shooting club members can transport their guns in locked case, at the rear of their vehicle...
It's different for hunting weapons.
A hunting licence is enough to buy and carry your hunting gun...

ColinB
13th December 2007, 09:09
The ripost has to be proportional to the attack or you'r a murderer and go to jail ...


Same in the UK. If they're coming towards you, you can shoot them. If they're going away from you and you shoot them, then it's revenge and you go to jail.

Where does it end.....could a shop-keeper shoot someone for shoplifting? Is there any answer or is there a massive grey area?

cootertwo
13th December 2007, 09:41
I just knew I liked you, for something more than your beautiful body!:banadanc

I agree. I keep a 38 on my nightstand and a 32 in my purse...and hubby keeps a few as well. God have mercy on the b#stards that cross my path. Robbery is a high risk occupation. Maybe if we run a few tv announcements (w/subtitles) telling the phuckers that breaking and entering can lead to death, the bleeding hearts will shut up. Almost like a warning on a pack of cigarettes.Good God! Did it really make a difference that they were immigrants. In the same situation, I would've taken care of them whether they were white, black, yellow or blue. In my opinion when they stepped onto someone's property w/mallace on the mind, they thru their lives on the table...too bad they got dealt a bad hand. **sniff-sniff** :rolleyes:

Can't people find better things to focus all their time and energy on. Like maybe causes that actually make a difference and are legitimate. What about child abuse or animal cruelty, where the victim is guilty of no wrong doings? Wouldn't that be better than wasting time on scums who chose their paths?

Just my un-humble opinion.

jharback
13th December 2007, 10:52
Where does it end.....could a shop-keeper shoot someone for shoplifting? Is there any answer or is there a massive grey area?

Big difference between defending your or your neighbors home from someone who breaks in and steals and a shoplifter at a store. Your home, or for that matter, your neighbors home should be inviolate. You should have an innane right to be safe in your own home.

beuz
13th December 2007, 11:03
Your home, or for that matter, your neighbors home should be inviolate. You should have an innane right to be safe in your own home.

Even if the guy who tries to enter your home is a homeless who only wants to find something to eat or to sell against food ????
Here is the difference between a real bastard who could kill your mom and a poor man who only wants to survive....
But that's not written on his face.
That way, will you shoot first and then ask him ???

ColinB
13th December 2007, 12:03
Big difference between defending your or your neighbors home from someone who breaks in and steals and a shoplifter at a store. Your home, or for that matter, your neighbors home should be inviolate. You should have an innane right to be safe in your own home.

True - I have no argument with that. However, a shop is someone's living, their business, and just to repeat what a lot of people have said, isn't a shoplifter 'a :censor theiving scum-bag' and therefore 'deserves to die'.

What I'm really trying to say is, that if you have to make the law you have to have a clear definition of when it's allowable to shoot and kill someone. Do you have to break in to a home or is stealing a bike from your driveway enough, or your lawn-mower, or your garden spade - where's the line.
Do have to shout a warning first and give them chance to run away, or can you just shoot them in the back?

We may all be sensible people here with a lot of self-control and the desire not to hurt anyone unless defending ourselves or our loved ones, but I'm sure we are all aware that there some people out there who are not like this. Unless there are clear guidelines then we can just wait for our noisy neighbour to step on to our property so we can shoot him, and then plead self-defence. The law has to apply to all people at all times.

shotgun46
13th December 2007, 12:25
He was confronted in his own yard I would do the same and I would buy him a beer too !

beuz
13th December 2007, 12:53
True - I have no argument with that. However, a shop is someone's living, their business, and just to repeat what a lot of people have said, isn't a shoplifter 'a :censor theiving scum-bag' and therefore 'deserves to die'.

What I'm really trying to say is, that if you have to make the law you have to have a clear definition of when it's allowable to shoot and kill someone. Do you have to break in to a home or is stealing a bike from your driveway enough, or your lawn-mower, or your garden spade - where's the line.
Do have to shout a warning first and give them chance to run away, or can you just shoot them in the back?

We may all be sensible people here with a lot of self-control and the desire not to hurt anyone unless defending ourselves or our loved ones, but I'm sure we are all aware that there some people out there who are not like this. Unless there are clear guidelines then we can just wait for our noisy neighbour to step on to our property so we can shoot him, and then plead self-defence. The law has to apply to all people at all times.

I agree !!!;)

ColinB
13th December 2007, 13:40
I agree !!!;)

Thanks. We'll be in France on Monday for 'une quinzaine' and we can't wait. I ride more miles in France than I do in England now, I love it.

À bientôt

ColinB
13th December 2007, 13:50
He was confronted in his own yard I would do the same and I would buy him a beer too !

If he was confronted, and threatened, and shot them in the front after giving them chance to see the gun and run away (if there was time); then I would also do the same.

However, it sounds like he went outside with intention to kill and shot both of them in the back - I presume one at a time without waiting to see if the second one ran away.

These are two very different scenarios and, to me, the law needs to treat them differently.

beuz
13th December 2007, 14:07
Thanks. We'll be in France on Monday for 'une quinzaine' and we can't wait. I ride more miles in France than I do in England now, I love it.

À bientôt

Where will you go, in France ?

ColinB
13th December 2007, 14:20
Where will you go, in France ?

Baud, in Morbihan. Where are you? Sorry everyone....:hijack

celtic
13th December 2007, 14:26
If he was confronted, and threatened, and shot them in the front after giving them chance to see the gun and run away (if there was time); then I would also do the same.

However, it sounds like he went outside with intention to kill and shot both of them in the back - I presume one at a time without waiting to see if the second one ran away.

These are two very different scenarios and, to me, the law needs to treat them differently.

+1

(the message i have entered is too short)

jharback
13th December 2007, 14:32
Even if the guy who tries to enter your home is a homeless who only wants to find something to eat or to sell against food ????
Here is the difference between a real bastard who could kill your mom and a poor man who only wants to survive....
But that's not written on his face.
That way, will you shoot first and then ask him ???

No, If he's illegally in my home I'll just shoot him.

tcspannerwrench
13th December 2007, 14:48
Wheezy said take their picture (i didnt want to post his whole quote) that would do a lot of good when they shot you in the process of focusing, a camera isnt much protection against hard criminals. and they sure dont like their picture taken.
on a different not my boss (who works swing shift like i do) woke up one day about noon or so walked out to his driveway and heard glass breaking at the house next to his, what did he do walked back inside and at lunch! when leaving for work about 5:30 or so he saw cops in the street and aked if the house next door was robed he was nice enuff to infor the officer what time the robbery took place (frickin tool) i am glad i dont live next to him. turns out theys 6 poeple 3 guys and 3 girls robed over 200 house's in daytime hours and no one reported nothing they were caught becouse of excessive pawn shop visits.
now i will admit if it were me i may have tryed to shoot their knee or something but i am glad some one like joe is out there.



You know - if we as Americans would just open our borders and give these "illegal aliens" benefits and jobs, they wouldn't HAVE to break into peoples houses and steal stuff to survive! This would be a non-issue.
this is a good idea if we anex Mexico otherwise our dollars will just continue to be earned in the US and sent to Mexico to be spent and taxed by Mexico.
Good for Mexico not so good for USA

beuz
13th December 2007, 14:49
Baud, in Morbihan. Where are you? Sorry everyone....:hijack

Sorry everybody !!!
You've got a PM !!!

linkin5
13th December 2007, 14:54
The only good thief is a dead thief. I just wish more thieves were dead.

ed_in_az
13th December 2007, 15:56
I am curious since some have indicated a willingness to live and let live as far as the criminal element goes. If someone is just robbing you, would you go along with it? If they want is your car would you give them keys so they don't have to cut any wires? If all they want is to rape your wife, but not kill her, would you refrain from shooting the attacker? Would you ask them if sex, money and maybe your TV is all they want?

For those that have these warm fuzzy feelings for criminals, and even those that don't, do any of you believe that calling the police will prevent the crime that is about to happen, or already in progress?

Additionally, are any of you in the warm fuzzy crowd confident of being able to defend yourself against an armed attacker? or even multiple unarmed attackers? Or would you just bend over?

bearsfan
13th December 2007, 16:01
:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender :surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender :surrender

We need to be more like the French!

:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender :surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender :surrender

mtl-XLR
13th December 2007, 16:02
It's what the french law calls "légitime défense" in France (legal defense).
The ripost has to be proportional to the attack or you'r a murderer and go to jail for 25 years...

I take issue with your translation ... "légitime défense" would actually mean legitimate defense ... which is really the question here ... was he defending himself ? ... no, was he defending his neighbors property ?, yes ... is it acceptable or not to kill someone to protect property ? ... IMHO, no .

SportyJoe
13th December 2007, 16:04
In Texas we have what is called the "Castle Law" http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2007-03-27.0601
It is leagle to shoot someone who you feel is threatening you/your life with bodily harm as long as they are on your property.

So it would come down to wether or not they were on HIS property... Ill have to go back and re-read the story, but if they came onto Mr. Horns Propety, and threatened him with to the extent that he felt his life was in danger, than, in the state of Texas, he can leagly shoot them.

mtl-XLR
13th December 2007, 16:13
:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender :surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender :surrender

We need to be more like the French!

:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender :surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender:surrender :surrender

Give up our country without a fight and cooperate with the Nazis while they set themselves up in our own country and exterminate our fellow countrymen ???

Sell weapons to the highest bidders regardless of their political motives knowing that they may be used against our allies ???

I don't think so !!!

el jinete fantasma
13th December 2007, 17:00
However, it sounds like he went outside with intention to kill and shot both of them in the back - I presume one at a time without waiting to see if the second one ran away.

If that's the case, it doesn't seem like he should be touted as the new Great American Hero. He should be prosecuted just like the guys he killed should have been.

ColinB
13th December 2007, 17:01
Sorry everybody !!!
You've got a PM !!!

Not yet, I haven't....and you're not recieving!

Clarinetcat
13th December 2007, 17:03
I can understand the temptation to shoot the one who has stolen you but not if this bastard hasn't got a weapon.
It's what the french law calls "légitime défense" in France (legal defense).
The ripost has to be proportional to the attack or you'r a murderer and go to jail for 25 years...

Ahhh... the antiquated laws of fighting your enemy, eh? :rolleyes:

The best touché is an aggressive and accurate lunge in which your opponent has no chance for a riposte. ::wonderlan

In this case, that's pretty much what Joe Horn did.

By the way, are you positive the two illegal aliens (http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html) (who apparently were also career criminals (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5359290.html)) were unarmed?

Would you have waited to find out?












Touché.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/OBfreakUV0001/0127f4b7.gif

beuz
13th December 2007, 17:04
Give up our country without a fight and cooperate with the Nazis while they set themselves up in our own country and exterminate our fellow countrymen ???

Sell weapons to the highest bidders regardless of their political motives knowing that they may be used against our allies ???

I don't think so !!!

Cooperating with the nazis....
No way, some french did but most part fighted !!!
I'm from Brittany.
If once, you can go to France, just visit the Resistance Museum of Saint Marcel (Morbihan).
I went with my father, many years ago and he showed me a lot of pictures in the museum of my uncles and my grand father, destroying railways, putting bombs everywhere they could to slow down the SS army.
They were what we called FFI (independant french forces) ordered from London by Mister De gaulle, after he called for resistance the 18th of june 1940.
My other grand father was prisonner in Germany from 1941 to 1945.

About selling weapons, you're right !!
I can't understand the idea of receiving like a king, mister Mouammar Kadhafi, the biggest son of the :censor ,after Adolf Hitler....
One day, will he use this weapons against us and you ????

I hate extremists, whatever they are (politics, religious...).

ColinB
13th December 2007, 17:10
Give up our country without a fight and cooperate with the Nazis while they set themselves up in our own country and exterminate our fellow countrymen ???

Sell weapons to the highest bidders regardless of their political motives knowing that they may be used against our allies ???

I don't think so !!!

Could you remind me which country Oliver North was selling weapons to, please.

beuz
13th December 2007, 17:14
Ahhh... the antiquated laws of fighting your enemy, eh? :rolleyes:

The best touché is an aggressive and accurate lunge in which your opponent has no chance for a riposte. ::wonderlan

In this case, that's pretty much what Joe Horn did.

By the way, are you positive the two illegal aliens (http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html) (who apparently were also career criminals (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5359290.html)) were unarmed?

Would you have waited to find out?



Touché.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/OBfreakUV0001/0127f4b7.gif

May be not but I wouldn't have shooted them in the back.
Just showing you've got a gun and shooting in the air is enough to affraid the "illegal aliens" or whatever they are, in France where weapons are rare...

My house is under a quiet alarm which only rings at the police office...
Don't need a gun that way.

beuz
13th December 2007, 17:16
Could you remind me which country Oliver North was selling weapons to, please.


In 1983 and 1984, who send money and guns to Afghanistan ???
I know that USSR was the enemy and everything seemed to be politicaly correct to fight the enemy....
Every country has made mistakes !!!

Clarinetcat
13th December 2007, 17:23
May be not but I wouldn't have shooted them in the back.
Just showing you've got a gun and shooting in the air is enough to affraid the "illegal aliens" or whatever they are, in France where weapons are rare...

My house is under a quiet alarm which only rings at the police office...
Don't need a gun that way.

... and it would take how long for the police to show up at your house?

Five minutes?

Ten minutes?

Even if it only took three minutes for the police to arrive, what if it only took two criminals two minutes before they walked out of your home with 5-10 of your most valued items, unharmed and without a trace of their whereabouts?

That would be acceptable to you?

beuz
13th December 2007, 17:25
Of course not.
But human life is the most valued thing !!!
We're not in war.......

Clarinetcat
13th December 2007, 17:38
Of course not.
But human life is the most valued thing !!!
We're not in war.......

So you're not in war. :smackh

Oh well... criminals do prefer easy targets.

beuz
13th December 2007, 17:50
Yes, I'm not...
I just have a different point of view.
I only think that the police is here for the law respect and I'm neither a Judge nor an Executioner...That's all.
I will not kill people for "material things"....

Streak70
13th December 2007, 18:11
Dang Wheezy - you beat me to it. That was almost exactly my thought. Austin is a good place for people who don't like Texas or Texans to live.
Gonna' have to check these threads more often I guess.

Hate to dissapoint you, but Austin is as close to California as you can get in Texas

jharback
13th December 2007, 18:17
[QUOTE=Clarinetcat;1007444]
By the way, are you positive the two illegal aliens (http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html) (who apparently were also career criminals (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5359290.html)) were unarmed?

Would you have waited to find out?/QUOTE]

When in doubt, squeeze!

Gone
13th December 2007, 18:22
I think it reflects what just about what every unpolitically correct American thinks about finding somebody breaking into your home or your neighbors home and exiting with stuff that don't belong to him ... his A__ belongs to you.

A well-armed American makes for a kinder, gentler and more polite America.

...and I'll bet that home burgleries are on the decline in Texas right about now.

wade1171
13th December 2007, 18:25
I heard the tape a few days ago and the whole time I'm thinking where in the hell are the cops he was on the phone with them for several minutes and the cops don't show up till after he shoots. I think it is great that he stood up and killed those a--holes. If they would have gotten away more then likely they wouldn't have been caught and if they were they would post bail and go back to there country and not pay for what they did. Just my .02

ed_in_az
13th December 2007, 18:41
Yes, I'm not...
I just have a different point of view.
I only think that the police is here for the law respect and I'm neither a Judge nor an Executioner...That's all.
I will not kill people for "material things"....

I already posted a general version of the following, (#85 in this thread) but no one responded.

So I'm asking you, beuz:

Since you have indicated a willingness to live and let live as far as the criminal element goes. If someone is just robbing you, would you go along with it? If all they want is your car would you give them keys so they don't have to cut any wires? If all they want is to rape your wife, but not kill her, would shooting the attacker be appropriate? Would you ask them if sex, money and maybe your TV is all they want?

Do you believe that calling the police (or your alarm going off) will prevent the crime that is about to happen, or already in progress?

Additionally, are you confident of being able to defend yourself against an armed attacker? or even multiple unarmed attackers? Or, is your death and those of your family a personally acceptable result of a burglary or mugging?

Shevieman
13th December 2007, 18:59
I already posted a general version of this (#85 in this thread) but no one responded.

So I'm asking you, beuz:

Since you have indicated a willingness to live and let live as far as the criminal element goes. If someone is just robbing you, would you go along with it? If all they want is your car would you give them keys so they don't have to cut any wires? If all they want is to rape your wife, but not kill her, would shooting the attacker be appropriate? Would you ask them if sex, money and maybe your TV is all they want?

Do you believe that calling the police (or your alarm going off) will prevent the crime that is about to happen, or already in progress?

Additionally, are you confident of being able to defend yourself against an armed attacker? or even multiple unarmed attackers? Or, is your death and those of your family a personally acceptable result of a burglary or mugging?

Ok so lets say this guy didnt kill these two..........they go down a few blocks and break into a different house and some single mother with her daughter are in the house with no means of self defense..........do you think the mother and daughter would survive. Its NOT ABOUT MATERIAL THINGS DAMN IT! Its about these asshats thinking they can do what they wish and killing people as they wish. These people have no understanding what life is. They dont care. They dont care about you me or anyone else. Im Glad they are DEAD!

THIN THE HERD!

Shev

yorgo
13th December 2007, 18:59
Mr Horn just saved the American people a boat load of money.

Shevieman
13th December 2007, 19:01
Amen! and GOD BLESS HIM!

Phaedrus
13th December 2007, 19:04
Just learned how to play this song by Fred Eaglesmith, thought it was fitting.

A Bm D A
A Bm D A
My neighbour's car got stole last night right out of his driveway.
We heard the dogs a-barking, we never paid them any mind.
And Mary says she's going to lock the door from now on when we go away
A Bm D E
And I've been walking around this farm wondering if it's time,

Chorus:
A Bm
Time to get a gun, that's what I been thinking.
D E
I could afford one if I did a little less drinking.
A Bm
It's time to put something between me and the sun.
D A
When the talking is over, it's time to get a gun.

Last week a government man was there when I walked out of my back door.
He said I'm sorry to bother you, son, but it don't matter anymore.
'Cause even while we're talking, well, right here where we stand,
They're making plans for a four-lane highway and a big old overpass.

(Chorus)

E A
Mary says she's worried about herself and the kids
She's never known anybody had a gun and her daddy never did.
But I think it should be up to me, 'cause when it's all said and done
E A E
Somebody's got to walk into the night, well I'm going to be that one.

(Chorus)
TIME TO GET A GUN Fred Eaglesmith

Streak70
13th December 2007, 19:11
There's a new wrinkle. It appears that there is a witness --- and he's a plainclothes officer who arrived just moments before the shooting. First heard about this yesterday. Here's a link.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html

el jinete fantasma
13th December 2007, 19:17
There's a new wrinkle. It appears that there is a witness --- and he's a plainclothes officer who arrived just moments before the shooting. First heard about this yesterday. Here's a link.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html

Nice. How long before Texas puts up a statue for him in front of the state capital?:laugh

snowman
13th December 2007, 19:18
The two things I see here is this guy's mindset is to protect and defend...:usa2 Bless him for risking his life in doing that, because that's what he did.

The second is that if he didn't do what he did, he would most likely be a dead man now because those two would have gone back for more help and came and got him later.....:geek:geek:geek

ed_in_az
13th December 2007, 19:27
The fact that he told them "not to move" and they continued should cover his actions. When a cop tells you not to move and you come at him or even run away, what do you think will happen?

Joe attempted to make a citizen's arrest. It didn't work out so well for the burglars.

Streak70
13th December 2007, 19:38
That would be in Austin. Not gonna' happen.

Nice. How long before Texas puts up a statue for him in front of the state capital?:laugh

Clarinetcat
13th December 2007, 19:58
Nice. How long before Texas puts up a statue for him in front of the state capital?:laugh

I think we should capitalize on the situation and market a new product...
Strike while the iron is hot, so to speak.

We could mass produce life-size, realistic silhouettes or molded plastic statues of Joe Horn with a shotgun... people could place them in their yard or in their home windows.

It would be like having a bird-of-prey Great Horned Owl statue in your garden to ward off unwanted birds and animals. ;)


http://images.acehardwareoutlet.com/getimage/getImage.aspx?Path=products/75995.jpg&height=200&width=175

el jinete fantasma
13th December 2007, 20:09
I think we should capitalize on the situation and market a new product...
Strike while the iron is hot, so to speak.

We could mass produce life-size, realistic silhouettes or molded plastic statues of Joe Horn with a shotgun... people could place them in their yard or in their home windows.

It would be like having a bird-of-prey Great Horned Owl statue in your garden to ward off unwanted birds and animals. ;)


http://images.acehardwareoutlet.com/getimage/getImage.aspx?Path=products/75995.jpg&height=200&width=175

:laugh That's the first reasonable suggestion in this whole thread!

Clarinetcat
13th December 2007, 20:11
:laugh That's the first reasonable suggestion in this whole thread!

Thank you!

Maybe even beuz would buy one! :roflblack

el jinete fantasma
13th December 2007, 20:20
Thank you!

Maybe even beuz would buy one! :roflblack

I'm not sure plastic guns are allowed.;)

DRAWTOOL
13th December 2007, 21:00
This from Wiki, I was curious about the asshole "Quanell X" but I was Shocked to read: "The crowd of counter-protesters included bikers revving their motorcycles" :eek:

Joe Horn Protest
Main article: Joe Horn shooting controversy
Quanell X led a protest in Pasadena, Texas on December 2, 2007. The protest was held in front of Horn's house, the man suspected of shooting dead Hernando Riascos Torres (Miguel Antonio DeJesus) and Diego Ortiz, illegal immigrants from Colombia. Quanell arrived with seven others carefully approached Horn's house to speak to the media, was greatly out numbered by several hundred counter-protesters supporting Horn. The crowd of counter-protesters included bikers revving their motorcycles, many chanting "USA", "Go home" and "We love our country, what do you love?", and waving placards and US flags. Quanell could not be heard over the noise, even when using a bullhorn. Quanell left the area about 8 minutes later, having been unsuccessful in attempting to make a public speech. He returned soon after with more supporters and attempted to speak again, but the counter-protests continued. Riot police were readied in case of violence between the two groups.

blakjak
13th December 2007, 22:25
They were riding sportbikes and Moto Guzzi's.

XL 50
13th December 2007, 23:28
They were riding sportbikes and Moto Guzzi's.

A lot of Harleys were there revving there engines to drown out MR X in support of Joe.(Do you really think you can trust someone with a name like X?)

el jinete fantasma
13th December 2007, 23:45
(Do you really think you can trust someone with a name like X?)

About as much as you can trust someone who refuses to put the license plate on their bike!:p
;)

XL 50
13th December 2007, 23:48
About as much as you can trust someone who refuses to put the license plate on their bike!:p
;)

I resemble that remark! (it's only go'in on two years)

Winchester92367
14th December 2007, 04:24
http://www.joehornformyneighbor.com.

Legal defense fund for Joe!

el jinete fantasma
14th December 2007, 04:30
http://www.joehornformyneighbor.com.

Legal defense fund for Joe!

I am speechless...

Winchester92367
14th December 2007, 04:35
Warning :The Sugeon General has determined that Burglery can lead to acute lead poisoning


:laugh:laugh

hillers03
14th December 2007, 04:41
Ok so lets say this guy didnt kill these two..........they go down a few blocks and break into a different house and some single mother with her daughter are in the house with no means of self defense..........do you think the mother and daughter would survive. Its NOT ABOUT MATERIAL THINGS DAMN IT! Its about these asshats thinking they can do what they wish and killing people as they wish. These people have no understanding what life is. They dont care. They dont care about you me or anyone else. Im Glad they are DEAD!

THIN THE HERD!

Shev

Realy we can play the what if game all night but what happened is he stood up to the robbers and used his 2nd amendment rights to bare arms!!:tour

mtl-XLR
14th December 2007, 04:54
Cooperating with the nazis....
No way, some french did but most part fighted !!!
I'm from Brittany.
If once, you can go to France, just visit the Resistance Museum of Saint Marcel (Morbihan).
I went with my father, many years ago and he showed me a lot of pictures in the museum of my uncles and my grand father, destroying railways, putting bombs everywhere they could to slow down the SS army.
They were what we called FFI (independant french forces) ordered from London by Mister De gaulle, after he called for resistance the 18th of june 1940.
My other grand father was prisonner in Germany from 1941 to 1945.

About selling weapons, you're right !!
I can't understand the idea of receiving like a king, mister Mouammar Kadhafi, the biggest son of the :censor ,after Adolf Hitler....
One day, will he use this weapons against us and you ????

I hate extremists, whatever they are (politics, religious...).

I'm proud of the French resistance fighters and their heroic efforts, and am glad that their heroism has been recognized ... I was referring to the French government and how they acted when the Nazis arrived.

and btw, I couldn't agree more about extremists, the truth always is somewhere in the middle ... and never at the extremes in any argument !

mtl-XLR
14th December 2007, 05:02
Could you remind me which country Oliver North was selling weapons to, please.

We all know that those very same weapons were eventually used against us !

Roadster_Rider
14th December 2007, 05:07
Don't call the cops BEFORE you shoot someone... duh.

el jinete fantasma
14th December 2007, 06:22
Realy we can play the what if game all night but what happened is he stood up to the robbers and used his 2nd amendment rights to bare arms!!:tour

Speaking of antiquated laws... Joe was in the Militia, right?;)

pattywagon
14th December 2007, 07:06
I also wish he was my neighbor, maybe we would not have been rip off a couple a weeks ago. I pity the SOB I catch on my property !!!!

beuz
14th December 2007, 07:51
I already posted a general version of the following, (#85 in this thread) but no one responded.

So I'm asking you, beuz:

Since you have indicated a willingness to live and let live as far as the criminal element goes. If someone is just robbing you, would you go along with it? If all they want is your car would you give them keys so they don't have to cut any wires? If all they want is to rape your wife, but not kill her, would shooting the attacker be appropriate? Would you ask them if sex, money and maybe your TV is all they want?

Do you believe that calling the police (or your alarm going off) will prevent the crime that is about to happen, or already in progress?

Additionally, are you confident of being able to defend yourself against an armed attacker? or even multiple unarmed attackers? Or, is your death and those of your family a personally acceptable result of a burglary or mugging?

As I said earlier, I respect the legitimate defense law.
It's written on my house walls that the house is protected and they could be arrested in a few minutes by breaking in.....
If they armed, I'll try to scare them first with my gun and shoot if they don't want to go away.
But I'll never shoot first without knowing if they're armed or not....

About unarmed attackers, I'm not scared....
I've practiced Judo and then Aïkido since 1977.........

beuz
14th December 2007, 07:59
I'm proud of the French resistance fighters and their heroic efforts, and am glad that their heroism has been recognized ... I was referring to the French government and how they acted when the Nazis arrived.

and btw, I couldn't agree more about extremists, the truth always is somewhere in the middle ... and never at the extremes in any argument !

We had a "soft balls" government in 1939.............:censor

Clarinetcat
14th December 2007, 12:49
As I said earlier, I respect the legitimate defense law.
It's written on my house walls that the house is protected and they could be arrested in a few minutes by breaking in.....
That's all fine and dandy... unless the criminal can't read. :smackh


If they armed, I'll try to scare them first with my gun and shoot if they don't want to go away.
But I'll never shoot first without knowing if they're armed or not....

About unarmed attackers, I'm not scared....
I've practiced Judo and then Aïkido since 1977.........
Scare them first?

Sorry Partner, You Lose!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joRmmbn36yw

beuz
14th December 2007, 13:15
That's all fine and dandy... unless the criminal can't read. :smackh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joRmmbn36yw

Excellent !!! :p:p:p

beuz
14th December 2007, 13:20
Scare them first?
Sorry Partner, You Lose!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joRmmbn36yw

I never had the problem.
I quite tall and big, not an angel's face with my long air, and most part of the neighborhood knows me and the members of my Harley club.
That's enough for not being disturbed by "illegal aliens" or "bastards"...

Maybe you're right and I should be killed....


I'm the one on the right :

http://i24.servimg.com/u/f24/11/00/68/87/webbro10.jpg

Clarinetcat
14th December 2007, 13:36
Maybe you're right and I should be killed....


I'm the one on the right :

http://i24.servimg.com/u/f24/11/00/68/87/webbro10.jpg

No no no no no, I'm sorry... I don't mean to imply that you should be killed. :(

I just would hate to see anyone get hurt or worse, in their own home, trying to "scare" a criminal.


Nice picture. :D


I certainly wouldn't mess with yah. ;)

Bill2
14th December 2007, 14:34
Those type of thugs don't care what you look like, how big you are, or whatever if you have something they want you a target. Simple as that, they would hijack a hells angels club house if there was some worth a crap in there. Give those guys a warning shot may very well be the last thing you ever do. They just don't value life like most people.

collinsb
14th December 2007, 14:48
READ TEXAS LAW!

§ 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.

ed_in_az
14th December 2007, 15:18
As I said earlier, I respect the legitimate defense law.
It's written on my house walls that the house is protected and they could be arrested in a few minutes by breaking in.....
If they armed, I'll try to scare them first with my gun and shoot if they don't want to go away.
But I'll never shoot first without knowing if they're armed or not....

About unarmed attackers, I'm not scared....
I've practiced Judo and then Aïkido since 1977.........


You're in England and have a gun? Is it legal for you to own, keep in your home loaded, and use for self defense?

At any rate if you think you can scare criminals away, particularly the garden variety of drugged out thugs that need what you have to fund their addictions, well on this side of the pond we already know that doesn't work.

Law abiding citizens tend to have a fairly well developed respect for life. The criminal element establishes by their actions that they don't. They don't repect your life, your Judo, or even your gun. They might fear your gun, but not until they hear the bang.

XLFREAK
14th December 2007, 15:33
http://www.click2houston.com/2007/1116/14620965_240X180.jpg

These guys didn't necessarily look like little orphan Annie.

XL 50
14th December 2007, 16:28
http://www.click2houston.com/2007/1116/14620965_240X180.jpg

These guys didn't necessarily look like little orphan Annie.

Holy shoot, I think that's my brother on the right, I mean was.

beuz
14th December 2007, 16:32
No no no no no, I'm sorry... I don't mean to imply that you should be killed. :(

I just would hate to see anyone get hurt or worse, in their own home, trying to "scare" a criminal.


Nice picture. :D


I certainly wouldn't mess with yah. ;)

That's the way I understood it.
Maybe my english isn't good enouygh to be understood...

beuz
14th December 2007, 16:34
You're in England and have a gun? Is it legal for you to own, keep in your home loaded, and use for self defense?

At any rate if you think you can scare criminals away, particularly the garden variety of drugged out thugs that need what you have to fund their addictions, well on this side of the pond we already know that doesn't work.

Law abiding citizens tend to have a fairly well developed respect for life. The criminal element establishes by their actions that they don't. They don't repect your life, your Judo, or even your gun. They might fear your gun, but not until they hear the bang.

No, I'm french and have one.
It's not legal.:shhhh:shhhh
It's an old french 6.65 mm from WW2 given me buy my uncle who was in the resistance.
It doesn't exist in any register.......;)

ed_in_az
14th December 2007, 17:10
No, I'm french and have one.
It's not legal.:shhhh:shhhh
It's an old french 6.65 mm from WW2 given me buy my uncle who was in the resistance.
It doesn't exist in any register.......;)

Sorry, my mistake assuming you're British. So even in France personal firearms are illegal. That's too bad, and it makes you a criminal. Here in Arizona I can legally carry anything I want as long as it is not a fully automatic weapon, such as a machine gun. With my permit I can also carry it concealed.

Since you're already breaking the law in your country, if you do defend yourself with your gun you will go to jail. Are you comfortable with that possibility? I wouldn't be. I feel safer here in the "wild west".

beuz
14th December 2007, 17:22
My gun is a souvenir, in perfect condition, but first, a family souvenir.
I hope I'll never use it...
Till today, my both hands were enough......

About carrying a gun, a lot of french people have old models, often out of order, sometimes not..
I don't consider myself as an outlaw by having this old gun in my house.

Clarinetcat
14th December 2007, 18:06
I don't consider myself as an outlaw by having this old gun in my house.

Ahaaa... just like Joe Horn doesn't consider himself an outlaw by shooting two burglars. :smoke

ed_in_az
14th December 2007, 18:14
Ahaaa... just like Joe Horn doesn't consider himself an outlaw by shooting two burglars. :smoke


Ding Ding, we have a winner.:smoke

According to the common reading of Texas law, Joe Horn is probably not an outlaw.

According to Beuz himself, regarding his gun, "It's not legal.:shhhh:shhhh". That by definition makes him outside the law, an outlaw.

Clarinetcat
14th December 2007, 18:19
Ding Ding, we have a winner.:smoke

According to the common reading of Texas law, Joe Horn is probably not an outlaw.

According to Beuz himself, regarding his gun, "It's not legal.:shhhh:shhhh". That by definition makes him outside the law, an outlaw.

Jeesh... it must be the holidays...

Ed and I agree on something again. :laugh ;)

ed_in_az
14th December 2007, 18:19
I don't consider myself as an outlaw by having this old gun in my house.

Regardless of what YOU consider yourself, my question is:

Since you're already breaking the law in your country, if you do defend yourself with your gun you will go to jail. Are you comfortable with that possibility?

ed_in_az
14th December 2007, 18:37
Jeesh... it must be the holidays...

Ed and I agree on something again. :laugh ;)


I don't know if I've just been insulted or complimented.:dunno
:banarock
:cheers

Hardtail58
14th December 2007, 19:44
That 911 call is gonna hang if him if anything does. He's telling the dispatcher he's gonna go over there and "shoot" them....dispatcher is repeatedly telling him to stay put. Gonna be a little hard to prove to a jury his life was in imminent danger. Shooting and killing thieving M'fckers may be very satisfactory but I'm not quite sure its legal.

He may have used bad judgment, but he didn't break any (Texas) laws.

mtl-XLR
15th December 2007, 06:43
[QUOTE=beuz;1009016]
Till today, my both hands were enough......
/QUOTE]

French Soldiers magazine ... what to do with your hands ;)

http://cdn-82.liveleak.com/liveleak/14/media14/2007/Aug/11/LiveLeak-dot-com-81058-soldierofsurrender_1.jpg

hillers03
15th December 2007, 09:09
Put up your guns suc:gun:yikeskka

Desertfox
15th December 2007, 12:55
Living here in Houston, I gotta say ... BRAVO! Two less scum bags I have to worry about breaking into MY house.

Carl-04XL
15th December 2007, 14:06
Picture this, you're confronting a couple of brain dead bad guys, while carrying a shotgun. Said bad guys approach you anyway. Now, it ain't rocket science to burgle a house, but if someone has a shotgun and is telling me something, I'm not going to approach him/her as he/she just may have the courage to pull the trigger.

It takes a certain amount of courage to confront a person committing a serious criminal act. Just like that famous 'box of chocolates' you never know what will happen, so be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.

And from the other side, it takes a whole lot of stupid to approach someone who is visibly armed, especially if you are in the middle of committing a crime.

Did the miscreants actually approach Mr Horn with the intent of doing bodily harm to him? We'll never know. But, if in fact they were approaching when he shot them, sorry guys, you loose.

milmat1
15th December 2007, 14:33
I don't know what the laws are there. But he shot at leat one of them in the Back didn't he ? That would make it quite hard to prove self defense here.
In NC you cannot take a life to protect property, Period ! That means if you catch a thief in your home carrying your stuff out the door, You Can Not Shoot them ! Now if he turns torwards you or reaches for his pocket etc.. You can blast him. The Strange part is if you shoot hime while he is breaking in the door/window etc. Your in the Clear. Why ?? Because you do not know what the threat is at that moment.


The Point to all this rambling is that the laws concerning Deadly Force are very strange and vary from State to State. It is generaly left up to a Grand Jury to decide what should be done. And with all the press coverage they are gonna burn his ass I fear...

Though in my Personal opinion, Let him off and I bet Robberies and breakins will drop by 90% in that town !!!

OldJohnnyThunder
15th December 2007, 16:09
I shed no tears for the loss of career criminals of any variety, but I don't think I want a crackpot like Texas Joe Horn making life and death decisions for society.

This case reminds me a little of the Bernie Goetz case. Did the mopes he shot deserve what they got? Probably. Do I want a dysfunctional nerd out there hunting down criminals on the subway? No way.

As a rule I think the general public should let the police handle law enforcement. Of course, if you you have to defend yourself or the life of an innocent, by all means do what you have to do.

I have a hunch that Texas Joe Horn sat home every day polishing his shotgun just waiting for the day he could shoot someone.

BTW......a bag full of cash taken from a next door neighbor he didn't know? Sounds like ole Joe may have unwittingly been providing security for the local drug dealer, bookmaker or loan shark.

XL 50
15th December 2007, 17:17
I shed no tears for the loss of career criminals of any variety, but I don't think I want a yokel like Texas Joe Horn making life and death decisions for society.

This case reminds me a little of the Bernie Goetz case. Did the mopes he shot deserve what they got? Probably. Do I want a dysfunctional nerd out there hunting down criminals on the subway? No way.

As a rule I think the general public should let the police handle law enforcement. Of course, if you you have to defend yourself or the life of an innocent, by all means do what you have to do.

I have a hunch that Texas Joe Horn sat home every day polishing his shotgun just waiting for the day he could shoot someone.

BTW......a bag full of cash taken from a next door neighbor he didn't know? Sounds like ole Joe may have unwittingly been providing security for the local drug dealer, bookmaker or loan shark.

Huh, I guess the rest of us just didn't think of that.

beuz
15th December 2007, 17:51
Regardless of what YOU consider yourself, my question is:

Since you're already breaking the law in your country, if you do defend yourself with your gun you will go to jail. Are you comfortable with that possibility?

Of course not.
I hope I'll never have to use it.
Killing someone to protect myself or a a member of my family, maybe if I can't avoid it.
But killing somone to protect material thing, never !!!
My gun and the bullets are not in the same room of the house in order to do not be tempted to use it, and for my kids, to prevent from a stupid accident...
I will always call the police first..
As I said, I'm neither a judge nor an executioner !!!!

dagsportster
15th December 2007, 18:04
BTW......a bag full of cash taken from a next door neighbor he didn't know? Sounds like ole Joe may have unwittingly been providing security for the local drug dealer, bookmaker or loan shark.

I thought about that earlier, but it seems the neighbors are a Vietnamese couple that own a dry-cleaning business. If memory serves, Korean and Vietnamese merchants are often robbery targets because they tend to not use banks as much for their deposits. One report stated that the Texas DPS had been surveilling the two burglars (not enough, I guess) and the two may have been a part of a larger burglary ring.

It's pretty funny about the bikers roaring their pipes to drown out Quantum X. Nobody has a video of that?!

Edit :doh I shoulda checked YouTube first. Loud pipes stop protest...

ONnl3ssDO5I

OldJohnnyThunder
15th December 2007, 18:14
Here's the story of another hero taking matters into his own hands:


http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-liwhite1215,0,6024585.story



Too scared to call 911.........That's a new one.

XL 50
15th December 2007, 18:21
I thought about that earlier, but it seems the neighbors are a Vietnamese couple that own a dry-cleaning business. If memory serves, Korean and Vietnamese merchants are often robbery targets because they tend to not use banks as much for their deposits. One report stated that the Texas DPS had been surveilling the two burglars (not enough, I guess) and the two may have been a part of a larger burglary ring.

It's pretty funny about the bikers roaring their pipes to drown out Quantum X. Nobody has a video of that?!

Here's the Video... listen to the whole thing, I think Joe has a lot of support.
http://moretexastruth.blogspot.com/2007/12/joe-horn-supporters-shut-down-quanell-x.html

DC in PHX
15th December 2007, 18:29
Well if 2 border patrol agents were convicted of violating the civil rights of a drug smuggler by shooting the dirtbag sneaking dope into the US, what chance does this guy have??????

Illegals are immune from prosecution for many offences. Don't belive me? Try living in a sanctuary city like Phoenix.

Our government covets illegal invaders especially a former governor of Texas I could name...:rolleyes:

My prediction:

He will be indicted and convicted of 2nd degree murder. Probably even be convicted of a "hate crime".

The families of the dudes he shot will be living in his house and driving his car.

What a mess for that guy, I do hope it all works out for him.

DC

OldJohnnyThunder
15th December 2007, 18:37
Here's the Video... listen to the whole thing, I think Joe has a lot of support.
http://moretexastruth.blogspot.com/2007/12/joe-horn-supporters-shut-down-quanell-x.html


Sounds like that last bike might have thrown a rod........

God bless Texas!!

blakjak
15th December 2007, 18:39
HAHAHAHAHA!!! That 'ol boy was seeing the upper end of the rpm range for a bit on that BT.

I'm glad that they shut 'ol racist Quannell X up and moved him out of there.

ed_in_az
15th December 2007, 18:45
Of course not.
I hope I'll never have to use it.
Killing someone to protect myself or a a member of my family, maybe if I can't avoid it.
But killing somone to protect material thing, never !!!
My gun and the bullets are not in the same room of the house in order to do not be tempted to use it, and for my kids, to prevent from a stupid accident...
I will always call the police first..
As I said, I'm neither a judge nor an executioner !!!!

Beuz, thanks for the candid reply. Not only do I now understand your position, but your views are very mainstream in California and some eastern states in this country. In these states, gangs shoot each other for recreation. It's a game to them. They shoot innocents that have something they want. The public cowers in fear because they either aren't allowed to own guns or are at least required to keep them unloaded and useless.

There are still millions of us Americans living in free states like Texas:laugh, that are also neither judges nor executioners, but will defend ourselves and other innocents with our firearms until they are pulled from our cold dead fingers. Or, agents of the government break into our homes as we sleep, and take our guns to insure the safety of crminals.

DC in PHX
15th December 2007, 19:24
Beuz, thanks for the candid reply. Not only do I now understand your position, but your views are very mainstream in California and some eastern states in this country. In these states, gangs shoot each other for recreation. It's a game to them. They shoot innocents that have something they want. The public cowers in fear because they either aren't allowed to own guns or are at least required to keep them unloaded and useless.

There are still millions of us Americans living in free states like Texas:laugh, that are also neither judges nor executioners, but will defend ourselves and other innocents with our firearms until they are pulled from our cold dead fingers. Or, agents of the government break into our homes as we sleep, and take our guns to insure the safety of crminals.

:clap:clap:clap:clap

DC

DRAWTOOL
15th December 2007, 20:11
In the book "The Art of War" Sun Tsu clearly states: Never bring a Crowbar to a Gunfight.

XL 50
23rd December 2007, 00:10
After an internet search, CNN, etc, I take it Joe is still a free man? No charges filed yet ? ... even though the plain clothes cop witnessed the shootings? Anybody heard any thing to the contrary?

jharback
29th June 2008, 23:11
After an internet search, CNN, etc, I take it Joe is still a free man? No charges filed yet ? ... even though the plain clothes cop witnessed the shootings? Anybody heard any thing to the contrary?

On June 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_16), 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008) a Harris County grand jury began hearing evidence as it considers whether the 61-year-old retired grandfather should be indicted and face criminal charges, or be no-billed and have the case dismissed. The jury is expected to reach a decision this week.

PaddyOFurniture
29th June 2008, 23:58
I hope he gets away with it. I applaud him for taking action on behalf of his neiighbor, but suspect he went a bit too far unless his own (or someone else's) life was actualy in danger, losing property (much less someone else's property) to me just isn't worth sharing a cell with bubba...

Now if he had invited them in for a snack or a cold drink he'd probably have been fine with the law....

beuz
30th June 2008, 08:05
Not enough paid for shooting 2 men in the back....
In France, he had got 25 years behind bars..........

jharback
30th June 2008, 08:38
Not enough paid for shooting 2 men in the back....
In France, he had got 25 years behind bars..........

Yes but, in the states they have the jury system which, thankfully, injects a little common sense into the law. :clap

Bully
30th June 2008, 09:06
If he was confronted what did they do moon him? The guy shot them in the back and he INTENDED to do so before he ever had a chance to confront them. IMO he should be held accountable as much as the thiefs. You people act like you are saints and have never done anything on the other side of the law (maybe Im the only one with a past) Stealing isnt punishable by death. The idiot should be charged because he was stupid enough to tell the 911 dispatcher he was going to go shoot em. If they were robbing his house, hurting someone or even threatening it would be a non issue for me as Id feel he would be justified but in this case he cold blooded murdered 2 people. Did he know they were illegal and should that even matter? Its not OK to shoot because they are brown people.

beuz
30th June 2008, 09:30
There a difference between defending yourself and unfortunately having to kill your agressor to save your life, and shooting two peoples in the back...
In the second case, it's a murder for me........and i'm not a saint...
About their skin colour, that didn't help them to stay alive.........for sure.

brassnadz
30th June 2008, 09:30
Not enough paid for shooting 2 men in the back....
In France, he had got 25 years behind bars..........

How much time could you get for having a gun in your country? Thank God I live here in Texas and can excersize my God given right to protect myself and my community should the need arise. Maybe if Yall had some of our concealed carry laws over there, we wouldnt have to see the idiots rioting in the streets and burning cars on the news all the time. And one more thing to think about, If your country ever gets invaded again, How are yall going to defend it?

Joe Horn will not go to jail. This is Texas.

beuz
30th June 2008, 09:53
Even if the french law allowed me, I'm not a judge neither a jury nor an execcutioner .....
As I said in this thread, months ago, I'll call police first ...........

I'm catholic and I don't think that having a gun and killing someone else to protect yourself is a "God given right"....

The 10 commandments, exodus XX, VI :

"Thou shalt not kill".

brassnadz
30th June 2008, 10:07
Even if the french law allowed me, I'm not a judge neither a jury nor an execcutioner .....
As I said in this thread, months ago, I'll call police first ...........

I'm catholic and I don't think that having a gun and killing someone else to protect yourself is a "God given right"....

The 10 commandments, exodus XX, VI :

"Thou shalt not kill".

When the theives start following the commandments, we will all be better off, wont we?

I dont see myself as judge jury or executioner either, but if confronted, I will defend myself and if that means that some dirtbag has to die, well I look at like this, I didnt put him in the situation to begin with. Dying is an occupational hazzard when you break into other folks homes for a living.

brassnadz
30th June 2008, 10:25
On this side of the pond, most of us take our rights alot more serious than yall seem to. We also acknowledge that these rights are given to us by God, therefore they are God given.

beuz
30th June 2008, 10:25
When the theives start following the commandments, we will all be better off, wont we?


That's right, but in the "Texan Joe Horn Shooting Case", who was certain that the 2 killed peoples were theives ?

jharback
30th June 2008, 10:42
If he was confronted what did they do moon him? The guy shot them in the back and he INTENDED to do so before he ever had a chance to confront them. IMO he should be held accountable as much as the thiefs. You people act like you are saints and have never done anything on the other side of the law (maybe Im the only one with a past) Stealing isnt punishable by death. The idiot should be charged because he was stupid enough to tell the 911 dispatcher he was going to go shoot em. If they were robbing his house, hurting someone or even threatening it would be a non issue for me as Id feel he would be justified but in this case he cold blooded murdered 2 people. Did he know they were illegal and should that even matter? Its not OK to shoot because they are brown people.

Whoever said he shot them because they were brown or for that matter thought they were elligals? He shot them because they broke into his neighbors house and he knew that it might be his house next time. And what if, that next time, he and his wife are home in bed. Are the thieves going to think about his rights, are they going to treat him and his wife with dignity and fairly?

That's right, but in the "Texan Joe Horn Shooting Case", who was certain that the 2 killed peoples were theives ?

If you read the news articles you will find that there is no doubt that they were thieves. In my mind, someone who breaks into someone's home should be treated differently from someone who breaks into a store. The law doesn't normally show any distinction but, it should.

brassnadz
30th June 2008, 11:02
There was no doubt, especially after hearing the glass break, that these two were theives. Come on, didnt you see the mug shots. They were carrying sacks of money and other property out of the neighbors house. Joe acted within the law. Something else you dont hear alot of is that the dispatcher on the phone was more or less just a phone operator. Dispatchers are not police officers. The dispatcher didnt have to tell Joe that it would be too late when the police got there to do anything to stop the two bad guys. Who is to say they werent going to try Joes house next? I know I wouldnt lay down and let them rob me.

When people ask me why I carry a gun, I tell them because a cop is to heavy.
:smoke

linkin5
30th June 2008, 12:57
The only good thief is a dead thief.

beuz
30th June 2008, 12:58
Well, they were guilty but it's not a reason, for me, to be murdered that way...

Carl-04XL
30th June 2008, 13:36
buez, You have a right to your views, we would just like you to understand ours.

The main reason to carry a concealed weapon (handgun) is to stop aggression against yourself or others under your care. If you are out with a girl friend, or wife, and someone assaulted you. Would you let them mortally injure you knowing that the gf/wife was next? I'd want to fight tooth and nail with any tool I could to protect my "family".

Suppose you were alone. Would the next victim(s) be as able as you to defend themselves without access to a suitable weapon?

One of the most stupid things I've heard of is in the UK's where they criminalize self defense, even when the victim has NO weapon other than their body. Hurt the bad guy and you are punished!!!

Like it or not, people are judged by the laws of their locale, not those of anywhere else.

Ride safe.

beuz
30th June 2008, 14:21
I understand of course the fact that everybody has to protect himself and his family and always carry a gun to prevent from an agression.....That's a human right.
Putting a gun under your agressor's nose will be enough to scare him.
But in the case we're talking about, I just thought mr Joe Horn shot them a little bit to "quickly"..
Was it really necessary to kill them ?

That's what I just wanted to express .

jharback
30th June 2008, 15:03
I understand of course the fact that everybody has to protect himself and his family and always carry a gun to prevent from an agression.....That's a human right.
Putting a gun under your agressor's nose will be enough to scare him.
But in the case we're talking about, I just thought mr Joe Horn shot them a little bit to "quickly"..
Was it really necessary to kill them ?

That's what I just wanted to express .

beuz, your probably right. It wasn't really necessary to kill them if you look at the incident objectively after the fact. But, try to put yourself in his place. His adrenaline is pumping, he has two scumbags who broke into his neighbors house and are leaving with some of its contents, he knows the cops aren't going to be there in time, he's wanting to be a good citizen and stop the scumbags and help protect his neighborhood.

Should he be locked up in prison for shooting the two scumbags who had the gumption and the attitude that they could do what ever they wanted (invading a home), no matter the consequences to other good people? It was probably time that they learned there were consequences for their actions. If the culprits had been two young teenage kids out on a lark the consequences would probably have been different. But, this time, Joe was lucky.

DRAWTOOL
30th June 2008, 15:52
I'd like to personally thank Sam Colt for making it possible for all men to be equal.

jrossty
30th June 2008, 16:06
I'd like to personally thank Sam Colt for making it possible for all men to be equal.
Amen to that!

It sure makes most people give a certain amount of respect to others when they don't know (or do) when someone is carrying a gun....

I am so thankful that I live in a country where I have the opportunity to defend myself & my home from would-be intruders... with the same sorts of weapons that the intruders can get ahold of... if not, then I'd rather not live here...

A criminal will always have access to illegal weapons.... whereas an up-standing citizen will be criminalized for having the same said weapon in a country that bans them...

Government control... where it is not needed... in the home.

ColinB
30th June 2008, 19:59
One of the most stupid things I've heard of is in the UK's where they criminalize self defense, even when the victim has NO weapon other than their body. Hurt the bad guy and you are punished!!!


Absolutely not true. The UK law is very clear on this. If the thief is on your property and coming towards you, you are allowed to shoot and kill. If they are going away from you and you shoot - then it's revenge and you're in court on a murder charge. (As I explained in a much earlier post.)

There was a famous case a few years ago where a farmer was being repeatedly robbed...so he lay in wait for the theif and shot him in the back. This was cold-blooded, calculated murder and he rightly went to jail for it. (In my opinion). Our 'Director Of Public Prosectutions' went on the radio to explain the law as it stands, and since 1967 there's only been aound 10 prosecutions for this sort of killing. Each of them was similar - the killer deliberately, and with malice aforethought, shot a person who was not threatening their life at the time of killing them.

This is our Crown Prosecution guidelines on the law on self-defence. Click Here. (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/chapter_t.html)

Here are some quotes:

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...".
The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that such action was reasonable. (my bold)
Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

The final consequences of a course may not be relevant to the issue as to whether the force used was reasonable. Although the accused's conduct resulted in severe injuries or even death, the conduct may well have been reasonable in the circumstances.

The burden of proof remains with the prosecution when the issue of self-defence is raised. The prosecution must adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was either:
not acting to defence himself/herself or another; or
not acting to defend property; or
not acting to prevent a crime or to apprehend an offender; or
if he was so acting, the force used was excessive.

Streak70
30th June 2008, 20:45
June 30, 2008, 2:49PM
By BRIAN ROGERS and RUTH RENDON
2008 Houston Chronicle


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

XL 50
1st July 2008, 00:11
Thanks for the post. I waited a long time to find out the results. Maybe those two will stop next time the're asked to.

Winchester92367
1st July 2008, 00:27
I just heard today, a Texas grand jury would not indictment against Joe, = no crimal charges. Chalk one up for the good guys

jrossty
1st July 2008, 01:04
I just heard today, a Texas grand jury would not indictment against Joe, = no crimal charges. Chalk one up for the good guys... cool... I think... lol... I don't know the details, & who knows if anyone really ever will except for Joe... but as it seems, it worked out maybe for the best...:dunno

XLFREAK
1st July 2008, 01:14
I just heard today, a Texas grand jury would not indictment against Joe, = no crimal charges. Chalk one up for the good guys

Sometimes common sense prevails.:smackh

CaptEvo
1st July 2008, 02:37
I have to say I applaud Texas. It sends a very clear message to the criminal element that their Bull$hit will not be tolerated. Try to kill me? You can get shot. Try to hurt me? You can get shot. Try to rob me? Rob my neighbor? You can get shot. No reason society has to cater to lazy good for nothing parasites.

I live in a State that basically punishes you if you are a law-abiding, harkworking tax payer. You don't dare fight for yourself here. They will mourn you if your killed by an attacker and say "how sad, how terrible" but if you actually fight back and god forbid hurt or kill your attacker....it will cost you everything to defend yourself in court.

We need some more Texas in this country.

brassnadz
1st July 2008, 05:24
Well, they were guilty but it's not a reason, for me, to be murdered that way...

Well the grand jury didnt see it that way. Just heard the latest news, and justice was served. No charges for Joe. Therefore, no murder was committed.

If you ever have the unfortunate experience of having to defend yourself with deadly force, would you think you were a murderer? Like I said before, Mr Horn didnt wake up one day and decide he was going after someone to get in some target practice. If the two theives had been out looking for a job instead of trying to take what others had worked for, they would be alive today.

Thankfully, I have never been put in the position to have to use deadly force, and I pray that it will never happen, but put me in a corner and I wont hesitate. Niether will I bend over and let someone take what I have worked hard for.

You are entitled to your own views (another one of those God given rights) and I am entitled to mine. Should you ever find yourself in Houston, PM me and we will share a few beers. Dont worry about the local thuggery. Any problems and I will take care of them for both of us.:smoke

brassnadz
1st July 2008, 05:31
I have to say I applaud Texas. It sends a very clear message to the criminal element that their Bull$hit will not be tolerated. Try to kill me? You can get shot. Try to hurt me? You can get shot. Try to rob me? Rob my neighbor? You can get shot. No reason society has to cater to lazy good for nothing parasites.

I live in a State that basically punishes you if you are a law-abiding, harkworking tax payer. You don't dare fight for yourself here. They will mourn you if your killed by an attacker and say "how sad, how terrible" but if you actually fight back and god forbid hurt or kill your attacker....it will cost you everything to defend yourself in court.

We need some more Texas in this country.


Is it true that in New Jersey you will be in trouble simply for having hollow point ammunition? By the way, I am thinking that ammo will be the next targets of the anti gun crowd. Kind of like the idiotic microstamping BS that fat teddy wants to shove down our throats. Hollow points actually save lives since they are designed to stop in the 'target' and not go all the way through endagering innocent bystanders. What ignorant, uninformed legislature got that one through?

beuz
1st July 2008, 07:43
Well the grand jury didnt see it that way. Just heard the latest news, and justice was served. No charges for Joe. Therefore, no murder was committed.

You are entitled to your own views (another one of those God given rights) and I am entitled to mine. Should you ever find yourself in Houston, PM me and we will share a few beers. Dont worry about the local thuggery. Any problems and I will take care of them for both of us.:smoke

Different country with different culture and different justice...

jharback
1st July 2008, 08:43
Different country with different culture and different justice...

beuz, most Americans find it difficult to feel sorry for criminals who are willing to invade someones home. We take to heart the saying, "A mans home is his castle". It is sacrosanct!

Breaking and entering a store for instance is quite different from breaking and entering a man's home and takes a different kind of criminal. If you invade someone's home you are invading that man's person and his family. Therefore, you are risking your life, literally!

The attitude, as you can see, is much different from that of Europe. We take our right to privacy and our right to defend our families and homes very seriously. If you attack our home you are attacking our privacy and our families and your risking your life.

This attitude is not just in certain states but, is throughout our culture. It is well known. It's not like the criminals don't understand this. Their well aware of the risks and that's why it takes a different kind of criminal to invade someone's home in the states.

This is why, most of us feel that, the scumbags got what they deserved.

Roadster_Rider
1st July 2008, 09:53
Different country with different culture and different justice...

The kind of people who steal from others need not be shown mercy. I feel no empathy for those who commit crimes and receive the justice they deserve. Tell me this, what do you think those criminals would have contributed to society had they been allowed to live? Surely nothing positive. Rest assured, if someone comes into my house uninvited, they'll be leaving in a body bag.

rfranz1952
1st July 2008, 12:22
I feel no empathy for those who commit crimes and receive the justice they deserve. Tell me this, what do you think those criminals would have contributed to society had they been allowed to live? Surely nothing positive. Rest assured, if someone comes into my house uninvited, they'll be leaving in a body bag.

These crimes would include loud pipes? Not wearing a helmet in a helmet state? Speeding? Who determines what justice is deserved? Each individual? Should I be shot because my pipes are loud? Because I don't wear a helmet?

The point is that everybody as a different tolerance for behavior and no one individual has the authority to take justice in their own hands and play judge, jury and executioner, as Mr. Horn did. The victims of his action had the same rights as the rest of us do, and if we hold otherwise, then we must accept the fact that the rights we have may be different--perhaps lesser--than others.

If Mr. Horn lived next door, as many have said they would be proud to have him as a neighbor, he may well decide that he doesn't like the sound of our bikes or whatever, and start taking shots at us. Is that justice? Where does one man get off on deciding what justice is? Our system provides for a justification of charges based on evidence, a trial by jury, and a presumption of innocence, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, if the two individuals in this case were threatening Mr. Horn, and continued to do so despite his warning, he is perhaps somewhat justified in his actions. It is my understanding that both were shot in the back as they were fleeing the scene. If that is true, then they were not threatening him at the time they were shot and he would be guilty of worse crimes than his victims.

Perhaps the individuals he shot were simply retrieveing there own goods? Perhaps thay had been invited? We now "know" differently, but did Mr. Horn? No, he did not, and he was wrong.

It is my understanding that the gand jury has issued a "no bill". Perhaps they are privy to more information than any of us have. However, why should Mr. Horn be accorded the privelege of that process, hwile his two victims were not?

XLFREAK
1st July 2008, 13:24
These crimes would include loud pipes? Not wearing a helmet in a helmet state? Speeding? Who determines what justice is deserved? Each individual? Should I be shot because my pipes are loud? Because I don't wear a helmet?


How do you rationalize this analogy? :smackh:confused:

Gone
1st July 2008, 15:20
I'm glad there's Joe Horns in the world.

Wait til the next white house......We're gonna need more Joe Horns!

jharback
1st July 2008, 17:02
These crimes would include loud pipes? Not wearing a helmet in a helmet state? Speeding? Who determines what justice is deserved? Each individual? Should I be shot because my pipes are loud? Because I don't wear a helmet?

I won't comment on this since this analogy really sux.

The point is that everybody as a different tolerance for behavior and no one individual has the authority to take justice in their own hands and play judge, jury and executioner, as Mr. Horn did. The victims of his action had the same rights as the rest of us do, and if we hold otherwise, then we must accept the fact that the rights we have may be different--perhaps lesser--than others.


These scumbags, as far as I'm concerned, gave up their rights the moment Joe Horn saw them breaking his neighbors window to gain illegal access to the house. At that moment the only right they had left was the right to get their ass blown away if caught in the act.


If Mr. Horn lived next door, as many have said they would be proud to have him as a neighbor, he may well decide that he doesn't like the sound of our bikes or whatever, and start taking shots at us. Is that justice? Where does one man get off on deciding what justice is? Our system provides for a justification of charges based on evidence, a trial by jury, and a presumption of innocence, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I witness my neighbors house being broken into in the middle of the night and then two scumbags leaving with their loot there is no doubt, no presumption of innocence, and no trial by jury.



Now, if the two individuals in this case were threatening Mr. Horn, and continued to do so despite his warning, he is perhaps somewhat justified in his actions. It is my understanding that both were shot in the back as they were fleeing the scene. If that is true, then they were not threatening him at the time they were shot and he would be guilty of worse crimes than his victims.

They threatened him by running towards him and yes he did tell them to stop. They then veered away from him and he shot them in the back. Result: two less scumbags to continue their rampage on honest Americans.


Perhaps the individuals he shot were simply retrieveing there own goods? Perhaps thay had been invited? We now "know" differently, but did Mr. Horn? No, he did not, and he was wrong.

I've never known anyone to invite someone over to their house to break their window and climb in said window during the middle of the night.


It is my understanding that the gand jury has issued a "no bill". Perhaps they are privy to more information than any of us have. However, why should Mr. Horn be accorded the privelege of that process, while his two victims were not?

Maybe because he was defending his neighbors property and not stealing it.

Roadster_Rider
1st July 2008, 20:20
These crimes would include loud pipes? Not wearing a helmet in a helmet state? Speeding? Who determines what justice is deserved? Each individual? Should I be shot because my pipes are loud? Because I don't wear a helmet?

Hmmm, You're absolutely right!(here comes the sarcasm) Who are the courts to decide what's a felony and what's a misdemeanor? and why are the examples you included only traffic violations, they should be felonies as well!

I'm a reasonable man, by the time you've committed breaking and entering, you've already committed a felony, and it's time for your ass to be shot.

Gone
1st July 2008, 22:28
I completely agree with this. The 911 tapes are probably gonna be his downfall regardless of whether I think he did right or not. I'm sure there are 12 people in Texas that would agree that he is guilty of a crime.

Ditto, if he was gonna do it, he should have done it then called 911 after. They told him 15 times not to do it, and he did it anyway. I honestly felt for the guy until I heard the tape, now i'm not so sure.

I have to agree with you guys as well I heard the tapes and he said he was going to do something.... the jacked up thing is he didnt tell them to stop or anything... if you listen to the tapes he say "your dead" and then you hear the shots. I'm all for helping my neighbor but, I am not sure I would take another persons life for them stealing, maybe if my neighbors life or my life was in danger I would not hesitate to shoot. Also how dumb are these guys .... we have a concealed handgun law here in Texas WTF you stupid idiots, if you were in my house and I caught you ... you can be sure they wouldnt have made it out! Alive that is!

rfranz1952
1st July 2008, 23:44
I can't say that I thought you guys would agree with me, or understand my point, but the constitution provides all of us with the right to trial by a jury of our peers and with the right to due process of law. It does not permit vigilante justice.

Any of us could easily become a victim of this type of thing--simply by saying or doing something unpopular, or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I suspect that many of the comments I have seen here would change 180 degrees, should that occur.

The last time I checked, breaking and entering, and burglary were not capital crimes.

He shot them in the back, for God's sake! They were leaving. What a cowardly thing for him to do! They hadn't done anything to him. They hadn't assaulted him, they hadn't assaulted his family, they weren't encroaching on his property, they weren't threatening him, his family or his neighbor. He had no right to act as judge, jury and executioner.

cantolina
1st July 2008, 23:51
Hmmm, You're absolutely right!(here comes the sarcasm) Who are the courts to decide what's a felony and what's a misdemeanor? and why are the examples you included only traffic violations, they should be felonies as well!

I'm a reasonable man, by the time you've committed breaking and entering, you've already committed a felony, and it's time for your ass to be shot.

What courts??? The was no trial...this was simply a grand jury hearing...

He was cleared by the grand jury, who decided NOT to charge him....

The case was presented by a District Attorney, who is up for re-election..and this guy is a local hero because the burglars were illegals...I would personally give my EYETEETH to see a tape of his presentation...

Now, I have NO PROBLEMS with killing someone who's threatening me with deadly force in my house, on my property, or anywhere else for that matter...

He shot two men in the back. IN THE BACK!!!

He's guilty of cold-blooded, premeditated murder...and he's a coward, to boot...That's not the law of the land in the Texas that I know...:frownthre

Maybe they DID get what they deserved...its not for me to say.... :dunno

rfranz1952
2nd July 2008, 00:25
Here's another one:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200806180430/NEWS02/806180870

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25250900/


Is this ok?

Catalina, thanks for your help? I was starting to feel all lonesome like;)

cootertwo
2nd July 2008, 00:42
God Bless Joe, I'll buy him a box of 000 buck, any day! That is two theivin bastards that won't be breakin into my or your home anymore! And just think of all the tax payer dollars Joe saved. No "alledged" thieves report on the news. No court case, after court case, no public defender claiming "not guilty". Hell, they had broke in, stole, and were trying to get away with their booty. GUILTY as charged. No muss, no fuss. Job well done! I wish Joe was MY neighbor. I have little faith in our "justice for criminal system". Most of the time, unless they get lucky, and stumble upon a crime in progress, the cops only show up AFTER the deed is done. And then if the "offender" is still there, start informing the criminal of all his "rights", and free attorney. Flame me if you want, but that's how I feel, and it's still a rather free country, so far.

rfranz1952
2nd July 2008, 00:46
And more of the story:

Man Shot In Road Rage Incident Describes EventsWesley Mosier Jr. Gives His Version Of EventsPOSTED: 5:12 pm EDT June 27, 2008
UPDATED: 9:51 pm EDT June 27, 2008

LOUISVILLE, Ky. The man shot during what police are calling a road rage incident is speaking out for the first time.

Wesley Mosier Jr. spoke exclusively to NewsChannel 32 Friday afternoon at the hospital. He was supposed to be released Friday, but his condition isn''t improving.

In the meantime, he said he wants the public to know what really happened."I''d like to see them do to her just exactly what they would probably do to me if the shoe was on the other foot," he said. "No more, no less."

Mosier said he never knew Yalanda Parrish before last Tuesday. According to Mosier, he was testing out his new motorcycle when a woman in an SUV who police say is Parrish began tailgating him.

Mosier said the pavement was uneven and there were railroad tracks. He said after being tailgated for some time, he drove in between two cars to get away from her.

Mosier said when he got to a red light, he parked his motorcycle and began walking over to her car to find out why she was tailgating him.

"I just pecked on the window," he said. "It was partially down. And I says, ''Is there a reason why you''re on my bumper so close?'' And they didn''t answer. And they put the window the rest of the way down. And she said, ''Yeah, it''s your lucky day.'' And I said, ''Why is that?'' And she said, ''You''re getting ready to get killed.'' …I wonder how many years she took off my life.

"NewsChannel 32 contacted Parrish, but she declined to comment.

rfranz1952
2nd July 2008, 00:48
Flame me if you want, but that's how I feel, and it's still a rather free country, so far.

But it wouldn't be for long, if you were in charge!

XLFREAK
2nd July 2008, 00:57
I guess some people cannot see the seriuosness of breaking into a house.
How about if these 2 guys had broken into the neighbors house, killed them and were leaving with the stolen property?
Nowadays criminals will kill you just for the lark.
Not too long ago a middle age couple was held up at gunpoint while in their car withdrawing money at a drive up ATM, the crook ask for the money, the man handed it over, then the crook shot him in the head while his wife was sitting next to him. There was no reason to shoot the the man, but they did.

cootertwo
2nd July 2008, 00:58
But it wouldn't be for long, if you were in charge!

Just don't want to hear you cryin cause your neighbor watched someone roll off your bike, and did nothing about it.

cantolina
2nd July 2008, 02:10
I guess some people cannot see the seriuosness of breaking into a house.
How about if these 2 guys had broken into the neighbors house, killed them and were leaving with the stolen property?

How about THIS scenario...

A buddy of yours (oh, and you just happen to be of Mexican descent, mind you) tells you to just go into the garage thru the side door to get the tools you need....hell, maybe you need his whole tool CHEST...

Some nosy jagoff decides you're "robbing" his neighbor's place, so he shoots you in the back as you're leaving?

There are laws for a reason...like'em or not, they are there to protect EVERYONE...

I once questioned a lawyer (when I was considering being one) as to how someone could, in good conscience, defend a criminal to the best of their ability, even when they KNEW the scumbag was GUILTY...

Her answer? "The system isn't perfect, but if everyone does their job right (CSI's, cops, prosecutors, Defense Attorneys, etc.) then the bad guys usually go to jail..."

There is a REASON why one can't take the law into one's own hands...

Again...I'm all for killin' scumbags who even HINT at displaying deadly force to me or anyone near me....

But, its a lot like how I feel about the death penalty...if even ONE person who is innocent is ever killed, it ain't worth it...but if someone has a gun in their hand, and someone else is looking pretty scared, I'm feelin' pretty good about what I feel about THIS scenario...."drop the gun, or die......bang!.....too late..."

Similarly, if the scenario I began with COULD happen, that would be the greatest travesty of humanity ever....

To me, its a simple MYOB....sure, call the cops...get descriptions, do what is reasonable, but leave the police work to the professionals...

You can't just go around shooting people....its insane....

Come into my house, I WILL kill your ass...in a heartbeat...but that's not what we're talking about...its not even remotely close...

So, let's not get all caught up in whether or not the scumbags deserved it....that's not the issue...

Is it, or is it not OK to allow any John Q. Public to shoot a man in the back because he believes that person is breaking a law???

COPS can't even shoot a felon in the back because he's trying to escape....but this guy wasn't charged with ANYTHING????? WTF?!?!?

Just don't want to hear you cryin cause your neighbor watched someone roll off your bike, and did nothing about it.

Again..."mind your own business"...sure call the cops if you think it reasonable...but don't shoot my best friend because he came over and borrowed my bike.....

I don't know about you, but I have some pretty questionable-looking friends that I trust with my life....that normal folks are afraid to even LOOK at...

crospo
2nd July 2008, 02:59
Don't call the cops!Take care of business yourself.If my neighbour's property is being violated then it's my business too,mine could be next.Any one that breaks the law should be prepared to suffer any consequences and that includes being caught and shot by the neighbour!

XLFREAK
2nd July 2008, 03:00
How about THIS scenario...

A buddy of yours (oh, and you just happen to be of Mexican descent, mind you) tells you to just go into the garage thru the side door to get the tools you need....hell, maybe you need his whole tool CHEST...

Some nosy jagoff decides you're "robbing" his neighbor's place, so he shoots you in the back as you're leaving?

There are laws for a reason...like'em or not, they are there to protect EVERYONE...



Your scenerio has happened in my neighborhood, except the 2 Mexicans were actually stealing the tools. BTW, the guys shot by Joe Horn were from Honduras.

I'm sorry, but your scenerio is the unlikelyhood.

I've been broken into, my house was being watched and when I left, they broke in the front door. The neighbors saw the car in the corner parked and then in front of my house and thought nothing of it.
If I had been home it would have been a completely different story.
The MYOB mentallity is what allows a lot ofl these thugs to get away with it.

BTW, Joe Horn broke no laws in Texas, you can use deadly force to stop someone from stealing property from your neighbor.
Also the story has been changed around quite a bit, like he shot them in the back running away, that was not the case, he shot them within a few feet in his yard and they were hit in the torso with the shotgun blast while turning.

If you wait for the police to arrive to save your life, your chances of survival are pretty slim.

cantolina
2nd July 2008, 03:05
BTW, the guys shot by Joe Horn were from Honduras.

Irrelevant....but thanx for the note...It was the racial element I was alluding to...Reports I've read said Columbia

I'm sorry, but your scenerio is the unlikelyhood.

But possible.....

BTW, Joe Horn broke no laws in Texas, you can use deadly force to stop someone from stealing property from your neighbor.

Any chance you can directly quote the statute on this? I'm curious, because I know there is a great deal of latitude on use of guns in Texas...I'm aware of the Castle Law, but it has limitations....

"You cannot take another person's life in defense of their property unless you're somehow given permission by the other person to protect their property"

On that 911 call, the dispatcher asked Horn directly about the owners of the house that was being burglarized, and whether he knew them.

"I really don't know these neighbors," Horn said. "I know the neighbors on the other side really well & I can assure you if it had been their house, I'd already have done something."

Also the story has been changed around quite a bit, like he shot them in the back running away, that was not the case, he shot them within a few feet in his yard and they were hit in the torso with the shotgun blast while turning.

I read an account stating that a plainclothes officer arrived on the scene just before the shots were fired, and he confirmed that they were, in fact, shot in the back... :dunno

If you wait for the police to arrive to save your life, your chance of survival are pretty slim.

Saving a life had nothing to do with this case....and I've made it PLAINLY apparent how I feel about THAT....

GWHuntter
2nd July 2008, 03:57
My signature below will speak for me.................

GWHuntter
2nd July 2008, 03:59
Killing is too good for them I would have shot off one of each of there feet that would leave a lasting impression.

XLFREAK
2nd July 2008, 04:24
Any chance you can directly quote the statute on this? I'm curious, because I know there is a great deal of latitude on use of guns in Texas...I'm aware of the Castle Law, but it has limitations....


Sure. Here's the link.

Texas Penal code (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00)

wabiker
2nd July 2008, 04:41
Giving Empowerment back to the Citizenry ...Gotta love it :)

I saw an episode on Cops awhile back... somewhere in Texas.. a good ole boy in a pickup truck *ran* down a dirtbag who just robbed a Quickie Mart, The Cops thanked him... No Lecture about *shouldnt be getting involved*... a simple: *thank you for being a good citizen, have a nice day*.

.... We should have more of that in this country. :clap

cantolina
2nd July 2008, 04:55
Sure. Here's the link.

Texas Penal code (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00)

Thank you....I searched myself, but couldn't find it.....

Despite what I consider " an assertion of reason" to this scenario, I clearly have lived in the State of NY for too long....:laugh:laugh

After reading this bit of statute, I, personally, have concluded that the shooting was legally justified, and I retract any statement I have made to the contrary...Clearly, Texas law allows this use of force......in this scenario...

God Bless Texas....

I wish the rest of the Union would follow suit....

For those who aren't "legally adept", here are the relevant sections (IMHO):

§ 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 (See above); 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.

Although I am not a lawyer, I am possessed of a mind that understands legal statutes and language, and despite what my "reasonable" thought might be, clearly the law in Texas allows this man's right to protection of third person property with deadly force....

"Reasonable men can be dissuaded from their opinions with proper application of fact....unreasonable men do not allow facts to get in the way of their opinions...."

That quote is mine, and anyone may use it..just give me the credit....:laugh

brassnadz
2nd July 2008, 05:18
I can't say that I thought you guys would agree with me, or understand my point, but the constitution provides all of us with the right to trial by a jury of our peers and with the right to due process of law. It does not permit vigilante justice.

Any of us could easily become a victim of this type of thing--simply by saying or doing something unpopular, or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I suspect that many of the comments I have seen here would change 180 degrees, should that occur.

The last time I checked, breaking and entering, and burglary were not capital crimes.

He shot them in the back, for God's sake! They were leaving. What a cowardly thing for him to do! They hadn't done anything to him. They hadn't assaulted him, they hadn't assaulted his family, they weren't encroaching on his property, they weren't threatening him, his family or his neighbor. He had no right to act as judge, jury and executioner.

The Constitution only protects citizens from the Government. Thats why the system affords these criminals all the rights you speak of. It does not protect bad guys from people who are willing to protect themselves and others from whatever transgressions they intend to perpetrate on said citizens.

You are absolutely correct in saying that breaking and entering, and burglary are not capital crimes. Again, who is to say that those crimes are all they had in mind. What if your teenage daughter was home alone and they broke in? Care to take your chances on whether or not she will be raped and/or killed? Meeting your maker is an occupational hazzard for those who choose this line of life. They were not leaving. They were approaching joe. Do some research and you will find that it is actually very common to have bullet wounds in the back in a running gunfight. Most people do not stand square (facing the shooter) but stand at an angle to them. This exposes part of the back to the shooter. Law enforcement has long known about this phenomenon. Remember, there was a law enforcement officer present who saw the shooting take place. Joe might have had a weaker case if the burglars had actually been running from him, but they were apparently running toward him, and so he had every right to stop the threat. I guess you are a coward unless you let them get in the first hit? How in the hell can say Joe was a coward for going out and confronting them? If more of us did the same thing maybe we could put a dent in this 'culture' and we could feel safer in our homes and communities.

Finally, Joe didnt act as Judge, Jury, and Excecutioner. I am really getting tired of hearing that lame ass cliche. What Joe did was simply give the two bad guys what they needed; REHABILITATION!

XLFREAK
2nd July 2008, 05:20
"Reasonable men can be dissuaded from their opinions with proper application of fact....unreasonable men do not allow facts to get in the way of their opinions...."


Well, you're a reasonable man who stands by his own words.
You don't mind me quoting you, do you? :cheers

cantolina
2nd July 2008, 05:23
Well, you're a reasonable man who stands by his own words.
You don't mind me quoting you, do you? :cheers

Not in the least....

In fact, it would be an honor....

brassnadz
2nd July 2008, 05:41
Different country with different culture and different justice...

Yes and I respect that fact. However, I dont agree with your countries take on the right to own guns and use them for individual protection. The offer still stands for the beers.

Roadster_Rider
2nd July 2008, 06:55
What courts??? The was no trial...this was simply a grand jury hearing...

He was cleared by the grand jury, who decided NOT to charge him....

The case was presented by a District Attorney, who is up for re-election..and this guy is a local hero because the burglars were illegals...I would personally give my EYETEETH to see a tape of his presentation...

Now, I have NO PROBLEMS with killing someone who's threatening me with deadly force in my house, on my property, or anywhere else for that matter...

He shot two men in the back. IN THE BACK!!!

He's guilty of cold-blooded, premeditated murder...and he's a coward, to boot...That's not the law of the land in the Texas that I know...:frownthre

Maybe they DID get what they deserved...its not for me to say.... :dunno

Good job... misinterpreting what I said. I was referring to crimes in general and the way they are sorted, as a response to what rfranz1952 wrote. My reference to courts was not related to this case(In fact, I have almost no information on this case, I haven't read a single article on it). Please refrain from twisting what I say in the future.

As for two men being shot in the back, I say he should have shot them as they were moving toward him, if he was simply going to shoot them as they ran away anyways... a warning was quite pointless.

ColinB
2nd July 2008, 07:32
For those who aren't "legally adept", here are the relevant sections (IMHO):

§ 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 (See above); 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.



Now, if only you'd posted this right at the start of this thread we'd have all been able to say "he acted within the law".....and then argue about whether we agreed with the law!! :p Ho-hum.

As a Brit it's been very instructive to learn about the American psyche (and law) concerning guns compared to ours. The news over here has been full of stories that there have been (I think) 19 gun killings so far this year in London. From what I read that would be at least a weekly total in many American cities - and a reasonable six-month total for young kids accidentally killing themselves (or others) when they found their parents' gun. (I'm willing to be corrected on these figures - and no doubt will be.)

Some quotes from the BBC news sites:

Sobering statistics
The figures for U.S. gun crime are grim. The FBI estimates that 67 per cent of the 16,204 murders in 2002 were committed with firearms. According to the U.S. Department of Justice: "Homicides of teens and young adults are much more likely to be committed with a gun than homicides of persons of other ages." According to the FBI, 58 police officers were killed by a firearm while responding to a crime in 1998.

Anarchy in the UK?
The gun crime statistics in this country are nothing like those of the United States. Home Office figures for 2002-2003 state that there were 81 homicides involving firearms, down 16 per cent from 97 the previous year. Firearms were reported to have been used in 10,248 recorded crimes, a two per cent increase over 2001-2002. Overall, firearms (excluding air weapons) were used in 0.17 per cent of all recorded crime.

It's interesting to see where the USA is on the graph on this (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm) page of 'gun ownership' v 'firearm deaths per 100,000'

I know that carrying a gun is your 'history' (according to the movies I've watched) and is written into your constitution - but it seems to me to make you feel safer while actually making you more likely to be killed.

beuz
2nd July 2008, 07:34
Yes and I respect that fact. However, I dont agree with your countries take on the right to own guns and use them for individual protection. The offer still stands for the beers.


Ok for the beer !!! Thanks !!!
I've just read the 3 pages before and it's interesting to read the different points of view about J.H. case.
If I've understood all I've read (not easy for a french boy like me), each state has his own laws.
For the same facts, you can be released or condamned.
So, If J.H. has lived in california, for example, he should be behind bars...

Hopper
2nd July 2008, 07:54
Seems like arguing gun ownership is like arguing religion - in fact for many people t is a religion.

rfranz1952
2nd July 2008, 12:09
It is interesting to see the Texas Law quoted. Hopefully, this one citation tells the whole story. In many states, he would have been guilty without question.

Even if he was legally not chargeable, he was still morally wrong.

Brassnadz is correct--the Constitution does protect us from the government--what the founders referred to as the tyrany of the majority. However, the governmnt is here to protect us from each other, and Mr Horn still did not have the right nor should he be legally protected for what he did--and neither should his victims.

See the other references I quoted--where an SUV driver shot a biker in the chest because she felt "threatened". He says she was tailgating, she says he was weaving and blocking traffic. He says he was going to tap on the window to get her attention so he could talk to her, she says he raised his fist and threatend her. He has a prior for manslaughter, she has a record of prior road rage and threatening people with her gun.

Justifiable--or not?

jrossty
2nd July 2008, 13:14
It is interesting to see the Texas Law quoted. Hopefully, this one citation tells the whole story. In many states, he would have been guilty without question.

Even if he was legally not chargeable, he was still morally wrong.

Brassnadz is correct--the Constitution does protect us from the government--what the founders referred to as the tyrany of the majority. However, the governmnt is here to protect us from each other, and Mr Horn still did not have the right nor should he be legally protected for what he did--and neither should his victims.

See the other references I quoted--where an SUV driver shot a biker in the chest because she felt "threatened". He says she was tailgating, she says he was weaving and blocking traffic. He says he was going to tap on the window to get her attention so he could talk to her, she says he raised his fist and threatend her. He has a prior for manslaughter, she has a record of prior road rage and threatening people with her gun.

Justifiable--or not? Nope. He hadn't done anything illegal. The other case, those two had stolen property. Which, hmmm, let me think, I believe thats illegal. A traffic incident, versus felony theft...... very different situations.

jharback
2nd July 2008, 14:41
Even if he was legally not chargeable, he was still morally wrong.


Whos morals? Yours, mine, or theirs? Are you trying to dictate your morals to the rest of the country? If so, what gives you that right?

Defining morals for everyone is a slippery slope my friend.

buskat
2nd July 2008, 14:58
I agree with Rikava. This man shot 2 men in the back for stealing property, not his own, and not protecting life.. no, that isn't ok. even here in Texas where we have the castle law. It wasn't his castle, he protected a bag of stuff, and should be charged. Help was on the way, he just wanted a chance to shoot.

jrossty
2nd July 2008, 15:10
If it were me in a similar situation...

if they'd turned their backs to get away, I would've followed them, then shot their tires out of the vehicle they were driving, in an attempt to disable it until the authorities arrived... but, I suppose in the heat of the moment he didn't think it through that far...

If they'd have made a move toward me I would've warned them not to get closer, & if they still kept at me, well, then they woulda been shot.

This is a reason why I want to live out in the middle of nowhere... haha

Carl-04XL
2nd July 2008, 15:11
Here are some quotes:

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...".
The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that such action was reasonable. (my bold)
Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

Well, Colin, I must apologize for the mis-information on my part. I was basing my comment on poor recollection of accounts of which I have heard/read.

But, I am confused about the quotes above. It says that reasonable force may be used and then another says: "The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that such action was reasonable. (your bold)". This seems to indicate that the act, while necessary, wasn't reasonable and so opens the person to legal consequences for doing something 'necessary'. Of course, confusion in the "real" meaning of a particular law is common among non-jurists.

jharback
2nd July 2008, 15:19
I agree with Rikava. This man shot 2 men in the back for stealing property, not his own, and not protecting life.. no, that isn't ok. even here in Texas where we have the castle law. It wasn't his castle, he protected a bag of stuff, and should be charged. Help was on the way, he just wanted a chance to shoot.

Read the law, it does not have to be his property and it states the he can shoot them if he reasonably believes that the property cannot be recovered.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(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;

If you don't like the law then try to change it but, don't condemn the man for following the rules.

jrossty
2nd July 2008, 15:25
Yeah.... There are instances where I think it would be ok to shoot someone who's back is facing you... say...

1) they're taking away your child
2) they're taking away your wife
3) they've killed either one
4) they're about to shoot/kill someone else...
5) they're taking your 1 million in cash you just won on "Lets make a deal!"


:wonderlan:wonderlan:D haha

Seriously though... I suppose there's a "code" for not shooting in the back, similar to what the cops have to do... I'd at least try and aim for the legs...

celtic
2nd July 2008, 15:27
damn, texas takes no prisoners (literally)

here in NY you'd probably be sued by the perp if he hurt his back because you refused to help him carry the stolen goods...

jrossty
2nd July 2008, 15:30
damn, texas takes no prisoners (literally)

here in NY you'd probably be sued by the perp if he hurt his back because you refused to help him carry the stolen goods...
wow.... yeah...... I'd then find em, & shoot them if they tried to sue me.... hahahaha :shhhh

Bill2
2nd July 2008, 15:46
If everybody was a stand up guy like Mr. Horn we would'nt have to lock our doors. Shooting them in the back is no big deal, that's the only target you usually have of a dirtbag the second they see real man.

ColinB
2nd July 2008, 15:49
Well, Colin, I must apologize for the mis-information on my part. I was basing my comment on poor recollection of accounts of which I have heard/read.

But, I am confused about the quotes above. It says that reasonable force may be used and then another says: "The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that such action was reasonable. (your bold)". This seems to indicate that the act, while necessary, wasn't reasonable and so opens the person to legal consequences for doing something 'necessary'. Of course, confusion in the "real" meaning of a particular law is common among non-jurists.

No problem...it's like the mis-representation of US politics we pick up from our press if you just scan the tabloid headlines.

"The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that such action was reasonable. (my bold)".

I took this to mean that the person who fired the shot might think it was necessary, while the jury might decide it was not reasonable. As you rightly say, interpreting the law is difficult - hence lawyers and juries.

We have a saying..."The man on the Clapham omnibus" (I think you'd say "Joe Public")...meaning "what would the average person think". From what I've read in this thread, I think the US and UK average person have very different views.

One thing I (and the great British public) have a great deal of trouble getting my head round (and correct me if it has again been misreported) is that the proposed 14 day cooling-off period between buying and recieving a gun was voted down. This seems like so much necessary common sense to stop a hot-headed buy-to-kill purchase. It's this sort of thing that I don't understand. I just can't get my head around this attitude to guns - and this is why, I suppose, that I've tried to keep out of this thread and just correct some mis-information about the state of UK laws.

Any enlightenment gratefully recieved.

Carl-04XL
2nd July 2008, 16:08
Anyone who wants to use facts/statistics for their arguments should endeavor to ensure that they get said facts/statistics from sources that are as un-biased as possible.

ColinB, you referenced a site that has a gun control agenda and so their facts are suspect. Try going to a US government agency for less biased facts (is any group/person totally un-biased?).

On one site I just read that roughly 50% more people (all ages, per 100,000) could/would die of 'septicaemia' (blood poisoning) than of gun violence. So should there be more energy put into preventing septicaemia than in preventing gun violence to save a greater number of people; i.e. under the 'greater good' principle?

Well, on to other threads...

Carl-04XL
2nd July 2008, 16:27
One thing I (and the great British public) have a great deal of trouble getting my head round (and correct me if it has again been misreported) is that the proposed 14 day cooling-off period between buying and recieving a gun was voted down. This seems like so much necessary common sense to stop a hot-headed buy-to-kill purchase. It's this sort of thing that I don't understand. I just can't get my head around this attitude to guns - and this is why, I suppose, that I've tried to keep out of this thread and just correct some mis-information about the state of UK laws.

Any enlightenment gratefully recieved.

Said 'cooling off' provisions in law sound reasonable. But, if an otherwise non-gun owning person suddenly felt the need to own one, then one could argue that said need was urgent: i.e. a stalked person who felt in fear of their life, or a battered spouse trying to get out of the situation when they were told "if you leave me, I'll kill you"...

Yes, there are occasions when someone decides to shoot someone because of extreme anger (or a psychological disorder, etc...) and, because they don't have a firearm at the time, they go out to buy one to return to shoot the other person. But, such a person is mentally sick (temporary or not) and if they can't get a firearm, will try other means at hand. If it is just extreme anger, then the cooling off time will prevent use of firearms. But, suppose they don't even want to wait long enough to find a gun store... couldn't use of a seemingly innocuous item (bat, kitchen knife, brick/rock, etc...) be used to the same end?

Like it has been said, some subjects raise more comment/controversy than others. And this is one of them.

ColinB
2nd July 2008, 16:41
Anyone who wants to use facts/statistics for their arguments should endeavor to ensure that they get said facts/statistics from sources that are as un-biased as possible.

ColinB, you referenced a site that has a gun control agenda and so their facts are suspect. Try going to a US government agency for less biased facts (is any group/person totally un-biased?).

On one site I just read that roughly 50% more people (all ages, per 100,000) could/would die of 'septicaemia' (blood poisoning) than of gun violence. So should there be more energy put into preventing septicaemia than in preventing gun violence to save a greater number of people; i.e. under the 'greater good' principle?

Well, on to other threads...


I agree!

The first figures I quoted were from the UK office of statistics...about as reliable as you're going to get. The others...who really knows? I'm sure the NRA can put a totally different slant on the numbers.

In this country more people die from falling down stairs than by guns. BAN STAIRS NOW!!!

ColinB
2nd July 2008, 16:58
But, suppose they don't even want to wait long enough to find a gun store... couldn't use of a seemingly innocuous item (bat, kitchen knife, brick/rock, etc...) be used to the same end?

Like it has been said, some subjects raise more comment/controversy than others. And this is one of them.

There's something about a gun that's worse than the bat, knife, brick etc. These are inanimate objects that you have to wield with force, while standing next to the victim and actively striking the victim with. A gun sort of 'does the deed for you' and from a distance, with just a 'twitch of the finger'. This, to me, makes guns worse - sort of impersonnal and removed from reality, therefore easier to justify and internally rationalise the use of. (If that makes sense.)

Like you say...there's no answer, just some facts, figures, agendas, dead bodies, grieving mothers, fatherless children and opinions. :frownone