So where do you end it, Eric?

Two kids shoplift at the Thriftymart and Horn sees them. Bang, bang! Civic virtue?

Intervening to stop a threat to human life? I support that 100%.

But that's not remotely what Horn did - he decided he wanted to kill the burglars, and then he went and did it. Even if it meant shooting them in the back as they ran away.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I didn't mean you either, it was mainly the "sigh, its Texas for you" crowd, but they have issues dealing with the fact we're the most powerful state in the union.

But then again he wouldn't have been able to do what he did if the law wasn't such would he? And a lot of you have said the law does go too far, but that is a fair point which you are totally entitled to have. Though again, it doesn't really effect ya'll personally does it?

The TX local grand jury will doubtlessly be given the first crack at examining the law as applied to the facts. Agreed, you and I are merely offering opinions applying what we believe to be the facts to the cited statutes. We aren't the law or the courts. But, as a matter of legal application, Horn's conduct must meet the statutes' terms. Close doesn't count. The cited statutes clearly state that the use of deadly force to protect another's property require that Horn have been specifically authorised by the owner to guard their property in order to use deadly force to guard it. His 911 admissions show he didn't have it. No other provisions apply, as I read them, either given they are even further away from the facts as I understand them to be (again, the court system will do that in full)

There is also the issue of federal law if the local grand jury decides to 'no bill' the case based on the statutes and/or just because they feel the killings should be filed under 'DSAF' (did society a favour). They could step in if TX defaults in prosecuting Horn and/or the dead men's families might sue in federal court civilly.

I've already clarified the difference between a misdemeanor and felony.

Private property may be protected by lethal force in the state of Texas. I agree with this law. The majority of Texas agrees with this law.

While it would be regrettable if a couple of kids got killed by the store owner if they got caught shoplifting, that would be the store owner's worry and his personal emotional issue to deal with. The law in this case is clear.

I understand where you're coming from, but it sounds a lot like you're saying that criminals shouldn't have to risk being killed in the process of committing a crime. That we, as a society, should simply tolerate and deal. I disagree with this sentiment.

Stealing is wrong. Period. If it isn't yours, leave it the fuck alone. Simple as that. If you must blame someone other than the criminal, blame their parents for not teaching that lesson.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I do not believe there has been anything submitted to the Grand Jury. I am confident no charges will be filed.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Right and this is where i thought it was kind of strange where you said "write your congressman" with regards to the law, i would think it had nothing to do with someone's representative in Washington would it? I would assume that somebody would have to ask the local law enforcement office out of the district to look into it no? Or failing that then the state AG's office? I guess there's even leeway to ask theU.S. Attorney out of the district to see if there were any federal statutes/laws violated along with asking the ATF/FBI to get in on it.

I personally expect the state to drag its feet as long as it can keep a local grand jury in session, and then maybe even go to another and maybe a third while letting nothing go forward prosecutorially, then eventually letting it go hoping enough time has passed not to worry about federal prosecutors.

I would assume it has so it looks at least like there is some sort of investigation or something, or maybe the authorities could literally say "no issue here" and that would be the end of it, but that may open the door for other authorities to then get in if there's no "active investigation" they would be otherwise be interferring in.

But i totally agree there will never be any charges filed on this issue.

he should have put them on the ground and called the cops..as in get down on your belly you son of a bit*ches.....IF they went for a weapon, bang.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Ive just listened to the entire 911 call on YouTube - The complete Joe Horn 9-11 call, and he did indeed not give them a fair chance to surrender themselves. He said to them: Move - you’re dead! A second later - bang, bang, and bang!

As an absolute minimum they deserve a fair chance to surrender themselves, no matter what the law says.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Well he did tell them not to move, they didn't listen so had he told them to get on the ground i doubt they would have either.

Also if they don't understand English the point is also moot.

Well if they did move then that would be why he shot them. It is obviously based on his word for it but then again one of them was found dead on his property and them being on his property is justification that he feared they may have gone after him.

I made that comment to simply show that state law isn't the only applicable law in TX. If the state laws are unconstitutional in part due to being overbroad and/or failure to prosecute unlawful killings under the DSAF view would violate federal laws and/or the Constitution, then it's no defence to claim TX state law and/or prosecution policy against them.

In fact, the state and federal laws act concurrently, with the state laws being subordinate where in conflict. A person can be prosecuted and/or held civilly accountable in both systems. There is no double jeopardy hazard between different sovereigns when an act or series of acts violates the laws of multiple sovereigns.

You also raised the point with Matt how this might affect others who don't live in TX. It does. Let me give an example.

Let's say I decided to pay you a visit. You invite me to your home for a few days and I fly down there. I get to your house. You aren't there. I call you and you tell me you got hung up at work and to just climb through your back window and go watch TV until you get there. I attempt to do so. Unbeknownst to me, however, on earlier occasions you gave your neighbour permission to shoot anyone they see entering your home if it looks like a burglar. Your neighbour sees me, does not recognise me, and shoots me thinking I am a burglar.

Now, you might tip me off about what you said to the neighbour, and I might inform neighbours myself, but what I said can happen to totally innocent persons who have broken no TX law as written.

That's why i said it doesn't "really" effect you to Matt.

Unless you visit of course that is...but based on that you could say Columbia has some vested interest in our state laws!

Thats right. Even so, Horn claimed to the dispatcher that he had to do it in order to defend himself. A total bullshit excuse!

Horn is both a coward and a lying sack of shit. If he told the dispatcher "I dont like criminals, so now Im gonna execute them", then I could at least respect him for being honest!

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Yup i totally agree, our law cannot and must never trump federal law. As it is the fact that they were allowed to enter the country illegally is a failure of the goverment whether it be the state of federal, i'm unsure which would get more blame.

I think Horn is lucky that the whole thing was in fact recorded, if not he could be in trouble if certain parts of it were unclear, like for example his relation with his neighbor which you see as his big problem here.

But i do think Columbia could issue a "stinger" sort of response, real tit for tat that it allows for folks to kill anyone it deems illegals or alien residents under some sort of illy "protection of invasion" statute or something, especially with the threats from Venezuela. Kind of like when Brazil said they would fingerprint and whatever else we do to their tourists, even just visitors on vacation. That's a little worrying.