Joe Horn and Texas Law

1…456810

Comments

  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    onelongsong wrote:
    i don't know for sure love. i assumed it because she didn't show up in court. after the incident; i never saw her again. when i'd see my God-daughter; she'd have someone else drop her off. greg never really knew either.
    it's actually my fault. greg worked for me and i gave him the afternoon off to make his wife a special dinner for her birthday. she was suppose to be at work and he got home 3 or 4 hours early. i saw bill a few times after that but i never talked to him. someone told me he wished that greg had killed him. he really got messed up. i guess there are some things worse than death.


    Well I don't expect you to know for sure. :) The people involved probably don't even know for sure. But your initial post said that she was cheating and that Greg came home and attacked Bill because "he thought she was being raped" so it pretty much said to me that he had acting out of temporary insanity. Which seems to have been bore out by what you explained happened next. Least that's how I took what you said anyway. I don't know I just wasn't having any trouble following what you meant and for some reason ss was. It's no biggy.
    And the whole thing sounds truly horrible for all of them regardless of their motivations.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Jeanie wrote:
    Well it seems to me that you have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to his posts in this thread because I'm not having any difficulty grasping what he's saying. Just an observation. You don't think you are viewing it with preconcieved notions in your head? I'm just finding it interesting that you don't seem to be understanding what he's said at all. And you're the lawyer to be.

    no, im trying to get him to give me a straight answer instead of his wiggling. it's standard legal questioning practice. im surprised he doesnt recognize it. being the invincible trial attorney he claims to be and all.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Jeanie wrote:
    Well I don't expect you to know for sure. :) The people involved probably don't even know for sure. But your initial post said that she was cheating and that Greg came home and attacked Bill because "he thought she was being raped" so it pretty much said to me that he had acting out of temporary insanity. Which seems to have been bore out by what you explained happened next. Least that's how I took what you said anyway. I don't know I just wasn't having any trouble following what you meant and for some reason ss was. It's no biggy.
    And the whole thing sounds truly horrible for all of them regardless of their motivations.

    temporary insanity? oh how we will get on our knees and swallow anything said by our loved ones.

    his buddy walked in, saw his wife balling another dude, and beat the shit out of the guy. period. anyone who believes his "i thought she was being raped" bullshit is either a fucking idiot, or has never had sex.

    and this is my point. if you have broadly worded and flexible lethal force laws, you get this. you get prism (i like how none of you seem to have read or want to discuss her story) and her friend being shot and ols's buddy kicking the shit out of an innocent man becos he couldn't deliver in bed. why? becos such a law encourages people to shoot first and ask questions later. why bother to find out if she was actually being raped (like you couldn't tell by her moaning and wrapping her legs around him) or whether someone is actually stealing or whether there was actually a break-in, when all trigger-happy dirty harry wannabes like joe horn have to do is pull the trigger and tell the jury later that "i swear judge, i thought that fucking whore was being raped" and they're off the hook based on "reasonable belief" there was a crime or "temporary insanity" (aka hot-headed piece of shit loses control).
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    soulsinging wrote:
    no, im trying to get him to give me a straight answer instead of his wiggling. it's standard legal questioning practice. im surprised he doesnt recognize it. being the invincible trial attorney he claims to be and all.


    You're not in court now. And this isn't a trail. If you have a question or you don't understand then why don't you just ask nicely for clarification instead of hounding or insulting? I reckon if you were in court and you continued on in this vein the judge would find you in contempt anyway.
    Should I just lodge "objection" every time you do it? Would that help? ;)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    soulsinging wrote:
    no, im trying to get him to give me a straight answer instead of his wiggling. it's standard legal questioning practice. im surprised he doesnt recognize it. being the invincible trial attorney he claims to be and all.


    Sometimes all you have to do is actually read what is said instead of asking direct questions...it seems like you are just trying to squeeze blood from a stone.

    Needless to say it comes off as annoying and childish.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Jeanie wrote:
    You're not in court now. And this isn't a trail. If you have a question or you don't understand then why don't you just ask nicely for clarification instead of hounding or insulting? I reckon if you were in court and you continued on in this vein the judge would find you in contempt anyway.
    Should I just lodge "objection" every time you do it? Would that help? ;)

    no, the judge would hold ols in contempt if he did not answer my question with a yes or no.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    Sometimes all you have to do is actually read what is said instead of asking direct questions...it seems like you are just trying to squeeze blood from a stone.

    Needless to say it comes off as annoying and childish.

    just trying to get him to admit that his buddy paralyzed a perfectly innocent man for life and injured several cops, yet he claims he does not deserve any jailtime becos somehow his crime was "justified." whereas a pair of two-bit house burglars deserve to die for their crimes becos that was the risk they took.
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    soulsinging wrote:
    temporary insanity? oh how we will get on our knees and swallow anything said by our loved ones.

    his buddy walked in, saw his wife balling another dude, and beat the shit out of the guy. period. anyone who believes his "i thought she was being raped" bullshit is either a fucking idiot, or has never had sex.

    and this is my point. if you have broadly worded and flexible lethal force laws, you get this. you get prism (i like how none of you seem to have read or want to discuss her story) and her friend being shot and ols's buddy kicking the shit out of an innocent man becos he couldn't deliver in bed. why? becos such a law encourages people to shoot first and ask questions later. why bother to find out if she was actually being raped (like you couldn't tell by her moaning and wrapping her legs around him) or whether someone is actually stealing or whether there was actually a break-in, when all trigger-happy dirty harry wannabes like joe horn have to do is pull the trigger and tell the jury later that "i swear judge, i thought that fucking whore was being raped" and they're off the hook based on "reasonable belief" there was a crime or "temporary insanity" (aka hot-headed piece of shit loses control).

    When having sex...it is my understanding that there is more than one positions and sometimes some of those positions are ones that are more easily conducted during rape. You have no idea how they were having sex so it is very possible that it could've looked like rape.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    When having sex...it is my understanding that there is more than one positions and sometimes some of those positions are ones that are more easily conducted during rape. You have no idea how they were having sex so it is very possible that it could've looked like rape.

    you've got to be joking. if you can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape, you are doing something wrong. and in any case, how does this overcome the fact that somebody is PARALYZED becos he was wrong? his buddy says "oops, my bad!" and it's all supposed to be fine?
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    soulsinging wrote:
    just trying to get him to admit that his buddy paralyzed a perfectly innocent man for life and injured several cops, yet he claims he does not deserve any jailtime becos somehow his crime was "justified." whereas a pair of two-bit house burglars deserve to die for their crimes becos that was the risk they took.

    Yeah, I see what you are trying to do and I'm sure he does too, but you'll be hard pressed to actually get him to admit that since it appears he does not feel that way.
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    soulsinging wrote:
    you've got to be joking. if you can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape, you are doing something wrong.


    All I'm saying is, you weren't there. How do you know it immediately appeared that she was enjoying it and supposedly had her legs wrapped around this other dude?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    Yeah, I see what you are trying to do and I'm sure he does too, but you'll be hard pressed to actually get him to admit that since it appears he does not feel that way.

    he doesn't feel what way? that is what i am trying to get at. what DOES he feel? how does he rationalize these contradictions?
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    soulsinging wrote:
    you've got to be joking. if you can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape, you are doing something wrong. and in any case, how does this overcome the fact that somebody is PARALYZED becos he was wrong? his buddy says "oops, my bad!" and it's all supposed to be fine?


    This almost comes off as laughable to me because in an earlier post I stated that in a basic business law class we studied a case where, yes, it is possible to kill someone and get away with it by basically saying "oops, my bad!"

    The guy in the post I was talking about earlier basically killed his roommate's buddy and pleaded an "oops my bad, I thought he was trying to murder my roommate" type case.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Jeanie wrote:
    You're not in court now. And this isn't a trail. If you have a question or you don't understand then why don't you just ask nicely for clarification instead of hounding or insulting? I reckon if you were in court and you continued on in this vein the judge would find you in contempt anyway.
    Should I just lodge "objection" every time you do it? Would that help? ;)

    the little pimple can get annoying can't he? but i enjoy it. if this were a courtroom; i would never be asked to make an assumption. only 2 people can actually answer that question and they're not here. he's trying to play with the big boys but his feet can't reach the peddels. instead of learning tactics here; he wants to go cry in a corner. i've never seen a court find anyone in contempt for not answering a question only another person can answer.
    it's easy to spot an amateur.
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    soulsinging wrote:
    temporary insanity? oh how we will get on our knees and swallow anything said by our loved ones.

    his buddy walked in, saw his wife balling another dude, and beat the shit out of the guy. period. anyone who believes his "i thought she was being raped" bullshit is either a fucking idiot, or has never had sex.

    and this is my point. if you have broadly worded and flexible lethal force laws, you get this. you get prism (i like how none of you seem to have read or want to discuss her story) and her friend being shot and ols's buddy kicking the shit out of an innocent man becos he couldn't deliver in bed. why? becos such a law encourages people to shoot first and ask questions later. why bother to find out if she was actually being raped (like you couldn't tell by her moaning and wrapping her legs around him) or whether someone is actually stealing or whether there was actually a break-in, when all trigger-happy dirty harry wannabes like joe horn have to do is pull the trigger and tell the jury later that "i swear judge, i thought that fucking whore was being raped" and they're off the hook based on "reasonable belief" there was a crime or "temporary insanity" (aka hot-headed piece of shit loses control).

    Who on earth are you talking about now? Who's swallowing anything from their loved ones? The guy was found NOT GUILTY wasn't he? So who's swallowing what? The jury? The judge? The police?

    You know, all this supposition you got going on isn't going to help you out.
    How the fuck would you or I or OLS or the bloody queen of sheba know for certain what the fuck went through Horn's mind or OLS's buddy's mind or anybody elses? I think you decide FAR TOO EASILY how you think things are and proceed from that point.
    In both of these cases as far as I can see both men have acted under the law OR been tried under the law and exonerated. IF you do not like the law then why don't you change it instead of supposing all this stuff onto people that you can't possibly know because you weren't there? I would have thought that keeping your mind open would be a very useful tool to have as a lawyer?
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    This almost comes off as laughable to me because in an earlier post I stated that in a basic business law class we studied a case where, yes, it is possible to kill someone and get away with it by basically saying "oops, my bad!"

    The guy in the post I was talking about earlier basically killed his roommate's buddy and pleaded an "oops my bad, I thought he was trying to murder my roommate" type case.

    that is my point. the law should not encourage people to rush in and kill other people without figuring out what is going on first. that is why im opposed to what horn did, what your buddy's roommate did, and what ols's buddy did to his wife's lover. it should NOT be fine to say "oops, im sorry! didnt mean to kill you!"
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    soulsinging wrote:
    that is my point. the law should not encourage people to rush in and kill other people without figuring out what is going on first. that is why im opposed to what horn did, what your buddy's roommate did, and what ols's buddy did to his wife's lover. it should NOT be fine to say "oops, im sorry! didnt mean to kill you!"

    What would you be saying then if in the roommate case, the roommate just stood by and watched his roommate be murdered if the actions had actually been murder. I'm sure many people would be saying "What the FUCK man!? You were right there when that guy murdered your roommate and you did absolutely nothing!?"

    In your world it appears the guy would have to reply with "Oh, um...I'm sorry but I thought maybe you know, they were friends, what with all the punches being thrown...I just didn't want to get in the middle of that and go to jail so instead I stood by as complacent as could be."

    My point being, that many times murder and harm to other persons can happen in an instance and sometimes you just don't have time to assess the situation while precious minutes are whittling by.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Jeanie wrote:
    Who on earth are you talking about now? Who's swallowing anything from their loved ones? The guy was found NOT GUILTY wasn't he? So who's swallowing what? The jury? The judge? The police?

    You know, all this supposition you got going on isn't going to help you out.
    How the fuck would you or I or OLS or the bloody queen of sheba know for certain what the fuck went through Horn's mind or OLS's buddy's mind or anybody elses? I think you decide FAR TOO EASILY how you think things are and proceed from that point.
    In both of these cases as far as I can see both men have acted under the law OR been tried under the law and exonerated. IF you do not like the law then why don't you change it instead of supposing all this stuff onto people that you can't possibly know because you weren't there? I would have thought that keeping your mind open would be a very useful tool to have as a lawyer?

    this is precisely what i've been saying. i acknowledged long ago this was the law. i'm saying it's a stupid fucking law with bad outcomes and it should be changed. ols's buddy should be in jail for crippling that guy, horn should be in jail for playing god, and so on and so forth.

    the loved one comment referred to you and your boy john wayne.
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    soulsinging wrote:
    no, the judge would hold ols in contempt if he did not answer my question with a yes or no.

    And I'll repeat it for those in the back row that didn't hear me the first time. :rolleyes:

    THIS IS NOT COURT! Sheesh!

    Now could everyone please remember when you're speaking with soulsinging that you are on trial and all answers will be yes or no otherwise you'll be in contempt and the judge (this a double gig for you?) will lock you up??? :rolleyes:
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    What would you be saying then if in the roommate case, the roommate just stood by and watched his roommate be murdered if the actions had actually been murder. I'm sure many people would be saying "What the FUCK man!? You were right there when that guy murdered your roommate and you did absolutely nothing!?"

    In your world it appears the guy would have to reply with "Oh, um...I'm sorry but I thought maybe you know, they were friends, what with all the punches being thrown...I just didn't want to get in the middle of that and go to jail so instead I stood by as complacent as could be."

    oh, i dont know, how about a "hey, what the hell's going on here?" they were punching each other. his roommate wasn't going to die any second. how about anything ANY sort of action to ascertain the situation before reaching for a fucking baseball bat and bludgeoning someone to death? not like it would have taken more than another second. or maybe stop after one swing. or maybe take a warning swing. anything before jumping right to lethal force.

Categories