Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

and from what we've seen, there was no imminent danger. this guy's going to have to have the best lawyer in the country to get off after the 911 dispatcher TOLD him not to go outside becos the police were on their way. my money's on this dude going to jail. but then, it's texas. they might just try to execute the criminals again and make this guy the governor. maybe you should represent him. ya know, seeing as how you're unbeatable and all.

see post 138

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

and you're not a lwyer. you're an armchair gun nut who reads a few NRA pamphlets on the second amendment and thinks he knows the constitution. you still never showed where that right to life and property is in the constitution. how about posting the case citations? or do you now know what a case citation is?

are you trying to look like an arsehole in front of the entire board or is this your normal self? as best we know; you're just a snot nosed high school freshman mouthing off because you can hide behind a screen name. i bet you don't have the balls to confront someone face to face.
if you are indeed a law student; tell your parents to save their money because you'll fail with that kind of attitude. you show all the signs of immaturity. why don't you read the rules of the board and see if you can follow rules before tackeling law.

inmytree

ut oh, somebody is all riled up...

duck...!!!

onelongsong

inmytree wrote:

ut oh, somebody is all riled up...

duck...!!!

nah; just a pesty little mosquito buzzing about. i've got to feed my animals anyway. i'm sure he's off crying to his mum so it's all good. it sure is hard to have an educated conversation around here when school lets out. but then for a student; he sure is about a lot. maybe he's just a drop out. when i was in college we studied when we weren't in class.

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

yes; it is still self defence. ss is a student and still wet behind the ears. horn didn't know they were armed so he didn't put himself in danger. he only investigated something amiss at his neighbours house.

Hurry up, man. Catch these guys, will ya? I ain't gonna let them go, I'm gonna be honest with ya," said Horn on the 911 call. "I'm not gonna let them go. I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)."

well im not wet behind the ears and i can tell you that if i am told NOT to go outside and i then choose to, it is I who is putting MYSELF 'in danger.' up until the point where I chose to PUT MYSELF into the situation I was safe. safe inside my own house whilst the burglars chose to rob my neighbour. seeings how i was not in any immediate 'danger' or in fear for my life prior to my deciding to put myself in that position where POTENTIAL danger could eventuate, then any preemptive action i took, in my opinion, WAS NOT self defense.

gabers

The old man is guilty of murder and will get convicted as such, Texas or not. This isn't the wild west. Pasadena may be a bit redneck but they still have laws protecting people, even bad Mexicans making away with a bag full of loot, not just neighbors of home burglaries. Crazy talk about killing these guys was justice served is just the kind of nonsense the founding fathers had in mind when they decided that we needed an electoral college to vote for the president. They didn't trust the average citizen to be intelligent. But crap, this guy is going to get judged by a jury of his peers. Never mind, he'll be alright. Probably just some community service.

trappedinmyradio

neighbors house on monday...your house on tuesday...if cops can't get there in 7 minutes, then you do what you gotta do instead of knowing letting something happen while you could do something about it!

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

(11/15/07 - KTRK/PASADENA, TX) - A dramatic 911 call from the Pasadena man who allegedly shot and killed two men accused of burglarizing his neighbor has been released. The dispatcher tried to talk him out of it.

"Hurry up, man. Catch these guys, will ya? I ain't gonna let them go, I'm gonna be honest with ya," said Horn on the 911 call. "I'm not gonna let them go. I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)."

Horn and the dispatcher spent more than seven minutes on the phone, much of that with the dispatcher trying to convince Horn not to go outside.

"I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot," said Horn.

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" responded the dispatcher. "It's not worth shooting someone over this."

"I don't want to, but if I go out there to see what the hell is going on, what choice do I have?" said Horn.

"I don't want you to go out there. I asked if you could see anything out there," said the dispatcher.

Horn tells the dispatcher that he understands his rights and even makes reference to the September 1 expansion that gives homeowners greater protection from prosecution should they choose to confront someone breaking into their home.

Before he can be convinced otherwise, Horn tells police he sees the burglars coming out of his house.

"He's coming out of the window right now," said Horn to the 911 dispatcher. "I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window."

"Don't, don't , don't go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?" said the dispatcher.

"(Expletive), they just stole something," said Horn to the dispatcher. "I'm sorry. I ain't gonna let them get away with this. They got a bag of something. I'm doing it."

The dispatcher can't stop Horn, who takes the phone with him as he goes outside.

"Move, you're dead," Horn, who took the phone outside with him, could be heard saying to the suspects.

Then three gunshots could be heard.

Horn admits later on the 911 call that he did, in fact, fire those shots. The names of the two men shot have not yet been released pending identification and notification of their next of kin. Horn has not been arrested or charged with any crime. A police investigation is still underway. This case likely will end up in the hands of a Harris County grand jury.
(Copyright © 2007, KTRK-TV)

(audio can be heard at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780)

---

Sorry, but I see no justification for this. The guys were robbing a neighbors house and from what can be heard, posed no threat to Horn. He should've let the cops handle the matter instead of going outside and shooting these two guys. Or atleast held them in their place until the cops showed up. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for the criminals at all, what they did was wrong. But I also believe what Horn did was wrong, killing people over a small bag of "loot".

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

are you trying to look like an arsehole in front of the entire board or is this your normal self? as best we know; you're just a snot nosed high school freshman mouthing off because you can hide behind a screen name. i bet you don't have the balls to confront someone face to face.
if you are indeed a law student; tell your parents to save their money because you'll fail with that kind of attitude. you show all the signs of immaturity. why don't you read the rules of the board and see if you can follow rules before tackeling law.

way to dodge my challenge. i'd gladly challenge you to your face and id ask if you have the balls to confront someone face to face without a gun in your hand tough guy. my parents don't give me a cent, i've got government loans friend... thanks for paying for my juris doctor, mr. billionaire taxpayer.

so... how bout them cases? citations? or... can you not manage that? cmon man, you think i'm playacting, we all KNOW you're playacting. i've met people here who knows where i go to school and what i've done. you live alone on... neverland ranch was it? i'm ready to talk law friend. where are the cases? let's see what you have.

Heineken Helen

trappedinmyradio wrote:

neighbors house on monday...your house on tuesday...if cops can't get there in 7 minutes, then you do what you gotta do instead of knowing letting something happen while you could do something about it!

yep, that's the point I've been trying to make which everyone ignores while they go on with their silly name calling :rolleyes: Is this how lawyers win cases?

Also, like I've also said, it sounds like this guy had just had enough... that it wasn't the first time it happened. Jennytree, if you're still around this thread... did ya not feel sympathy for Padraig Nally? It could be something similar... it may not be but it sounds like this man had thought long and hard about what he'd do in this situation, which is something you normally only do if it weighs on your mind.

catefrances

Heineken Helen wrote:

yep, that's the point I've been trying to make which everyone ignores while they go on with their silly name calling :rolleyes: Is this how lawyers win cases?

Also, like I've also said, it sounds like this guy had just had enough... that it wasn't the first time it happened. Jennytree, if you're still around this thread... did ya not feel sympathy for Padraig Nally? It could be something similar... it may not be but it sounds like this man had thought long and hard about what he'd do in this situation, which is something you normally only do if it weighs on your mind.

not everyone helen.

you didnt think the justice system was actually about justice did you? tis about what can and can't be proven. at times right and wrong dont even come into it. lawyers are all about obfuscation.

Heineken Helen

catefrances wrote:

not everyone helen.

you didnt think the justice system was actually about justice did you? tis about what can and can't be proven. at times right and wrong dont even come into it. lawyers are all about obfuscation.

A man today abused his stepson for years and got a SUSPENDED sentence. He admitted the crime, there was no doubt and yet he won't spend a second in jail

catefrances

Heineken Helen wrote:

A man today abused his stepson for years and got a SUSPENDED sentence. He admitted the crime, there was no doubt and yet he won't spend a second in jail

we call that truth in sentencing over here. it sucks massive and has nothing to do with justice. why should you get off lighter just cause you admit to something you did.

mookie9999

Heineken Helen wrote:

yep, that's the point I've been trying to make which everyone ignores while they go on with their silly name calling :rolleyes: Is this how lawyers win cases?

Also, like I've also said, it sounds like this guy had just had enough... that it wasn't the first time it happened. Jennytree, if you're still around this thread... did ya not feel sympathy for Padraig Nally? It could be something similar... it may not be but it sounds like this man had thought long and hard about what he'd do in this situation, which is something you normally only do if it weighs on your mind.

So this guy has had enough. All you bloodthirsty fucks on here answer the question that has already been asked but no one will touch: If this guy feels so compelled to shoot somebody, why not shoot them in the legs? Chances aer it will be hard for them to get away without making a trip to the hospital, not to mention the massive limp they will have impeding their movement until the cops arrive. And don't say the perps could have been armed, I'm pretty sure Mr. Tex Rough Justice would have said it on his phone instead of "move and your dead" bang bang.

Heineken Helen

mookie9999 wrote:

So this guy has had enough. All you bloodthirsty fucks on here answer the question that has already been asked but no one will touch: If this guy feels so compelled to shoot somebody, why not shoot them in the legs? Chances aer it will be hard for them to get away without making a trip to the hospital, not to mention the massive limp they will have impeding their movement until the cops arrive. And don't say the perps could have been armed, I'm pretty sure Mr. Tex Rough Justice would have said it on his phone instead of "move and your dead" bang bang.

bloodthirsty fucks? :rolleyes: nice debate style you got going on there

You're missing the point... I couldn't care less about the thieves... they set out to knowingly ruin somebody elses lives... from that moment on, they're straight off of my sympathy radar. That man did the rest of us a favour as far as I can see... 2 more scum wasters off of the street.

mookie9999

Heineken Helen wrote:

bloodthirsty fucks? :rolleyes: nice debate style you got going on there

You're missing the point... I couldn't care less about the thieves... they set out to knowingly ruin somebody elses lives... from that moment on, they're straight off of my sympathy radar. That man did the rest of us a favour as far as I can see... 2 more scum wasters off of the street.

I finally got to hear the tape (as my computer at work does not have speakers) and am even more mortified. It is seven minutes of the 911 operator telling this piece of shit to stay where he is and to not do anything. Takes law into his own hands and kills two people, and your response is 2 more scum wasters off of the street? Not only are you no better than the thiefs you're worse! Condoning murder for stolen goods does equate to bloodthirst, sorry if you see otherwise. How about answering my question? I guess that's your version of a debate style. Why not shoot them in the leg? Didn't think you had an answer for that. These guys were running away, at least the one that was still able to run prior to collapsing and dying. One part that does make sense after hearing the tape is why onelonesong feels so passionate about this. I didn't realize the perps were black. After the thread that was shutdown the other day with your hatred of blacks flowing through, this whole thread is starting to make more sense now.

g under p

Heineken Helen wrote:

yep, that's the point I've been trying to make which everyone ignores while they go on with their silly name calling :rolleyes: Is this how lawyers win cases?

Also, like I've also said, it sounds like this guy had just had enough... that it wasn't the first time it happened. Jennytree, if you're still around this thread... did ya not feel sympathy for Padraig Nally? It could be something similar... it may not be but it sounds like this man had thought long and hard about what he'd do in this situation, which is something you normally only do if it weighs on your mind.

So because this guy felt he had enough or had been robbed before he now has the right to go out and mow down 2 thieves? Sounds like he has his own justice system.

So if I have enough of my girlfriend and she pisses me off to no end .....I can then take her out at my choosing? Well this world is changing for the worse.

Peace

mookie9999

g under p wrote:

So if I have enough of my girlfriend and she pisses me off to no end .....I can then take her out at my choosing? Well this world is changing for the worse.

Peace

Look on the bright side. If your girlfriend becomes your wife this will apply to inlaws as well! Now there's someone you want to use this law on!

onelongsong

mookie9999 wrote:

So this guy has had enough. All you bloodthirsty fucks on here answer the question that has already been asked but no one will touch: If this guy feels so compelled to shoot somebody, why not shoot them in the legs? Chances aer it will be hard for them to get away without making a trip to the hospital, not to mention the massive limp they will have impeding their movement until the cops arrive. And don't say the perps could have been armed, I'm pretty sure Mr. Tex Rough Justice would have said it on his phone instead of "move and your dead" bang bang.

i answered that question way back.
1) the legs are too small of a target. you'd have to hit the bone to really disable the guy.
2) the proper target would be to shoot the pelvis. BUT; some bleeding heart jury awarded a prisoner money from someone that shot them while they were committing the crime.
3) so; if you kill the criminal; the family can't come back and sue because he was in the commission of a felony.

**footnote:
if it is found that horn wrongfully shot the criminals; the family can THEN sue for wrongful death.

mookie9999

onelongsong wrote:

i answered that question way back.
1) the legs are too small of a target. you'd have to hit the bone to really disable the guy.
2) the proper target would be to shoot the pelvis. BUT; some bleeding heart jury awarded a prisoner money from someone that shot them while they were committing the crime.
3) so; if you kill the criminal; the family can't come back and sue because he was in the commission of a felony.

**footnote:
if it is found that horn wrongfully shot the criminals; the family can THEN sue for wrongful death.

Hey Kojak, if you shoot the leg and do not disable the perps, chance are they will still have to go to a hospital. If they're breaking and entering into a house, chances are they aren't the Sopranos who have a private cash only doctor that will make a house call. Anyways, it is not his responsibility to act as lawman. This guy was ready to shoot to kill from moment one, and finished off what he had planned. As to this case your siting, my guess is that the guy who shot the perp in the pelvis probably was in the wrong, much like this jackass. Site the case if you want to clear any of this up.

Jennytree

Heineken Helen wrote:

Jennytree, if you're still around this thread... did ya not feel sympathy for Padraig Nally? It could be something similar... it may not be but it sounds like this man had thought long and hard about what he'd do in this situation, which is something you normally only do if it weighs on your mind.

Of course I felt sorry for him. Its a different case though, Padraigs house was constantly getting targetted by knackers, of course he had a right to protect HIS OWN property and this is why his conviction got quashed months after he was sent to jail.

Its different if he sat looking out his window, saw some dudes robbing his neighbours house, went out with a gun with the intention of causing injury to someone who was completely no threat to him, which by the looks of it is what Horn did. He was on a power trip, took the law into his own hands and murdered for no reason- end of.