Joe Horn and Texas Law

soulsinging

Derrick wrote:

Unfortunately, you can shoot someone legally if they are in the act of robbery (in Texas).


The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

robbery is different from burglary.

onelongsong

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The way I read the story the law says you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself and your property. I have no problem with that if that is Texas law. But to me this wasn't defending protecting property since the break- in had already happened and the crooks were leaving (it was more like going on offence). To me this was no different than if he found out who they were and where they lived months later went to their house and shot them.

From the story it also sounds like there would have to be some sort of investigation to see whether or not this guy acted within the law or not (at least that is what I got from the last paragraph). After which point I would think the local prosecutor would have to decide whether or not to charge this guy.

you are correct. but they were caught "in the act" and that's suppose to make it better. the only investigation needed is to see if horn acted within the law and it looks like he did. if he didn't know his neighbours like someone said; horn is an idiot. it could have been friends or relatives. he got lucky and it wasn't. now he's the hero of his town.
people need dogs for home security and if they want; guns for direct self defence. where i live guns are tools. they're needed for the work i do. i say work but i consider it retirement. in other places; guns are nothing but trouble. my uncle lives in maryland and he's got a gun collection that rivals the national armory. (i'll inherit it). both him and his wife hold shooting championships and that's how they spend their time. shooting paper targets. i think he's 81 now and he still enjoys his target shooting. not 1 of his guns have ever hurt a person. they're an exception. in most cases; a gun in a city is trouble.

NoK

soulsinging wrote:

i see any help as sympathy, period. no sympathy would be "tough shit dickhead, solve your own problem." your first example sounds more like enabling.

So you believe that one can't help without feeling sympathetic to the case. The way I see it is "I help when I can" purely based on ability and not sympathy. Obviously there are cases based on sympathy. I guess we can agree to disagree.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

robbery is different from burglary.

robbery is when the criminal asks you for your property.
burglery is when the criminal goes into your house and takes your property.

hhhmmmmm; so doesn't that law say you can use deadly force to protect your property? isn't this what you were looking for SS?

Kel Varnsen

onelongsong wrote:

you are correct. but they were caught "in the act" and that's suppose to make it better. the only investigation needed is to see if horn acted within the law and it looks like he did. if he didn't know his neighbours like someone said; horn is an idiot. it could have been friends or relatives. he got lucky and it wasn't. now he's the hero of his town.
people need dogs for home security and if they want; guns for direct self defence. where i live guns are tools. they're needed for the work i do. i say work but i consider it retirement. in other places; guns are nothing but trouble. my uncle lives in maryland and he's got a gun collection that rivals the national armory. (i'll inherit it). both him and his wife hold shooting championships and that's how they spend their time. shooting paper targets. i think he's 81 now and he still enjoys his target shooting. not 1 of his guns have ever hurt a person. they're an exception. in most cases; a gun in a city is trouble.

But at what point are the criminals no longer in the act? If you find them months later and they still have your stuff (which from what I understands means they are still breaking the law) are you still allowed to shoot them. What if they are running down the road and they are blocks away but the guy with the gun is a sharp shooter and can still shoot them? At what point does it stop being home defence and become vengance?

mookie9999

MrSmith wrote:

From the article he said they went into his property and one lunged at him. If thats true he had every right to kill them.

Let's ask what the criminals in this case have to say about going "into his property and lunging at him". Oh wait. We can't. They're fucking dead. If I was a gun toting piece of trash intent on killing two people because the only thing colder and harder than what's in my pants is my rifle, then I too would say they lunged at me. I listened to the 911 call again and my feelings will not change on this. The thieves were wrong for what they did, but did not deserve to die from some gray issues in the law. Thank God my gf didn't take the job in Texas she was considering is all I have to say.

onelongsong

flywallyfly wrote:

Something tells me you dont get any Father's Day cards. Just a hunch.

i get a card for every occation. he's the only kid that's never late. they've got some great cards in prison too. my favourites are the 3 stooges cards. he can't thank me enough. between getting him clean and him being able to see the other drugees there and what drugs have done to them; he knows i saved his life.

onelongsong

mookie9999 wrote:

Let's ask what the criminals in this case have to say about going "into his property and lunging at him". Oh wait. We can't. They're fucking dead. If I was a gun toting piece of trash intent on killing two people because the only thing colder and harder than what's in my pants is my rifle, then I too would say they lunged at me. I listened to the 911 call again and my feelings will not change on this. The thieves were wrong for what they did, but did not deserve to die from some gray issues in the law. Thank God my gf didn't take the job in Texas she was considering is all I have to say.

and as i said before; people who think like you should stay east of the mississippi and north of georgia.
no offence intended.

mookie9999

onelongsong wrote:

and as i said before; people who think like you should stay east of the mississippi and north of georgia.
no offence intended.

No offense taken, and will stay where I am with pleasure. However, to your lumping all east coast people together with your statements (nyers will turn their heads to a crime, gun laws like this will never take place back east because NYers will just shoot each other,etc.) are gross generalizations, which are ignorant at best.

onelongsong

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But at what point are the criminals no longer in the act? If you find them months later and they still have your stuff (which from what I understands means they are still breaking the law) are you still allowed to shoot them. What if they are running down the road and they are blocks away but the guy with the gun is a sharp shooter and can still shoot them? At what point does it stop being home defence and become vengance?

i'm really not sure kel. if it were me; i wouldn't shoot unless they were armed and i was in imminent danger. i'd never shoot if they were running away because the danger has then passed. i'm more "old school" and wouldn't shoot a home invader unless i saw a weapon. no matter what the law allows me to do. the exception being if my kids were still at home and i saw the home invader entering one of their rooms.

onelongsong

mookie9999 wrote:

No offense taken, and will stay where I am with pleasure. However, to your lumping all east coast people together with your statements (nyers will turn their heads to a crime, gun laws like this will never take place back east because NYers will just shoot each other,etc.) are gross generalizations, which are ignorant at best.

my sincere apologies then. i find most anti-gun people to be from back east and it is wrong for me to stereotype people that way.
i'm sorry.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

robbery is when the criminal asks you for your property.
burglery is when the criminal goes into your house and takes your property.

hhhmmmmm; so doesn't that law say you can use deadly force to protect your property? isn't this what you were looking for SS?

if they are asking you personally for your property, there is an inevitable threat of physical danger. otherwise you wouldnt give it to them. as you yourself have acknowledged, burglary is different. it is just property with no physical danger. so no, it's not what i was looking for. though im sure this is fine in texas.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i get a card for every occation. he's the only kid that's never late. they've got some great cards in prison too. my favourites are the 3 stooges cards. he can't thank me enough. between getting him clean and him being able to see the other drugees there and what drugs have done to them; he knows i saved his life.

we'll see how long he stays clean when he's paroled.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

we'll see how long he stays clean when he's paroled.

i hope he stays clean. if not; i'll put his arse right back in prison. and he knows it. he was suppose to get 16 years 2 months. if he goes back he has to finish that sentence plus the new one. he knows that if he messes up again; it's almost life in prison.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

if they are asking you personally for your property, there is an inevitable threat of physical danger. otherwise you wouldnt give it to them. as you yourself have acknowledged, burglary is different. it is just property with no physical danger. so no, it's not what i was looking for. though im sure this is fine in texas.

and texas can't pass laws that are unconstitutional. so in a round about way; there's your proof.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i hope he stays clean. if not; i'll put his arse right back in prison. and he knows it. he was suppose to get 16 years 2 months. if he goes back he has to finish that sentence plus the new one. he knows that if he messes up again; it's almost life in prison.

rehab is not an option eh?

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

and texas can't pass laws that are unconstitutional. so in a round about way; there's your proof.

sure they can. states pass laws that are unconstitutional all the time. it takes years for a state law to work its way through the courts and be evaluated by the supreme court. this one hasn't even been tested yet. but courts traditionally show a pretty strong amount of deference to state criminals laws. we'll see.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

rehab is not an option eh?

he's in the prison rehab program.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

he's in the prison rehab program.

sweet. cos if anyone knows how to treat addiction, it's not hospitals, rehab centers, or experts, it's prison wardens. good call.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

sweet. cos if anyone knows how to treat addiction, it's not hospitals, rehab centers, or experts, it's prison wardens. good call.

they've got a good program.

http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/prisons/kingman1.asp