Texas Man Shoots Teen Over Vehicle Burglary

That is NOT true. You cannot do that!

Also, Horn did not get convicted of a crime as he legitimately claimed self-defense that was witnessed by an off duty officer.

DO NOT post factually incorrect items or urban myths.

GEM
 
taken from wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

The Joe Horn shooting controversy refers to the events of November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burgling his neighbor's home. Publicized recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicate that he was asked repeatedly not to interfere with the burglary because the police would soon be on hand.[1] The shootings have resulted in debate regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of deadly force to prevent or stop property crimes. The illegal alien status of the burglars has been highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy.[2] On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings.
 
Last edited:
self defense....

he was never touched... how can you claim self defense if you didn't get hit?.
mas ayoob says you can't claim self defense until you are injured so how can he do it?. Maybe because the cop talked him through it and collaborated stories or maybe texas law says he was in his rights to do so
 
Mas has never said that you have to be injured first to claim self-defense. Do you know the man? Take his course, read his books or writing?

Ok - here's the deal - cease and desist with a litany of incorrect statements.

Only one warning.

GEM
 
Barstool,

The fact that the two suspects had burgled Mr. Horn's neighbor's house had little or nothing to do with the no-bill. Reread § 9.42 carefully and you will note that it only applies when protecting one's own property.

TX law only allows deadly force to be used to protect other people's property in a handful of circumstances outlined in § 9.43(2) of the Penal Code.
§ 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.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

I have not seen any positive indication that condition (A), (B), or (C) was satisfied in reference to Mr. Horn's neighbor.
 
barstoolguru said:
the law is very clear that you can shoot a fleeing felon that has committed a crime in the state of Texas. the man was shot in the commisson of a crime.
Click to expand...

Sec. 9.32 (2): (B) "to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

If they are fleeing, you've already prevented the imminent commission and shooting them can cause you to end up in prison.

he was never touched... how can you claim self defense if you didn't get hit?.
Click to expand...

Horn's attorney didn't claim defense of property to justify the shooting, and for good reason as carguychris noted, instead he claimed self-defense when the men lunged at Horn, turning away at the last moment. This account was fortunately cooborated by a plainclothes officer who had pulled up to the scene and witnessed the shooting. Otherwise, it would have been just Joe Horn's word, that 911 call, and at least one of the men shot in the back.

And for the record, Texas law doesn't require you to be hit to claim self-defemse. Sections 9.31 and 9.32 of the Texas Penal Code describe what criteria you need to meet to use lethal force in self-defense.
 
I am going to let it be

because this thread is not about home thiefs but I brought it up as a means to shot that you can shoot a fleeing felon
 
because this thread is not about home thiefs but I brought it up as a means to shot that you can shoot a fleeing felon.
Click to expand...

The only part of Texas law that allows you to shoot someone who is fleeing is the Defense of Property section quoted in the initial post, and even then you must also meet the following criteria (in addition to meeting all the 9.41 and 9.42 criteria):

1. The person you shoot must be fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime; AND

2. You must reasonably believe shooting is necessary to prevent him from escaping with the property; AND

3. You reasonably believe 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.
 
So ... how is he an "imminent" threat to anyone? And in most (if not all) states, the threshold for the use of deadly force is an "imminent" threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Click to expand...

Nobody here or in the article has claimed the bad guys were an imminent threat to anyone. However, if there was an imminent threat to a first or third party, lethal force could have been used to prevent it even though it was not against the shooter as the suspects were in flight from the shooter's position.
 
I am going to have to say the guy was not justified in shooting as the person had retreated and was fleeing.

You use force till the person ceases and desists in what he is doing. If the other person has ceased and desisted in what he is doing and there is no use of deadly force on his part you better not pull that trigger. I have no idea what a jury is going to do but there will be consequences due to his actions for going beyond a reasonable use of force in this situation when the perpetrator is fleeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top