Joe Horn and Texas Law

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

texas says horn gets to.

and my point is it's a dangerous line to be trying to draw. maybe he says meth is so unpredictable anyone smoking it could turn violent in a second and he feared for his physical safety when your son looked at him with the crazy eyes. it could be argued. when you start allowing for joe citizen to shoot people based whatever he perceives to be happening regardless of its truth or reality, you're opening the door to some serious problems.

i understand it's the law, im saying it's bad policy and a bad law.

Pacomc79

soulsinging wrote:

and my point is it's a dangerous line to be trying to draw. maybe he says meth is so unpredictable anyone smoking it could turn violent in a second and he feared for his physical safety when your son looked at him with the crazy eyes. it could be argued. when you start allowing for joe citizen to shoot people based whatever he perceives to be happening regardless of its truth or reality, you're opening the door to some serious problems.

i understand it's the law, im saying it's bad policy and a bad law.

doesn't that depend on the descresion of the judge?

As long as the law isn't written to try to force the judicial system into a certain outcome (mandatory minimums etc) and the judge is given the freedom to review facts could it not be considered a good law?

Clearly, shooting someone "because he gave me the eye" should be viewed as manslaughter or murder.

In this sense, this happens as the perpetrators are running away from the house after they have broken in and stolen something. The spirit of the law is to allow the owner to protect themself and thier own property because the police do not live at everyones house. Now if you want to say... Mr. Horn should not have killed the people who were running away and sue him for wrongful death I don't see a problem, but having not read the law I think as long as there is discresion (logic and reason from the judge given the facts of the case) it could be considered a good law. We don't really want the government to be on the side of protecting the criminal.

I'm all for fair trials and all, but our judicial systems wheels turn slowly. Provided the two dead perps in this case were ever caught, the merchandise would likely be long gone and they'd be let go due to lack of evidence.

I mean I guess we could have gun owners put warning labels on thier doors or something, but really... I don't feel bad for a dead burglar or robber... just don't do it. They essentially made a decision that ended in their death much like suicide. Ok so it's been said, "well is it worth someone dying for material possessions"... aparently to the two dead robbers... it was.

onelongsong

Sludge Factory wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Meth is some of the nastiest stuff around and I fail to understand why many people, who know how bad it is prior to using, try it anyway.

I know if I had to do drugs Meth would be the one of last ones I picked.

my ex was heavy into coke which is one of the reasons the state took them. her boyfriend was doing the abuse. i got them coming out of that enviornment. the 2 oldest were too far gone and needed drastic help. the other saw what was happening and stayed away from it. the youngest turned out to be my brother in laws child so there's no contact with him.

callen

onelongsong wrote:

texas says horn gets to.

not true...you can only kill if its your shit and you feel your life was threatened..and that wasn't the case for redneck Horn. Now if my fellow Texans don't bring him up on charges...well thats another thing entirely...but he is guilty of murder....from the facts that I have.

onelongsong

callen wrote:

not true...you can only kill if its your shit and you feel your life was threatened..and that wasn't the case for redneck Horn. Now if my fellow Texans don't bring him up on charges...well thats another thing entirely...but he is guilty of murder....from the facts that I have.

i understand that. i'm a CCW carrying arizonan so i know the laws and when i can pull the trigger. however; horn not being arrested on the spot means there's something we don't know. part of the story is missing. the police don't just let a murderer go until they decide to charge him.

callen

onelongsong wrote:

i understand that. i'm a CCW carrying arizonan so i know the laws and when i can pull the trigger. however; horn not being arrested on the spot means there's something we don't know. part of the story is missing. the police don't just let a murderer go until they decide to charge him.

Yea its Texas Culture...but it doesn't mean he's not guilty...think the prosecutor has a few more days before they have to submit evidence to the grand jury. We'll probably know next week.

mookie9999

onelongsong wrote:

my friend was in a federal prison. if you want the whole story;
a few months earlier he got off work early and found his wife in bed with some bloke. the guy was in ICU for weeks and will have to stay in a wheelchair the rest of his life. he also beat the hell out of 5 cops trying to subdue him (in 1989. no tazers etc) and put 2 of them in the hospital.
he plead to a felony and got time served because it was a crime of passion.
then he had to plea to burglery that he didn't do.
under those circumstances then being put in a prison where you constantly had to fight to keep from being raped; it messed him up bad.

You see to be a bit hypocritical. If you are so disgusted with criminals, would put your own son in prison, and would understand if he was shot in the process of a robbery, then why would you have the person you are describing above live with you? The man put police officers in the hospital and crippled another guy all for banging his girl who was equally at fault.

onelongsong

Pacomc79 wrote:

doesn't that depend on the descresion of the judge?

As long as the law isn't written to try to force the judicial system into a certain outcome (mandatory minimums etc) and the judge is given the freedom to review facts could it not be considered a good law?

Clearly, shooting someone "because he gave me the eye" should be viewed as manslaughter or murder.

In this sense, this happens as the perpetrators are running away from the house after they have broken in and stolen something. The spirit of the law is to allow the owner to protect themself and thier own property because the police do not live at everyones house. Now if you want to say... Mr. Horn should not have killed the people who were running away and sue him for wrongful death I don't see a problem, but having not read the law I think as long as there is discresion (logic and reason from the judge given the facts of the case) it could be considered a good law. We don't really want the government to be on the side of protecting the criminal.

I'm all for fair trials and all, but our judicial systems wheels turn slowly. Provided the two dead perps in this case were ever caught, the merchandise would likely be long gone and they'd be let go due to lack of evidence.

I mean I guess we could have gun owners put warning labels on thier doors or something, but really... I don't feel bad for a dead burglar or robber... just don't do it. They essentially made a decision that ended in their death much like suicide. Ok so it's been said, "well is it worth someone dying for material possessions"... aparently to the two dead robbers... it was.

you'll have to forgive him. he just talks goofy now and then.
this may not get as far as a judge. i think he'll go before a grand jury. they usually rubber stamp anything from the DA's office. that's been my experience. but like i said; horn not being arrested on the spot means there's something we don't know. texas has a law that you cannot shoot someone in the back. if they were running away; how could he not shoot them in the back? i didn't look where you're from but shooting someone in the back out west is a big no-no. i did have a warning label (i like that analogy) but it told perps that there were guns in the house. so if nobody is home; here's where you can get a gun.
i think it's a good law. people will abuse it because they abuse everything else; but they'll be punished for abusing it.
as for the dead guys; bury them; say some words over them; and let them rest. they took the risk. they knew the law. they paid the price.

mookie9999

Jeanie wrote:

So I'd like to know HOW people think we could change this or fix this?

Seems to me that there's been an awful lot of emotive language and a whole bunch of understanding for dead burglars and not so much understanding for a guy that shot them seemingly within the law of his state.

I'm just wondering how people here expect this to change given that seemingly the only thing they are prepared to do is condemn Horn, (even though they don't know him) and seemingly the whole state of Texas (and it's not possible to know ALL of them.) I just can't see that working somehow. So any body got any bright ideas?

Just whinging and denouncing Horn that's easy to do. If everyone is as big a pacifist as they profess to be then seems odd to me the reaction of some people.

What's to change? It is a law in Texas, a state that the majority of it's population wants to be its own country. Maybe that's the solution. Let them become their own nation. One less place that Southwest will have a never-ending layover in. Other than that, not much to do. Obviously the majority of people in Texas are accepting of this law. Aside from that, what can one do on here other than express their opinion on the matter and have a debate on the subject? Lastly, there is a great difference from pacifism and being against someone gunning down two thiefs in cold blood, to make it seem as there is no middle ground is absurd.

onelongsong

mookie9999 wrote:

You see to be a bit hypocritical. If you are so disgusted with criminals, would put your own son in prison, and would understand if he was shot in the process of a robbery, then why would you have the person you are describing above live with you? The man put police officers in the hospital and crippled another guy all for banging his girl who was equally at fault.

because i'd have killed the guy screwing my wife. my friend adored his wife. she was his life and he lived for her and his daughter. when he walked in that bedroom; it wasn't him anymore. in his mind his wife was being raped. he couldn't imagine her cheating on him. to him; he was beating a rapist. he'd never hit a cop on purpose. they walked in and he wanted to kill the rapist first.
i can understand that.

onelongsong

mookie9999 wrote:

What's to change? It is a law in Texas, a state that the majority of it's population wants to be its own country. Maybe that's the solution. Let them become their own nation. One less place that Southwest will have a never-ending layover in. Other than that, not much to do. Obviously the majority of people in Texas are accepting of this law. Aside from that, what can one do on here other than express their opinion on the matter and have a debate on the subject? Lastly, there is a great difference from pacifism and being against someone gunning down two thiefs in cold blood, to make it seem as there is no middle ground is absurd.

the police can't be everywhere at once. intelligent people know that. you either accept crime; or you do something about it. arizona was talking about leaving the union because the feds (in their contract) agreed to protect our borders and that wasn't being done. i'd like to see nevada leave the union too. nevada doesn't collect taxes; gambling and prostitution is legal; and we go against several federal laws. let's just leave and let the us had out it's foreign aid to us. give california back to mexico and cut them off. the state is sinking economically and soon; literally.

Jeanie

mookie9999 wrote:

What's to change? It is a law in Texas, a state that the majority of it's population wants to be its own country. Maybe that's the solution. Let them become their own nation. One less place that Southwest will have a never-ending layover in. Other than that, not much to do. Obviously the majority of people in Texas are accepting of this law. Aside from that, what can one do on here other than express their opinion on the matter and have a debate on the subject? Lastly, there is a great difference from pacifism and being against someone gunning down two thiefs in cold blood, to make it seem as there is no middle ground is absurd.

My point being that if people are truly concerned about the two burglars, who as far as I can see are as responsible for their own deaths as the guy that shot them, if people truly believe this is a heinous crime and shouldn't happen then simply slagging off at Horn, who it appears was within the laws of the area he lives in, does seem to be an exercise in futility to me. I mean what's the point in getting all righteous about it and condeming him if you're only ever planning to be all righteous and condeming him? If you really believe this is a miscarriage of justice or even something that despite being with in the law is wrong, then simply slagging off about it and dismissing it as the law of the land isn't really doing much is it? And to say well it is the law of the land in Texas and the people are accepting of it so let's just let them become their own nation seems equally as apathetic to me. If you do believe in pacifism surely the thing to do here is try to understand all sides of the equation, work out why it's wrong, how it was able to happen in the first place and then formulate a plan to ensure it doesn't happen again?
To me that would make all the protestations and faux concern about the dead guys much more sincere. Because the way I see it all we have here is people doing the simplest thing. The easy thing. Appropriating blame, dismissing any responsibilty they have to effect change and basically being just as ineffective as what Horn was.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

because i'd have killed the guy screwing my wife. my friend adored his wife. she was his life and he lived for her and his daughter. when he walked in that bedroom; it wasn't him anymore. in his mind his wife was being raped. he couldn't imagine her cheating on him. to him; he was beating a rapist. he'd never hit a cop on purpose. they walked in and he wanted to kill the rapist first.
i can understand that.

ah, so criminals are only scum that deserve to die if you think their crime wasn't warranted? good system of justice. funny how he can make a bad decision, cripple one person, and assault several cops, and he's ok and deserves several second chances. but these guys stole some jewelry (maybe to feed the wife and children they adore, who knows?) and they deserve to die.

you're right. nothing hypocritical about that at all.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

the police can't be everywhere at once. intelligent people know that. you either accept crime; or you do something about it. arizona was talking about leaving the union because the feds (in their contract) agreed to protect our borders and that wasn't being done. i'd like to see nevada leave the union too. nevada doesn't collect taxes; gambling and prostitution is legal; and we go against several federal laws. let's just leave and let the us had out it's foreign aid to us. give california back to mexico and cut them off. the state is sinking economically and soon; literally.

can we cut loose the south too? let them fight the a-rabs in the desert for jesus.

searchlightsoul

onelongsong wrote:

he took 2 criminals off the street and we don't have to pay to support them in jail. in my eyes; he saved future victims and also saved the taxpayers money. great job all around.

This is called American logic. It doesn't make sense anywhere else.

Jeanie

searchlightsoul wrote:

This is called American logic. It doesn't make sense anywhere else.

Actually I can think of quite a few areas of Australia where that logic would make sense to people AND in other parts of the Western world also. The only difference here is we don't have the guns. Oh no wait, the law abiding citizens don't really have guns.

NoK

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/boy-shot-after-entering-backyard/2007/11/29/1196037030288.html

Boy shot after entering backyard

November 29, 2007 - 11:07AM

A 63-year-old man allegedly shot a teenager in the hip after finding the boy in his backyard.

The Canberra man is due to face the ACT Magistrates Court today, charged with intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and possessing unauthorised firearms.

Police say the man found the 16-year-old in his Downer back yard about 2.30am yesterday and shot him.

Officers searched the man's home last night and allegedly found two unauthorised firearms and a large amount of ammunition.

The boy is being treated in hospital.

Derrick

NoK wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/boy-shot-after-entering-backyard/2007/11/29/1196037030288.html

Boy shot after entering backyard

November 29, 2007 - 11:07AM

A 63-year-old man allegedly shot a teenager in the hip after finding the boy in his backyard.

The Canberra man is due to face the ACT Magistrates Court today, charged with intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and possessing unauthorised firearms.

Police say the man found the 16-year-old in his Downer back yard about 2.30am yesterday and shot him.

Officers searched the man's home last night and allegedly found two unauthorised firearms and a large amount of ammunition.

The boy is being treated in hospital.

This happened in Cincinnati this past year I believe. Some kids were cutting acros a guy's lawn so he shot one of them in the back. I didn't follow up on the story, and I forget the outcome.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,,1736424,00.html

fanch75

Derrick wrote:

This happened in Cincinnati this past year I believe. Some kids were cutting acros a guy's lawn so he shot one of them in the back. I didn't follow up on the story, and I forget the outcome.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,,1736424,00.html

By Gawd, at'll lern 'em.

As stupid and ridiculous as the above story is, I don't see how that enters into the right to bear arms debate. People make stupid decisions everyday that harms others, and not all of them involve using a gun. There are laws for those stupid decisions that prosecute the offenders. A few paranoid idiots making tragic decisions have little to do with everyone else's right to own a gun (which I fully support).

And yes, I realize that the only use of a gun is to shoot something (thus taking away the "cars kill people too, so are we going to ban cars?" argument). I would respond to that by saying that the legal uses of guns are self defense, target shooting, collecting, and hunting game. Obviously, the paranoid 66 year old lernin' boys crossing his yard is outside of that and should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law (manslaughter or whatever, I'll leave the legalese to our lawyer friends).

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

ah, so criminals are only scum that deserve to die if you think their crime wasn't warranted? good system of justice. funny how he can make a bad decision, cripple one person, and assault several cops, and he's ok and deserves several second chances. but these guys stole some jewelry (maybe to feed the wife and children they adore, who knows?) and they deserve to die.

you're right. nothing hypocritical about that at all.

so now you're questioning the courts decision i see. the judge himself said HE would have reacted the same way. thus the sentence of time served; which was about 6 to 8 hours.