What will this guy face?

This guy was a complete idiot who unnecessarily put himself in harms way and killed two guys for property theft. This guy is not an ambassador for the gun culture, he's an idiot who will hopefully see some serious jail time.

The guys who think he is an outstanding citizen and should be rewarded are probably the militia members that the far lefties talk about so much.
Click to expand...

I'll just chime in that incidents like this are the exact kinds of things that get our right to defend ourselves (or even own firearms) in other situations taken away. This is the exact kind of thing that liberals (or just people without romantic visions of the old west) can point to to convince people that "self defense" (which this wasn't) isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Those guys could have been hardened criminals or stupid teenagers...the fact is this old white guy was scared to death two black guys breaking into a house in "his" neighborhood and was mortified that it might be him. That's fair enough.
Click to expand...

Actually, it appears they were actually Latino. And just to head it off at the pass, it appears that at least one was Puerto Rican...so a citizen.

Kidnapping in progress, murder about to happen, rape, or anything else that calls for the death penalty I'm all for stopping, petty theft is not. Anyone who would kill someone running away in cold blood having done no bodily harm to anyone is no better than the meth freak who shoots someone in the head for their next fix.
Click to expand...

Um....I don't know about no better. I'd agree they're both bad, though.
 
I think he tells the dispatcher (prior to going outside) "I'm going to kill them".
Click to expand...

He sure did. That wasn't the smartest thing to say!

This guy was a complete idiot who unnecessarily put himself in harms way and killed two guys for property theft. This guy is not an ambassador for the gun culture, he's an idiot who will hopefully see some serious jail time.
Click to expand...

+1 Though I don't mourn the two crooks, the shooter is a damn fool, and should see the end of his days living in a cell.
(and then he really has to face judgement for his actions)
 
You know, I was just thinking of the possible political ramifications of this.

The fact that this guy actually thought that the newly passed "castle doctrine" covered his actions (while I'm not a lawyer, it would appear that it didn't) and he mentions this specifically on the line as a justification for what he was about to do...do you think this will hinder the passage of similar laws elsewhere? I can definitely see it coming up in the debate when these laws are up for a vote.
 
The castle doctrine does not apply in this case. However the property protection laws MAY. If you leave his ill-advised comments to the 911 operator out of it, he seems to be within the letter of the law.

Given the way public opinion tends to run and the guy's age, they may choose not to prosecute him on the basis that he could very well be acquitted and that would set an undesirable legal precedent.
 
Some of you are applying your own states' laws to the incident.

He's absolutely within the letter of Texas law, IMO.

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...
 
Doh!

How did I miss that "or" that was right in front of me. I read the damn thing like twice! Post ninja-edited for stupidity.

EDIT: Though I'd have to go check out Section 9.41 and 9.42 before making up my mind, since he needs to be justified under those as well.
 
it sounds to me like the guy had totally the wrong attitude when he confronted the burglers. I probly would have tried to keep them from getting away also but I sure would not be eager to shoot them.
 
Okay, so I read 9.41 and 9.42.

9.42 seems to cover the use of deadly force to protect property. Now, my reading could be faulty, but it seems that this only covers burglary during nighttime...this incident occurred at 2pm (Horn mentions "broad daylight"). So that's no good.

9.41 covers use of "force" but not "deadly force" to protect property...so I'm not seeing that as applying either.

So reading 9.41 and 9.42 in combination with 9.43 [EDIT: Because 9.43 requires that deadly force be authorized were it one's own property], I'm not seeing logically how they cover his actions here. Of course, I'm obviously not a lawyer or anything close to it.

A link to one site that I got the text from. I verified it with another, but obviously both could have been outdated for whatever reason.

EDIT: Oh, and I was extra careful to make sure I knew where those darn "ands" and "ors" were this time!
 
Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code specifies exactly when deadly force (as it relates to property protection) is authorized in Texas:

...to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime

Note the placement of commas. Allow me to translate the paragraph to list form:

To prevent the imminent commission of:
1) Arson
or
2) Burglary
or
3) Robbery
or
4) Aggravated robbery
or
5) Theft during the nighttime
or
6) Criminal mischief during the nighttime

You should notice that there are only two instances where the time in which the event happened makes any difference whatsoever; theft or criminal mischief. The Texas Penal Code also defines Burglary (sec. 30.02), Robbery (sec. 29.02), and Aggravated Robbery (sec. 29.03). There isn't really enough information given to extrapolate if the two shot individuals were committing Robbery or Aggravated Robbery, but there damn sure is enough to reasonably assume they committed burglary. That makes the elderly gentleman well within the letter and spirit of the law. Granted, his comments are boneheaded and might even cast a shadow over what otherwise would be a legal shoot. The fact remains however, that it certainly seems to be well within the law.


DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS
 
I stand by my original opinion, regardless of whatever draconian law some here reference.

Unless this yard is huge, the shooter here had enough time to say "Boom you're dead" before shooting. The entire thing screams abuse.

I am totally for protection of property, I am not for human hunting.
 
EDIT: Oh, and I was extra careful to make sure I knew where those darn "ands" and "ors" were this time!
Click to expand...

In our first year of law school one professor made us underline every "or" in our book and circle every "and."

I would actually like to see the law changed to make lethal force in the protection of property ok. I don't think "protect human life at any cost" is my personal goal on this planet.

But YMMV and currently that's not the case. :(
 
In our first year of law school one professor made us underline every "or" in our book and circle every "and."
Click to expand...

Yeah, but apparently those commas can still screw you.

Though it mentions imminent burglary. This one was already committed. Yeah, seems a nitpick, but that's kinda how the law tends to work.

Moving on, it covers fleeing burglars. But only if "he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means." (The other portion doesn't seem to apply here.) Personally, while I think he could probably make that case, I'd really like to see him have to defend it legally. Because his constant "I'm not going to let them get away with this," comments could be in reference to them getting to keep the "bag of loot." Or, it could just be in reference to them not getting caught and have nothing to do with the recovery of property.

It's also questionable, at least in my reading (again, no lawyer), whether this would cover him shooting the burglars that weren't seen carrying property off.

Unless this yard is huge, the shooter here had enough time to say "Boom you're dead" before shooting. The entire thing screams abuse.
Click to expand...

Just to note, in at least one article I saw him quoted as saying "move, you're dead." Which is at least a little more reasonable. Though pretty much everything else he had said prior was pretty bad.

The fact remains however, that it certainly seems to be well within the law.
Click to expand...

He may well be within the law...but at least to me it seems that if he is it is just barely. Of course, the beauty of the law is that that's enough.
 
You need to keep reading. 9.42 in full states:

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.
Click to expand...

So his defense will hinge on whether or not he believed the burglars would ever be caught by police. Given that he had just been told police were on the way to the scene, I'm doubtful at best.

Basically, it seems to be that Mr. Horn wanted to kill someone, knew that there are new laws giving him expanded power to do so (he says as much during the call), and saw this as his opportunity.
 
Basically, it seems to be that Mr. Horn wanted to kill someone
Click to expand...

Fortunately for Mr. Horn, "it seems" doesn't quite meet the requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

knew that there are new laws giving him expanded power to do so (he says as much during the call), and saw this as his opportunity.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken: The laws quoted here pertaining to this incident (protection of property) have been on the books for years in Texas. They are not related to the newly enacted Castle Doctrine laws.
 
He's an idiot who was itching to go out and take the law into his own hands. I don't condone burglary one bit but I also think that;

1) The punishment should fit the crime
2) That's what we have law enforcement authorities for.

This guy was raring to go out there with his shotgun. He even said he was pissed off and was going to kill these guys. (He also said that he didn't know these particular neighbors so I doubt there's a chance that he was "asked" to protect their property.)

As someone said before, it's people like this who negatively affect the cause of gun ownership. :barf:
 
I know it's not N.Y., but in N.Y. you would have justification if it were for a neighbor that gave you permission to look after his place.

Other states should have laws so clearly written.

Artical 35 as follows:
S 35.20
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or
attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon
such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than
deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent
or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as
prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or
attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or
terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

kenny b
 
These people that were looting the house were no threat to this man
Click to expand...

On that particular day....what are the chances they would return again for somebody else's house and assualt or hurt them?

Wait and see what the Grand Jury says....to be interesting
 
The good thing about this is there are no eye wittneses,the bad is the phone recordings,very self incriminating. Who knows what went on outside,mabey he was threatend. Being in Texas will really help him , those people have there own kind of law and I don't think they will find a jury that would convict him,I wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top