Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars at neighbours' - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Traveler · #46 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I'll look up the TX castle law shortly to get a definitive answer.

I'm not entirely sure but i think that it doesn't even fall under the Castle law in our state. I think its tied into something else that allows you to defend somebody or their assets or something who is unable to do it himself or something like that anyway.

AdrienXII · #47 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Though of course ironically he has also said thingsabout Americans being sick and horrible people too (insulting) but again nobody will champion that cause like this. Just selective playing of the victim card.

You're wrong, he didn't insult Americans. Anyway, I figure America has enough defenders in here, I need not concern myself over it. I would, though, if nobody else did.

Wallaroo · #48 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by noahath

There's nothing "pc" about it; it's just rude to use it in an insulting manner ... if that was your intent.

Actually it was laziness, since I dont know what else to call them...

American latinos who are not from the U.S originally? Yep, thats much faster to say than spics...

Traveler · #49 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

You're wrong, he didn't insult Americans.

No not in that post but in general. But because its funny and he's not viremently anti-American folks give him a pass, because they couldn't care less about it.

O'Sullivan Bere · #50 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Texas's use of force provisions can be found here:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes....000009.00.htm

Indeed, Traveler, it is very broad. It's even permissible to shoot thieves who are running away in the night with your personal property if you believe that you would not otherwise recover it.

Quote:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: . . . (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; . . .

(from the link cited above)

As for protecting the property of others:

Quote:

§ 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.

(within the above statutory link)

Horn still would have problems, though, even under this scenario. If he was not guarding the neighbour's property by their request, he is not authorised to do what he did.

From other research, however, it is still quite common for TX authorities to decline prosecution in these circumstances.

Quote:

. . .
Juries' leniency

Texas grand juries have traditionally given people carte blanche to take whatever steps they need to keep their property, Mr. Edmonds said. "In the Pasadena case, as egregious as the facts may be," he said, "the law may still excuse that person's conduct."

He pointed to a case near Waco in the 1990s when the owner of a car saw a group of teenagers stealing his hubcaps late one night.

"He shot at them from his apartment and killed one of them" Mr. Edmonds said. "The grand jury no-billed it."

Jim Cornehls, an attorney and professor of urban and public affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington, said he defended a man a few years ago in similar circumstances.

The man lived in an apartment complex where kids left their bikes in a central courtyard.

"There had been a rash of bike thefts," Dr. Cornehls said, "and when this man got home from work late one night, he saw a guy out there purloining a bike.

"He whipped out his .22 and shot him. He didn't kill him, but he wounded him, and the prosecutors let that one slide. In his case, it wasn't even his property. It was a random bike." . . .

'Castle law' arms Texas homeowners with right to shoot | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Breaking News for Dallas-Fort Worth | Dallas Morning News

It's remarkably exceptional that TX's code and prosecution policies go that far compared to states that even have 'stand your ground' laws. I wouldn't doubt it is by far the broadest set of laws and/or government toleration allowing deadly force of all the states by far.

MattLarson · #51 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Here's the Texas law on using deadly force to protect property:

Quote:

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

FastLaws: 2004 Texas Penal Code, Sec. 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property.

First, one must be in lawful possession of the property being defended. If, in fact, Mr. Horn did not even know the neighbor in question, then he wasn't in "lawful possession" of that land. If that is the case, then 9.42 does not apply. And Mr. Horn clearly says at 5:00 into the call that he does not know the owners of the property. YouTube - Man Kills 2 on Neighbor's Land

Furthermore, it seems to me that it was not reasonable to believe that the two unarmed men posed a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. It also seems to be that it is unreasonable to claim that nothing short of deadly force could have protected or recovered the property involved.

Mr. Horn's own statement that he intended to kill the two men, before he went out to confront them (right around 6:00).

However, Mr. Horn later says that the subject he shot came toward him in his front yard.

That - and that alone - is, IMHO, why he's not in jail.

Matt

Donkey_Left · #52 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Is there any evidence of that whatsoever?

Otherwise it's Mr. Horn (the killer) vs. a dead guy.

pramjockey · #53 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Unfortunately, it's two darker-skinned dead guys who were in the country illegally, and it's in Texas.

He'll walk.

MattLarson · #54 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Is there any evidence of that whatsoever?

Otherwise it's Mr. Horn (the killer) vs. a dead guy.

IIRC, the body was found in Horn's front yard.

Given what most shotgun wounds look like, it's unlikely that he was dragged there without leaving convincing evidence of the tampering.

Matt

Wallaroo · #55 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

An insult is an insult. You're confusing political correctness with basic manners and decency, which you routinely fail to observe. In short, you're just plain rude, didn't your mum teach you anything?

No she didnt as a matter of fact, and neither did my socialist government. I guess danes and human beings are quite different talking to when it comes to racial slurs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

LOL. That does it. Go to your room, Wallaroo. It's past your bedtime, already.

Yes mother!

Traveler · #56 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Indeed, Traveler, it is very broad. It's even permissible to shoot thieves who are running away in the night with your personal property if you believe that you would not otherwise recover it.

Yup and its generally after incidents like this where the law becomes even stronger and tougher. Just to think, if there had been more terror attacks after 9/11 the likes of the Patriot Act would be pretty much just eye candy for prosecutors.

Those who are against these sort of laws reallyneed to stop drawing attention to it, the more they do the more our state legislators can feed of it.

Quote:

Horn still would have problems, though, even under this scenario. If he was not guarding the neighbour's property by their request, he is not authorised to do what he did.

From other research, however, it is still quite common for TX authorities to decline prosecution in these circumstances.

And it is for the best for the most part, just the fact that colored folks were protesting the shooting drew out a half million Texans to counter on the other side of the road in absolute outrage over this all, and that was just to be angry about the fact that people were protesting the incident in the first place! Imagine if this were to actually go to court...

The one person i have spoken to about the issue who is a prosecutor (not at all to do with this or within Texas state law enforcement in anyway but grew up in our state) said that it was so emphatically not gonna result in any charges against Horny that he well expected him to be more likely to receive the state's highest honor than prosecution. Now obviously he won't receive any medals or commendations for this but if it were closer to one or the other, Horny would more likely be rewarded for his behavior than punished.

Quote:

'Castle law' arms Texas homeowners with right to shoot | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Breaking News for Dallas-Fort Worth | Dallas Morning News

It's remarkably exceptional that TX's code and prosecution policies go that far compared to states that even have 'stand your ground' laws. I wouldn't doubt it is by far the broadest set of laws and/or government toleration allowing deadly force of all the states by far.

My one problem with "Stand your ground laws" was always the exception they made for things like never being able to retreive say cherrished treasures or valuables that have no moentary value or that its the sentiment that matters. Also the way the laws have been written at times it completeky leaves the loophole for say a man who abducts a kid and runs off, if he posses no harm to you, you couldn't do anything to him and take the law into your own hands. But some time ago that was all changed with expansion of self defense and then civil defense laws and after this latest fiasco i widely expect the laws to be even more broadranging.

Btw i'm not entirely sure we have the biggest scope as far as these laws go, i know other states that are near us and neighbor us also have very broadranging laws on this, after the VT incident TN opened up its laws significantly to the point they were more broad ranging than every other state! Then we matched them!

Wallaroo · #57 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Unfortunately, it's two darker-skinned dead guys who were in the country illegally, and it's in Texas.

He'll walk.

I dont think you would fit in Texas Pram. I guess you would rather be a Colorado mountain hillbilly than a Texas prairie redneck?

Traveler · #58 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

That - and that alone - is, IMHO, why he's not in jail.

Nah the local county officials and the state AG's office have not issued that as a reason to the best of my knowledge and the U.S. attorney's office had said practically nothing on the issue, according to one ATF agent they won't even bother to have to justify why they don't need to go after him.

I haven't really followed what's been going on in this after the first 3 or 4 days of it happenning tbh (apart from what i've seen on the local reports) so someone may well have come and said something to put it to bed as an issue in the last few weeks but i would fully expect pigs to fly to New Zealand before this guy is ever prosecuted.

O'Sullivan Bere · #59 (**permalink**) 03-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Yup and its generally after incidents like this where the law becomes even stronger and tougher. Just to think, if there had been more terror attacks after 9/11 the likes of the Patriot Act would be pretty much just eye candy for prosecutors.

Those who are against these sort of laws reallyneed to stop drawing attention to it, the more they do the more our state legislators can feed of it.

And it is for the best for the most part, just the fact that colored folks were protesting the shooting drew out a half million Texans to counter on the other side of the road in absolute outrage over this all, and that was just to be angry about the fact that people were protesting the incident in the first place! Imagine if this were to actually go to court...

The one person i have spoken to about the issue who is a prosecutor (not at all to do with this or within Texas state law enforcement in anyway but grew up in our state) said that it was so emphatically not gonna result in any charges against Horny that he well expected him to be more likely to receive the state's highest honor than prosecution. Now obviously he won't receive any medals or commendations for this but if it were closer to one or the other, Horny would more likely be rewarded for his behavior than punished.

My one problem with "Stand your ground laws" was always the exception they made for things like never being able to retreive say cherrished treasures or valuables that have no moentary value or that its the sentiment that matters. Also the way the laws have been written at times it completeky leaves the loophole for say a man who abducts a kid and runs off, if he posses no harm to you, you couldn't do anything to him and take the law into your own hands. But some time ago that was all changed with expansion of self defense and then civil defense laws and after this latest fiasco i widely expect the laws to be even more broadranging.

Btw i'm not entirely sure we have the biggest scope as far as these laws go, i know other states that are near us and neighbor us also have very broadranging laws on this, after the VT incident TN opened up its laws significantly to the point they were more broad ranging than every other state! Then we matched them!

IMO, I think the TX law goes too far as it stands. It basically invites vigilantism and idiots who love the idea of shooting whoever they deem 'bad guys' or 'deserving.'

Allowing me to feel secure to defend myself in my own home or business as I see fit without having to play a guessing game with a felonious intruder's intentions to my peril because I fear possible prosecution or being sued if I feel deadly force is necessary to protect me all due to a predicament imposed upon me by the intruding felon is one thing. Allowing hotheads and self-styled badasses who think they are hot shit and a 'regulator' with a gun to feel authorised and encouraged to open fire on someone purely for property of no set value without regard to personal threats to safety is another.

The fact, as cited, that the government wouldn't prosecute a man who decided to shoot a person who was stealing a bike that wasn't even his bike is the kind of conduct that isn't morally justifiable and, as a matter of social policy and gun policy, authorises a shooting gallery without equitable justification or even a proper factual basis being established. In fact, I wouldn't oppose the feds initiating a federal civil rights criminal charge over it if a state fails to act against such conduct.