Homeowner Shoots, Kills 3 am Tresspasser; No Charges Filed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, another "he was a good boy" perspective. Funny how many "good boys" end up dead because of the not good things they do.

Funny how the family and friends claim to know what was going on when he was shot when they were not there.

brentfoto, you have a very child-like understanding of law, especially in regard to the Joe Horn case.
 
That's because PROPERTY is more important to you than human life.

Get out the pepper spray and be done with it. GGggeeessshhhh...you don't have to kill those boys...!

But NO, some people have such rage about crime that they have to make a statement. Go ahead! KILL SOMEBODY when it is not mandated. Try living with yourself thereafter...Good Luck!
 
Too bad there's LOTS of gunowners who are just waiting to shoot or kill someone...like that racist, homicidal maniac JOE HORN vigilante.
Click to expand...

Tone down the vitriol can we? I'm sure he loves to go cruisin looking for "innocent" illegal black colombian immigrants to kill without any reason. :rolleyes:

Back on topic, I think the gunowner was well within his right to self defense, especially considering this occured at night. Hard to know what weapon a person may have while approaching you at night. He needed to make a fast decision and I would have done the same.
 
That's because PROPERTY is more important to you than human life.
Click to expand...

It has been my experience that there is human life out there that doesn't need to exist, and there is plenty of it. There are inherent risks in breaking the law, some of which include lethal force mandated as a viable response to those transgressions.

Get out the pepper spray and be done with it. GGggeeessshhhh...you don't have to kill those boys...!
Click to expand...
The people in question were all men, not boys. Get off your Sally Struthers "Save the Children" campaign. It ain't flyin' here.

But NO, some people have such rage about crime that they have to make a statement. Go ahead! KILL SOMEBODY when it is not mandated. Try living with yourself thereafter...Good Luck!
Click to expand...

Hey, if you don't want to pull the trigger, that is your call for your situation.
 
Brentfoto,

I really hate to sound like a broken record but you haven't addressed the questions I raised in a previous post.

How was the homeowner supposed to know he was drunk?

How was the homeowner supposed to know he was 23?(Which doesn't matter)

How was the homeowner supposed to know he was unarmed?

You are looking at this whole thing after having the luxury of reading about it and then forming an opinion after the fact. The homeowner knew none of this at the time. All he knew was a trespasser on his property was advancing on him after being warned not to. Again I ask, what would you do in this situation?
 
Too bad there's LOTS of gunowners who are just waiting to shoot or kill someone...like that racist, homicidal maniac JOE HORN vigilante. ... And do you honestly think that if the perps were white teenaged boys he would have executed them as he executed those poor thieves?
Click to expand...
But you digress...:rolleyes:

The two cases are not similar. In one case a defender shot someone advancing on him after being warned to stop. In the other it appears that the homeowner shot two people who were not advancing on him.

I like how you throw in the race card to try to give your argument false weight. i.e. How could ANYONE disagree with brentfoto unless they're racist like Joe Horn. :rolleyes:

First of all, you have no idea whether or not Joe Horn is racist or not, nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that his decision to shoot was based on the race of the burglars. That is pure speculation on your part.

Second, bringing up racism on this thread is absolutely pointless since the race of neither the attacker nor defender was made public.

Thirdly, bringing up Joe Horn is a blatant attempt at completely changing the direction of the thread now that it's clear that your "arguments" don't hold water.

Fourthly, whether or not you agree with Joe Horn, a jury of his peers said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but calling him a racist, homicidal maniac vigilante is more than just a little over the top considering that he's essentially been exonerated.
...you don't have to kill those boys...!
Click to expand...
This statement doesn't make sense. Neither the man in this case nor the persons shot by Joe Horn were minors. What do you mean when you refer to them as "boys"?
But NO, some people have such rage about crime that they have to make a statement. Go ahead! KILL SOMEBODY when it is not mandated. Try living with yourself thereafter...Good Luck!
Click to expand...
Nobody is advocating killing when it's not justified. Nobody. Nobody is saying that rage about crime is justification for killing. I don't even see that anyone besides you is demonstrating any rage at all...
 
KILL SOMEBODY when it is not mandated.
Click to expand...

This argument is baseless. Killing someone is never mandated except in a government-ordered execution. Or is that really your argument - that even self defense does not justify taking another life?
 
This statement doesn't make sense. Neither the man in this case nor the persons shot by Joe Horn were minors. What do you mean when you refer to them as "boys"?
Click to expand...

Since they were all non-white adult males (ages 23, 30, and 38), it almost seems like brentfoto is making a racist comment.
 
In the other it appears that the homeowner shot two people who were not advancing on him.
Click to expand...

I thought the testimony was undisputed that they were advancing on Mr. Horn. Reports indicate that even a cop was witness to that. The shots to the side and back were due to the first thief starting to turn at the time of the first round and the second having finishing the turn by the time the second round was fired. That's not that uncommon in many self defense shootings.
 
R.Childs Brentfoto,

I really hate to sound like a broken record but you haven't addressed the questions I raised in a previous post.

How was the homeowner supposed to know he was drunk?
Click to expand...

Somebody making a ruckus at 3:00 a.m. is likely drunk. Homeowner also should've observed the suspect BEFORE leaving his house. I want to amend that statement. He never should've left the house in the first place. Barring someone actually attempting to break into the house, a window, etc., I just don't see the need for it (presentment of deadly force). It's not very bright, imo.


How was the homeowner supposed to know he was 23?(Which doesn't matter)
Click to expand...

23 year olds are prone to folly. Again, observation and experience.


How was the homeowner supposed to know he was unarmed?
Click to expand...

Observation. I would've called the cops pretty quick and kept my eye on the poor kid until the cops arrived. I never would've left the house.

We don't yet know what the facts are so I am addressing this in general terms, giving general advice, that in my view, might help those who are prone to pulling out a gun on someone (trigger-happy) or harbor some masochistic proclivity to want to go through potential criminal liabilty and financial ruin from a wrongful death lawsuit.
You are looking at this whole thing after having the luxury of reading about it and then forming an opinion after the fact. The homeowner knew none of this at the time. All he knew was a trespasser on his property was advancing on him after being warned not to. Again I ask, what would you do in this situation?
Click to expand...

I'd call 911 and report a disturbance. Then the cops could've come and arrested him for drunken disorderly conduct. I'd have my shotgun by my side, my kids locked in a room, and I'd STAY INSIDE! You don't kill the guy. Drunks are easily provoked. By going outside with the gun you're only making the situation worse. That's a 'bad' judgment call...

I ain't no STUPID MACHO FOOL.

BASIC POINT: Stay in the house! Discretion is the better part of valor! No reason to go outside unless you want to kill someone over something relatively trivial. Why expose oneself to further danger by throwing away whatever 'cover' you had by remaining in the house? YOU could get shot by that person or some off-duty cop in the vicinity. I simply don't see the need. :o

Though we do not have all the true facts, it's likely the killing could've been avoided by the guy staying inside and not escalating the situation. If one does not see how going outside with a pointed loaded gun does not escalate, and can't agree with it as being so, there's no point in further discourse.

(btw, I don't have any kids. They 'bug' and 'irritate' me. :) )
 
Last edited:
I guess we just see things differently. The first thing that would come to my mind over a ruckus outside at 3:00am would be burglary.

I am curious about one thing though. If you had an intruder in your house and you observed him coming through your bedroom window at 3:00am and he advanced toward you despite your warnings, would you use lethal force?
 
Excellent post...again, JohnKSa

How difficult is it for one to GET IT that: Joe was comparably DIMINUTIVE and SINGLE against TWO hefty, robust-looking others - and age race have NOTHING to do with this; Joe CLEARLY commanded them to STOP, a command they CHOSE to IGNORE (why? and how was Joe to be sure of their saintly intention?); they HAD to have SEEN that Joe was WELL-ARMED, yet they persisted; they were KNOWN CRIMINALS; and, in this instance, they were NOT GOING TO CHURCH!

What if Joe had TRUSTED those professional criminals to get close enough to him? Might they have disarmed him ... and shot him????

The message NEEDS to get out that, "Choose to homeinvade/rob, etc. and you could well be shot DEAD!" Joe should be thanked for a PRACTICAL demonstration of that FACT.

I do NOT believe that any sane individual would kill a person just for a $2000 piece of property. But that is only a SMALL part of the Joe Horn scenario. Why are all these pointless, irrelevant hypotheticals???? By the way, how many got their weapons grabbed from them and KILLED? What guarantee does anyone have that such seasoned criminals would have taken only $2000 worth of property belonging to the person whose home they BROKE INTO; and that they would NOT have physically harmed say, an incapacitated old woman in a wheelchair, to make sure they accomplished their saintly mission?
 
Listen to the FULL tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc


The dispatcher told him not to leave his house. 'You don't shoot someone for stealing some property'. The dispatcher warned him about 14 times not to leave his house.

Joe said before he left: "I'm going to kill them".

Joe got outside, said "Move-You're Dead, about a SECOND or TWO later, fired two shots in rapid succession, then another.

Then you could tell he made up the following: "I had no choice. I had no choice."

Yes, you had a choice, MR. JOE HORN. You just wanted to be judge, jury, executioner... Thank you very much, "Mr. VIGILANTE". You wanted to KILL.

Now, Mr. JOE HORN, you will be paying the price for your reprehensible conduct.
 
brent....I have heard the FULL tape...and you are grasping at straws. You were not at the depositions for either of these cases and you certainly dont know the FULL circumstances of the Horn case. You only have a superficial grasp of the facts, as distorted by the press. The Horn case had a police eye-witness who confirmed that Mr. Horn was being advanced on and he did in fact shot to defend his life. Perhaps if you knew the actual GEOGRAPHY between the two homes, it would be clearer to you why this happened...but you dont.

Because of this, you are sounding more and more like a knee-jerking fool who reacts without finding out all the facts. Perhaps your stance would change if you knew them all.

Dont grieve for the family of the criminal, grieve for the home owners...who had to defend their own lives with deadly force, then their reputations because of narrow-minded fools. Shame on the criminals...and their families.
 
Funny but in the great liberal state of NY Joe Horn would of been well within the law for using deadly physical force to stop a robbery or burglary on his neighbors property as long as the neighbor ask him to keep an eye on it.

I guess I don't understand why everyone is picking on Texas when other states are even more liberal with personal protection and property laws.

kenny b
 
Lessons!!!

Here are two lessons:

(1) Choose to violently break into people's homes and snatch their properties, and you COULD GET SHOT dead!!!

(2) Choose crime as a profession, try to scare off anyone who opposes you even if s/he is armed with a 12-gauge shot gun, get killed, and a throng of creatures would shout on top of their voices and well beside their assumed modicum of common sense that YOU WERE THE VICTIM - even if that means hiding behind the race card!!!!!!!!!

Which of these two lessons could be learnt from Joe's plight?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top