Pasadena, Texas' Joe Horn is a murderer.

He was warned by the police THIRTEEN TIMES to stay in his house. The dispatcher said there were police coming and he did not want this man shooting as the police were arriving. He disobeyed and crazily told the 911 dispatcher "You hear that shotgun clicking? I'm going! I'm gonna do this! They stole something. They got a bag. I'm doing this."

He let go with three shots outdoors in a suburban neighborhood at two in the afternoon, and killed the two men over whatever flotsam they were carrying out of his neighbor's house.

Not only do I wonder why he is still free, but why some want to pin a medal on him. Is THIS how we start to solve crimes in America? By blasting people to smithereens in direct disregard to police orders?

we take a step back. everyone .... buy a gun. free for all.

The only "life or death" situation there was the one HE created.

this guy wanted to go out there and shoot them.

he should be charged with 2nd degree murder.

now i'm all for protecting my property and i am a gun owner, but to be honest if someone were to get passed my sophisticated security system, i'd rather taser them until the police got there.

i don't own a taser, but i'm thinking about getting one.

he had malice, he planned it while on the phone with the dispatcher as heard on the tape (whether or not the dispatcher was a police officer has yet to be proven though). I believe he physically lured them to his house (like turned his light on or threw pebbles to get their attention), got them to come to his property and opened fire. So there was possible entrapment, IMO.

What if the cops wouldn't have shown up and these 2 guys drive away unopposed?
How the hell you going to sleep at night? He lived right next door, he would always be worrying about when they were coming back to rob him, in his house.

Another case of preemption.

Then you give police the getaway car information. You don't start shooting.

We outlawed the death penalty for theft a long time ago.

where people and their families live, its a security matter as well as a theft.

Yeesh, the comment below about "gun nuts trembling at home in their jammies" is so true.

for his own good I believe Mr Horn should have stayed in his own home. He was not being threatened in anyway. He probably thought he would be protected by the TX law that says you can defend yourself if you are threatened but I see now that even the law's author is sort of backing away from Mr Horn. society has lost nothing by these two shitheads being killed but Horn has ruined whatever is left of his life.

And their spouses lost mates.

Yes, I know it was their "fault", but the wives and children should get a vote as well, not just society.

having no father can be better than having a really crappy one.

"the wives and children should get a vote as well, not just society."

Thankfully, the wives and kids wouldn't have any vote in whether or not to send them to jail, where they belong.

He's an ex-con who's made a good life for himself as an actor.

Sid

that neither of these two "scumbags" no longer have.

sorry, I misread the tone of your post.

FWIW, I agree with you completely :hi:

Sid

I was a little worried, because I usually agree with your posts.. but it's all good because we are on the same page after all!

:toast:

But now no one will know.

All that shotgun-toting lunatic needs is positive reinforcement for his murders.

it's the wild, wild west.

What do the Joe Horn defenders say then?

You see where this is going.

He has the right to put on a defense that he was acting in self-defense, but there may be enough evidence to indict him.

But Texas juries are prone to sympathizing with someone who blows away burglar, regardless of the circumstances.

I'm just telling you that a Texas jury may hear the case, deliberate for oh, ten minutes or so, and then set him free.

You say you aren't sure you agree....:wtf: I could NEVER live with myself, if I killed someone over a couple of electronic gizmos, no matter how expensive... Much less if it turned out it was a mistake--e.g., that they were not robbing the place but there with the permission of the owner.

Has it really come to this in our society?

No other jury member would be able to persuade me otherwise, if they were determined to acquit him.

Given the 911 tapes, sounds pretty damned premeditated to me.

don't know if this came in to play or not, but this is really going to cause a lot of trouble. These trigger happy guys look what happened.

Just say for a minute. These two guys were friends of the people at the house, but the guy didn' know them. They were gathering up some stuff for "whatever". So he jumps up and kills them for no reason whatso ever.

they arrested a man in maine for firing a shotgun in the air after 3 people tried to kick his door down. he said he had a gun and told them to leave. they heard the cops coming and ran.
he chased them to the car and told them never to come back and he fired a shot in the air.
do you think justice was done? the cops arrested him.
ole joe had the right idea. if he wounded them they would sue him.
sort of reminds you of the old joke:
theirs just no justice in this here land;I just got a divorce from my ole man;I laughed and laughed at the court decision;they gave the kids to him;and they ain't his'n!

they arrested a man in maine for firing a shotgun in the air after 3 people tried to kick his door down. he said he had a gun and told them to leave. they heard the cops coming and ran.
he chased them to the car and told them never to come back and he fired a shot in the air.
do you think justice was done?

Yeah.

The police were on the scene, and the people causing the problem were retreating, and this guy decides that now is a great time to start firing his shotgun in the air to show everyone he means business?

The guy's a jackass! A lot of other places, the police would simply have opened fire on him. He's lucky he only got arrested.

The laws of physics require those bullets to come back down at some point. People have been injured and even killed by bullets falling back to earth after being shot into the air.

We don't need no stinkin' trial when we have guns.

:mad:

I can't imagine anyone other than "Git off muh prop-er-tee" freeper types defending him.

In one of the earlier threads. I was astonished. I don't think vigilantism is a progressive value. He was not defending his own property or himself and no one else was in danger, so he had no justification.

Check out some of the GD threads regarding this incident-
they aren't subtle about cheering what he did.

I would gladly protect my neighbors property, even if it involved lethal force (I have actually done it before, even tho I did not have to pull the trigger. Turns out they had stolen more than 50 cars in the area).

And I would expect same.

Fuck a couple of criminals who are caught in the act.

I wonder what the robbers would have done if the homeowners would have driven up during the robbery.

Probably whaled the shit out of them with their crowbar.

Have you ever been robbed/burgled?

Tom

I would not expect my next door neighbor to have shot the thieves dead.

I would have left them with the option of getting face-down on the ground while awaiting the arrival of the police.

He heard noise coming from his garage, so he grabbed his gun and yelled at the perps to come out with their hands up. They did and he made them lie (lay) on the ground until the cops came. He did not shoot them. They were young punks. Probably looking for stuff to steal to buy meth. It just so happens the homeowner was black and the two young punks were white (not that it has to do with anything). But this homeowner is definitely a hero. He did the right thing.

In 1986, we were living in a log house deep in the woods northwest of Houston.

I'd had constant run-ins with this meth-head punk whose family lived down the road. The road was three miles long and had only five houses along it.

Loooonnngg story short...

My cokehead neighbor and I broke up a car theft ring (methboy and his crazy cousin had stolen more than 50 cars) by running the guys off the road and holding them facedown at gunpoint while waiting for the sheriff.

Well, it was SuperBowl Sunday and we were in the street (methboy and cousin face-down) directly in front of methboy's parents' house with about twenty cars parked in the driveway.

All of a sudden, there was this commotion and about ten people with firearms were running at us from the house. All drunk and shouting and weaving.

I fired a couple of shots (Winchester 1300 Defender12) over their heads and they dropped their guns and got down on the ground maybe twenty yards away.

There was just the two of us holding all those crazy people and the sheriff took forever to show up.

And they tried to charge us with kidnapping.

I wouldn't have done it. And you guys were lucky that you didn't get shot or killed.

But I know my way around the block.

And when you are backed up by some crazy-ass cokehead with a ton of everything, you can do just about anything.

You are a man with stories to tell. That's good.

If I ever get back to Central Texas, I will be in touch.

Do you know that my clan(s) arrived in what is now Angelina County (Deep East Texas) in 1630? I am the only member of a huge family who does not reside in Texas.

I came home one afternoon to find a guy running down my driveway with my chain saw. I had a pellet gun under the seat of my truck and I pumped it once or twice and got out of the car. When I yelled at the guy to put the saw down he came right toward me swinging the saw (it wasn't running). When he got within about 15 feet I shot him in the shin. He wasn't hurt (2 pumps with a .177 pellet won't do much damage) but he was I think quite surprised and sort of hobbled out to the road and into his car that I hadn't noticed when I drove up. He later filed a compaint with the sheriff's department and the sheriff himself called to chastise me for doing what I did. I've known this sheriff for 25 years or so and I asked him WTF he would have done in my place. He had to agree that he'd have done exactly what I did. He said he was debating whether to file charges against me but eventually backed off.

Not someone else's. One story I read said he didn't even know his neighbor.

to defend a neighbor he does not even know all that well, and he's an a$$hole.

Meanwhile I guess the burglars are saints or something. Maybe they could either a) not have gone on a stealing trip, or b) dropped to the ground and surrendered when faced with a gun.

as opposed to the black/white situations of the movies.

Just because the men that robbed the house were scum doesn't elevate this asshole to saint. I have no idea what happened to people that they cannot grasp this concept in their heads. It's the reason we have so many people defend Ron Paul on DU. "Well geepers, if he's against the war, he must be good! War=Bad so No War must = good! Ron Paul '08!!!"

"so a guy goes out of his way to defend a neighbor he does not even know all that well, and he's an a$$hole."

He wasn't defending the neighbor, because the neighbor wasn't home.

When you read, you should try harder. I'm just sayin'.

going into the house with permission. Would you feel ANY regret for killing over a mistake? ANY?

owners drove up. They ran away from Horn. They may well have run away from the owners.

And you don't get the death penalty for robbery.

I've had my car stolen - I wouldn't impose the death penalty on those perps, however.

attempting to break into my house. Not for my 'stuff', but for the lives and well being of my children.

I can't however, ever see myself taking another's life unless those children were directly in grave danger. I don't think this case applies. I believe this man was scared to death, but he also was hell bent on doing what he wanted to do and disregarded the police and their instructions.

your stuff. a call to the police work.

you people are scaring me. making me think i am going to have to knock on each neighbor door and tell them NOT to kill someone stealing my stuff.

Is that supposed to make you look macho?

the truth.

very good

he would protect his own. I lived in Tx. for 6 years, and if you decide to burglarize a house, rob somebody, or pretty much any crime against a person, you better realize you damn well might get shot and killed. Many of you may think that's way too extreme, but anyone who decides to comit the crime needs to think about the risk. If they're willing to take the chance, then they lost in this case. It was their choice!

It was their choice to die? They punish burglary with death in Texas? I'm glad I don't live there.

I don't think anyone thinks about death being the penalty for anything. They simply say "Don't mess with my shit!" I didn't say I agreed with their thinking, but if you're going to commit a crime there, you really need to think about wether it's worth the risk.

and allowing the cop to handle it. and i am telling you we have had a number of times calling them. one particualr a theft of neighbor on thanskgiving night, neighbor not there. i went out and yelled at the people to leave, but none of us neighbor went over with intent to kill.

Which is why I am terrified all the time of living here. So many brave cowboys like this asshole. I hear it all the damn time. "Well by God, if I was there in that (bank, restaurant, whatever) I would have killed that sumbitch before he could do whatever he did" Yadda, yadda, yadda. It is a wonder that more people aren't shot by accident.

So much bullshit, so little time.

:sarcasm:

That sort of deal just engenders violent crime.

OOPS... Oh, well.... :eyes:

They are trained to deal with this stuff.

And this crime had already occurred, so he wasn't preventing anything. He was administering the punishment. That's not up to a citizen to do alone.

I know you all think I'm an idiot, but I hope my neighbor would protect my stuff like that too. If you're too damn stupid and decided to rob MY HOUSE, then you suffer the consequences. If you don't like the penalty, don't do the crime!

They arrived right after Horn murdered the burglars. Even if they had gotten away, they wouldn't have gotten far if Mr. Horn had given the description besides them being "two black guys".

I'm sure the cios responded as quicly as they could have, but sometimes that just not fast enough. If I were there, I would have dont the same thing. Yes I knole I would have been facing possible charges, but I would have doe what I believed was right at the time. And I would have been willing to tale the [unishment as well.

Sorry, napi.

You have a lot of misspelled words in that post.

You should seek help.

Those are not virtues that you listed. They are liabilities.

What if they'd gotten there fast and his shooting ended up getting one of them shot?

This guy has no defense of self defense, or even defense of property. The crime was over. He was a witness. He had no excuse whatsoever to get involved other than reporting the crime and testifying about what he saw.

If the cops had gotten there as he was shooting- they would have shot him. What a dumbass.

The only people dumber than Texans are those who voted for bush the second time.

This guys needs to fry.

You should read the comments from various boards here in the Houston area praising this scumbag for what he did. Most likely he will get probation.

If you listen to the full 911 tape, you notice that Horn was relaxed as he talked with the dispatcher while waiting on the cops, then once the burglars came out, he just snapped and had to do something.

burglers would get away. What don't you understand about that?

That didn't give him the right to shoot dead those two burglars in the back. Whatever they took from his neighbor was not worth what Horn did. This ass should have stayed in the damn house. He took the law into his own hands. What don't you understand about that?

that's not the way the justice system works. Robbery is robbery, even if the item stilen is a paci of gum. Most of the time omeone who stole a pack of gum isn't prosecuted, but they could be.

think about how YOU would feel if someone stole YOUR SRUFF. If it's never happened to you, you may not understand, but you get very offended! I still say, if you're dumb enough to try to pull off a crime, youve decided you're willing to pay the price...whatever it might be/

kindly point out to me anywhere outside of say the Middle East where robbery is punishable by death?

don't have many opions. If you're alone and you've called the cios and thy'er not there yet, what are your options? If you have a firearm you can shoot the, pr upi can just wait for the cops to show up and the perps are gone.

I am glad my neighbor didn't blow them away. They were some punk kids that broke into a few homes in the neighborhood and they were caught.

And murder is still murder, even if the victim is a himself a criminal...

The justice system does "rate" crime!!! There are different levels of crime. Felony v. Misdemeanor - 1st degree, second degree, etc. Stealing a pack of gum IS NOT the same as stealing a car. The worth of an item stolen is what determines if a robbery is a felony. AND Robbery is not the same as Burglary!!!These two men burglarized a house, they didn't rob anyone.

We are a nation of laws and burglary doesn't justify a sentence of death. Mr. Horn decided to take the law into his own hands because he thought his neighbor's (who he didn't really know...if it had been his other neighbor who he knew well, he would have already gone out to "do something" according to the tape)"stuff" was more important than human life. Sadly, in TX he may get away with it. This asshole even mentioned on the tape that the new 9/01 law allowed him to go and kill these guys. Talk to law enforcement about how they feel with this law "on the books." It's very, very dangerous for everyone!

You have shown why it is dangerous to allow anyone to own a gun. Gun owners should have to pass not only gun safety classes, but a law class before being allowed to use a deadly weapon. And I'm not talking about the crappy, so-called classes they take now. It should be college level criminal law for at least a semester with testing to qualify.

Harris County, TX is one of the most violent places in the United States. I do criminal investigation throughout the country, mostly in the Southeast (the most violent region in the country). I currently have a case in Houston and have had to travel throughout Harris County (including Pasadena)and I am always worried about being shot and killed while doing my job by some lunatic like Joe Horn. I'm more worried in a white, middle-class neighborhood than anywhere else. There is a different mentality in Harris County even from the county right down the road, Bexar. There is little regard for life in Harris County. And I am speaking generally because there are some good, nice folks in Harris County.

I hope that Joe Horn is indicted, tried, and convicted of murder. He is a danger to society.

Oh and BTW, I'm a 5'1 female that has been in some of the roughest neighborhoods, talked to known criminals, etc., etc. and I have the best gun out there...it's my brain! I've never owned, carried, or needed a gun. I can't help but chuckle when I read some of these posts from gun owners who live in constant fear, shaking in their jammies at home that someone is going to get them. It is your right, but I have the right to laugh at you also.

that someone is going to get them."

:rofl:

As a former mod in the Gun Dungeon, I'd say that you have described some of these gun nuts exactly!

just 1 block down the road from Mr.Horns neighborhood. Pasadena Texas, on top of being a dry city used to be a place notorious for harassing blacks passing through town. Not quite as bad as Vidor, but still bad.

right to kill someone to protect ourselves or our property. I would be willing to bet that Mr. Horn will not face grand jury charges. Jurors would hope that their own neighbors would do the same for them should their home be raided while they were away.

There should be a clarification in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine">Castle Doctrine of the legality of protecting the property of one's neighbor.

And there's another thought to consider. The fact that criminals here in Texas know that potential victims could be packing heat has resulted in a lot of second-guessing on their part. If this vigilantism is allowed to stand unchallenged and Mr. Horn is not charged or tried, it could actually have positive effect on the crime rate as potential home invaders come to know that even a neighbor can and/or will take them out.

the criminals may just decide to carry heat and take out anything in the neighborhood that moved rather than run the risk of execution. Robberies down. Murders up.

solved our issues by murder. and i would never ask a neighbor to and my neighbors i have dealt with when calling police never showed signs they wanted us to murder for them.

take down the pit across the street, yes. but not people. call 911 is good enough for this texas neighborhood.

What a waste of the taxpayers' money when we can just dispense justice on-the-spot, as we see fit.

And if it turns out that someone totally innocent winds up dead, well, what the fuck? You can always send the grieving family a fruit basket along with a note of sincere condolence on their loss.

I am SO going to pretend I never saw half the posts on this thread.

Just call me a whimpering, bleedin' heart liberal who thinks that a guilty or not-guilty verdict should come BEFORE the execution, rather than AFTER.

Still, it breaks my heart to read some of the responses.

i didn't like the way some guy was looking at me in the parking lot today...so i shot him in the face! jerk had it comin'!!!

Can't take any chances today. 9/11 changed everything.

Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."

Oy..

Apparently, anyone is allowed to shoot someone if you think your life is in danger there. Or if you are defending your property or your neighbor's property. Most of the legal shows were all over this and pretty much everyone said that Texas law allows for this.

Doesn't seem to me like there's much concern for human life in the Lone Star State.

None for the criminals.

The moral of this story is this:

If you do not WANT TO GET KILLED, DO NOT go burglarizing people's homes and businesses in Texas.

Especially in Harris and Dallas Counties.

If the Harris County DA (Harris County has more Death Penalty convictions than any other county in Texas), votes to Indict this man, the Grand Jury will probably no-bill him.

And that whole "don't mess with Texas" machismo would be comical were it not so corrosive to civil rights.

But apparently a lot of the yahoos in Texas took it for something other than littering.

They just have better press agents. :)

Some of the comments I've been reading here, like "the only people dumber than Texans are ones who voted for Bush twice" are really bigoted. We have a lot of yahoos, you bet, but we're a damn big state, too.

Thanks for your common sense and decency. Some people here need to learn this lesson.

And, there are plenty of closed minded authoritarians right here in San Francisco. :hi:

Have been sickening.

This man is a murderer.

what message board I'm really on . . . .

F me, I don't get it.

It really isn't so terrible. Oh, what he did was wrong, of course, and he deserves punishment. I'm hoping the judge goes easy on him, though.

that happen every day in the USA, this is not a case where you can say "the victims were completely innocent", or "the victims were just minding their own business", or "the victims did nothing to deserve this".

I don't understand why people are choosing this killing to rally around and bleed their hearts out for the victims.

It was terrible and wrong, but I am absolutely certain there were 20 or more murders---today---that were more senseless and horrifying than this case. No one seems to care about those murders. Why are these burglars such martyrs?

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5771154

Pics of the two murdered burglars, if interested:

We kill people for no good reason. Just ask Dubya.

fence? How about if they trample his grass? They are destroying his property after all. And since it is well known that Texans are allowed to protect their damn property, I guess they had it coming. Rolled the dice and lost. Tough luck. So sorry.

they need to know the possible consequences.TS that so many of you think that "it's only a fence, or it's only some stuff". Quite a few criminals base their criminal activity upon the punishment too. I can't think of any other things I agree with the RWers on, but most petty criminals won't mess with anyone they know is armed.

Maybe YOU are the one who needs to be reminded of the possible consequences of your actions.

Street justice is a game anyone can play. Keep that in mind.

since kids no longer get to do much of anything, what is left is the innocent chalking that has to be "nice" that is easily washed off the driveway. that warrants muder of child. harsh penalties for our kids today. fuck corporal punishment we find "abusive", taser and murder them.

And stay the fuck away from my neighborhood.

I don't! You don't have to worry about ME coming to your neighborhood. I'm perfectly happy with mine! I'm more concerned about YOU coming to mine.

Being an annoying little twerp is not a capital crime.

get down. told him go home and if i see him again i would find out where he lives and talk to his mama. BIG diffreence from murder. the kid was shaking so hard and a whole lot of yes ma'ams

what is wrong with the people on this thread. no perspective

Remember one guy who shot a teenager who was walking home and he was on his property. The guy and the kid's family were feuding over something I can't remember. It was national news as the shooter called 911 and told them what happened.

This reminds me of some sort of western town back during the gold rush days .

He had no right nore invitation to go out on a shooting spree to defend someone elses property .

What is there were anyone else around that could have gotten in the line of his fire . He took the law into his own hands and people think this is great .

I would not want anyone like Mr Horn anywhere near me with an attitude like that . He did not save the world or his own life or anyones life , instead through ignorence he took two lifes .

My sister just had some vandals key her van to the tune of five hundred bucks- if I'd have been there and seen it happening they'd be in a wheelchair right now.

I have no problem at all with setting shit like that straight.

Just to be clear on the subject.

You're no better than the anger junkie who who cussed at me totally out of control because my car slid into his on an icy road and damaged his paint job. (There was black ice at the intersection, and when I stopped for the red light, my car slid sideways and grazed his.) I'm just glad that he didn't have a gun.

But, speaking as one born in Texas, there isn't a jury that would convict him. Not even around the more progressive Austin area.

If those CRIMINALS weren't breaking into homes, they would still be alive. What if they had broken into the home while someone was there?

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

J

Let alone carried out AGAINST POLICE ORDERS by some nut with a gun.

They'll just go armed and shoot first if confronted.

NOT commiting a crime ya know.

Factored down, what you just said is this: most armed robbers already commit armed robbery!


Uh... yeah. So?


In response to your claim that Horn's actions would serve as a deterrent to crime, I suggested that sneak-thieves such as burglars might make the jump to carrying to carrying weapons and resorting to violence if they believed that they were likely to find themselves in a scenario like the one in the story. You seem to have missed the point.

states that have death penalty increases crimes not reduce. the old universal power, violence begets violence.

.... but I won't be surprised if he isn't.

As for the dim bulbs here who say "well if you don't kill them they'll sue you", Well, guess what. This guy has a wrongful death civil suit (or two) coming his way, the contingency lawyers will be all over their families guaranteed, and he will LOSE it.

So, his life is FUCKED as it should be for applying the death penalty for a petty theft.

And that is likely if they can't even get a grand jury indictment.

local police, who told him to stay inside and not to kill these men:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5309288.html

So another asshole imagines himself god-like because he is able to kill someone. I hope justice in the lives of these people is sure and swift. How ugly he chose to decide someone's going to suffer at his own hands. How christ-like.



Mr. Concerned Citizen.

At 61,he may have wished he
had taken better care of himself.

Too bad he can't use that gun to
shoot some teeth back into his mouth,
or tighten those drooping cheeks.

would be in trouble. but we are suggesting it is ok for a citizen to. so unreal

for their rights to become god and murder anyone they want, claiming self-defense issues are at stake, by some tortured, laughable stretch.

Idiot, greedy, bloodthirsty little savages who rejoice that the law has finally given the authority to murder anyone in broad daylight, with only the explanation that they imagined that at some point they might be in danger from the people they killed. Perfect.

when it was found that Enron had ripped all those people off?

Why is it these types only show up when it's some poor slob ripping off or damaging something that the insurance companies will take care of?

We should have evolved out of the John Wayne days, and vigilante justice should be relegated to the textbooks and museums, but I guess not. Americans really love disgusting violence, and will go to great lengths to prove they are "right," when really, they are just sad.

... when he tries to steal their pension fund?

Meek as lambs these supposed tough guys are, when faced with the crimes of their betters.

These gun nut types talk big about "defending the Constitution" and "defending their homesteads" and such, but they turn into absolute wimps when it comes to the REAL thieves in this country, the corporate executives who send jobs overseas and strip pension funds before they bail out with golden parachutes.

:grr:

:grr:

it's MURDER

that makes him criminal. not obeying the law and the police. that alone has been the reasoning for people applauding the tasering of citizens. the mere not doing EXACTLY what the cop told them to do. so... with that reasoning you should be as angry at the man that shot those people, as you are at the thieves. you are NOT being consistent.

Because I am not.

the cops werent saying, god damnit.... tell the man to stay in house and not go out with gun and not murder the people?

the point is, all of us know when holding a gun and cops are on the way, to set gun aside and step away.... that is with the thought of someone in house, not safe in a house away from trouble, going out to it

I wonder if the dispatcher carries that same authority as the police. If it does, then I think the case that he disobeyed a police order is stronger.

I don't know if the thing to do is "Step away" when one is told the police are on the way. Horn, the shooter, didn't see any police and wanted to stop the thieves. If the police had been there before they tried to get away, I'm sure he would have stayed in his house (not that I blame the police for the shooting). The recorded call makes it pretty clear that he waits as long as he can before the thieves attempt to flee before confronting them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you drive a pick-up too?

Oh wait, police can't do this, but this rabid, probably senile moron can, according to logic on display here.

He was certainly within his rights to attempt to stop the theft and if he was threatened while doing so then he can defend himself.

Plus Texas law has some allowances for using force to stop thefts and other non-life threatening situations.

So I don't know if it was murder or not.

And he went and did the deed even after being told more than a dozen times not to.

That's not self-defense. And that taped conversation leaves Horn essentially no room to spin his actions as such.

When he says he'll kill them, it was in response to the dispatcher saying he would get himself shot if he confronted the thieves.

You and your gun-loving pals are supporting this crazed old vigilante because you're envious of what he got to do....

but you are what you.

I take it you and your gun phobic pals are hand-wringing because you don't understand why anyone would want to stop thieves.

You said that the perpetrator didn't want to kill until he talked to the dispatcher. Seems pretty clear to me who you're blaming. Anything to protect that crazy old man with the shotgun in his hands, right?

And I'm not gun-phobic, by the way. I've been around guns all my life, I own several, and I'm proficient in the use of every one of them. Most importantly, I'm conversant with proper firearms usage---I know the difference between a righteous self defense situation and an act of rank vigilantism. But this kind of incident is just the sort of thing you guncentric guys revel in, isn't it? Everybody armed, everybody taking the law into their own hands, everybody availing themselves of the sweet, sweet sensation of putting a bullet into another human being, everybody groping around in a society where only the law of the jungle prevails. There's proof of this sick attitude down in the Gungeon, every fucking day.

By the way, the reason I don't participate in shooting sports any more, the reason that my guns are now stacked in a closet, is because of people like you. Congratulations.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Try keeping track of the well-armed head cases you hang out with down in the Gun Dungeon.

And by the way, this "troll" has just shy of 3300 posts, and has been at DU since 2001. I hope your gun safety skills are better than your ability to judge other people, but given your contributions to this thread, I kind of doubt it.....

There's a reason I don't like to be people with firearms-- regardless of whether they're the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'.

Some redneck-John Wayne wannabe who's seen too many war movies and had one too many Pabst Blue Ribbons more likely than not who'd jerked off to this very scenario in his dreams many times before.

And I'm supposed to feel safer around some ass-wipe neighbor cleaning his 32 caliber phallic proxy...? No thanks.

In this case, they guy was right - they really were criminals.
The other problem with this case - the law in Texas is (retardedly) on his side.

The reason most of you are against this is because it was vigilante justice, and we all know that is wrong for society due to its inherent lack of true justice (lack of a trial, fact finding, and proper sentencing). In that, you are right, and I agree.

However, this case is not all it appears to be. The man has a valid self-defense claim according to Texas law. Whether that claim holds up in court or not, we'll see.

Dealing the right punishment for the crime.
Its supposed to be an un-emotional process. That is why we build the sentences into the laws, for equal application sans emotion.

That's just silly.

He might have a "PROPERTY defense" claim, at best.
SELF defense? Not a chance.

The dispatcher's advice was very good, but it was just advice.

If he goes to prison it will be largely because what he said on the recording shows his state of mind as being intent on KILLING rather than STOPPING the thieves. If he had kept his mouth shut he MIGHT have been able to make a defense of self-defense using the nuances of Texas state law, but even in Texas you can't go seeking a fight with the intent of killing someone.

As you can see from some of the posts here, human life doesn't count for much down here in Texas. He'll probably be elected mayor.

what is wrong with the people in this thread? So what if they stole something, the world is not so black and fucking white that anyone who breaks the law is scum that deserves to die. Surely they deserved to do some time, but die? Over some property? Are material possessions really worth that much?

fucking sickening. Maybe it's because I grew up poor that I don't value possessions over human life. Who knows.

911 dispatchers are not police.

FYI.

they are totally connected talking to the cops all while i am talking to them. further, they tell me where the cop is and ask me questions from the cop themselves.

LOL!

Clearly you have never sat with a 911 dispatcher.

:rofl:

while they were talking to both the cops and the person on the phone. Your information is odd; the police/ems folks are told exactly what is going on.

This dispatcher stayed calm and did a good job relaying instructions- and telling the police what was happening.

The dispatcher would be telling the cop "He is armed", "He is going outside the premises", "He is firing his weapon".

The dispatcher WOULD NOT be asking the cop "What do I tell him next?"

That the dispatchers JOB, to know how to talk to people on the other end of a 911 call. Its not the cops job. The cop would not be radioing the dispatcher and saying "Tell the guy to stay inside!!!" The cop would never EVER presume to tell a 911 dispatcher how to do their job.

Uses a computer-aided dispatch system, receive emergency calls from the public requesting police, fire, medical or other emergency services. Determine the nature and location of the emergency; determine priorities, and dispatch police, fire ambulance or other emergency units as necessary and in accordance with established procedures. Receive and process 911 emergency calls, maintain contact with all units on assignment, maintain status and location of police and fire units.

http://www.911dispatch.com/jobs/JobDescriptions.html

Note the established procedures reference. They are called protocols, and they are a set of written rules and regulations; the dispatcher wasn't making stuff up off the cuff. He was indeed told to state this either in the protocol material (likely) or by a supervisor, or by the police.

They train for it.

They are not keying their CB and asking the cop (who is driving to the scene) "What do I do next?"

That thought is preposterous!

in thats bullshit. not hard to imagine.

I LOVE your posts, but dispatchers have conversations with cops all the time, and EMTs, and relay that info back to callers.

And, in many areas, dispatchers are members of the police, even if they aren't sworn officers. They're like a "meter maid": they have certain responsibilities and authority.

I dated a cop for three years.

in replies to me. This person is unfamiliar with the 911 system.

Some towns/cities even link up three+-way+ calls with the caller-911-cops-EMTs.

and have had them on the phone in three way conversations with cops. she asks me, relays to cops and then relays cops to me. you are full of it.

I am disgusted by the blood-lust by some here. :(

As I mentioned in another thread on this topic, I came face to face with someone who had broken into my basement -- he was carrying my brand new VCR in his arms. Even if I'd had a gun available to me I would have never shot the young man over that VCR. A yelled warning and a call to the police kept myself and my family safe just fine.

In the Pasadena case, the police were on their way and there were no lives at stake. The gunman's actions were out of control. As far as I am concerned, he murdered two men without cause.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Its a protected Right, and 100% moral.

I am NOT obligated to risk my life to find out if a person INSIDE MY HOUSE has a gun tucked in his belt or not, or if they have grabbed a butcher knife from my kitchen or not. Nor am I obligated to allow them a chance to draw that gun, or run to my kitchen and grab that knife.

My only obligation is to myself to preserve my life and the life of my family.

Clearly, you don't have children. A man inside my house = DEAD. I will kill him with whatever tool I have available, and then I will rip off his head and shit down his neck. Then I will piss on his corpse, and THEN I might bother to dial 911. Maybe.

THAT is the Liberal view of this issue. If you are left of THAT, well then you're some fucking loony toons nutjob. Simple as that.

This is not a self defense in fear of your life thread. The burglars were not in this man's house, and it's questionable as to whether on not they were even on his property. They did not ever threaten his life.

But he/she's riding this line of thought right off the cliff, Thelma and Louise style. Till the END!

You sorta have to pay attention a little.

My point was, and remains, that the law has designated the concept of self-defense. In Texas, for whatever stupid reason, they extended that law to their neighbors property.

I don't agree with it, but if that's the law, then there is no crime here.

all the other stuff you are mouthing off about is garbage to what we are talking about. blah blah blah.... how i defend myself, in my home, against someone who broke into my home to protect my children (i obviously? dont have) has nothing to do with this thread.

:eyes:

I will have to address the idea that I am "naive" here.

I am not naive.

I understand completely that having a stranger in my home holds the possibility that they may intend to do me harm. Please note my emphasis of the word "possibility".

I have no idea if that person is there to do bodily harm, rob me, or is a mental patient/drug addict who has come across my home while in an altered state (think Margot Kidder & Robert Downey, Jr.).

Because I didn't know exactly what I was facing in my basement, I went in alert and then did something radical -- I evaluated the situation. I had a millisecond to do it, but I managed.

I saw a young man, alone, who was freaked out. I saw in his arms my VCR. I did not see a weapon. I determined there was enough space between us that I could bolt for my stairs, close and lock the door between the floors, and call the police. And that is exactly what I did, based on the situation I was faced with.

Horn had a hellava lot more time to correctly evaulate the situation he faced than I had. the police were on the way. He was safely in his home. There was no indication the robbers intended on entering his house to rob or harm him.

I'm sorry, but what he did was inexcusable. He had a dozen options he could have used, but he chose the most radical one.

he left.

another a little kid tried to climb a neighbor fence, not only confront without shooting, told him i was gonna find his mother

this halloween, two teenage boys, confronted told get off property, now in a mama voice and they did

will all wrong doers leave so easily, maybe not... but... lookin in the eyes you get a sense of doom, or get the fuck out of here.

or i could have used my gun and murdered each one of these people per others on this thread, what the fuck. show them what for.

It's a really disgusting display.

I've been burglarized, too, and I understand the rage, but Mr. Horn committed murder plain and simple. We have something called the rule of law in this country. The burglars violated the law and should have been caught and prosecuted. Mr. Horn violated the law and should be prosecuted. Frighteningly, knowing Texas juries, I'm not at all certain he will be convicted, or even indicted.

Cheering on vigilante killers is hardly a progressive stance.

Totally disgusting.

Stranger in my home + confrontation between them and me = life or death situation.

his life was never threatened by them.

Are you trying to have a different conversation altogether? Maybe you should start a different thread to discuss that; however, most people on this thread understand that the thieves were outside, and not threatening this fellow whatsoever.

The burglars were not in Mr. Horn's home.

The burglars were not threatening Mr. Horn.

The 911 dispatcher told him 13 times not to shoot and to wait for the police.

Mr. Horn engaged in a pair of vigilante killings. You call yourself a progressive?

Self-defense law is a Right, and its both moral AND progressive.

In TEXAS (and seemingly only in Texas) it applies TO THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY.

I don't know WHY Texas made that law, BUT THEY DID.

Therefore, the fundamentally MORAL and LIBERAL RIGHT to SELF-DEFENSE applies in this case.

2 + 2 = 4.

because it threatens your sanity, would supporting that law be a MORAL and LIBERAL RIGHT to self defense just because according to Texas it falls under the laws of self defense?

I *finally* understand what you are getting at and apologize for my above snarkiness. However I think that people are disagreeing with the law and if this falls under that particular law at all. Where does "self defense" end?

You know, like an American ?

I don't support violating laws I disagree with. And if I do, I expect to suffer the consequences.

And before your head explodes and you start saying I compared burglars to Rosa Parks, I did not. I am just saying that no, not every person that violates a law is an "anarchist" that can "go fuck themselves" as you so charmingly put it.


But that is besides the point because I don't see how disagreeing with someone's right to shoot a robber who is not threatening anybody is breaking laws. It's not like people are saying the robbers are heroes, or they were in the right. They should have be tried, gone to jail and served all of their time.

I think what he did was morally wrong, Texas law notwithstanding. I can't understand how Texas could pass such a law, but then again, it was run by "W" for a while, so its not all that shocking.

I believe that law should be repealed - its not right.

But until then, its law, and we need to abide by it, or at least argue it in court.

Its a civilian in most places. If they were a cop, I'm sure they would have identified themselves as such.

I am sure the dispatchers orders will be a major point in the trial.

§ 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; 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.