What will this guy face?

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

Crystal ball is fuzzy on that one! Sure glad we don't execute people for future actions!
 
I’m pretty sure that in Texas…

a) You don’t have to retreat.
b) You can use deadly force to protect property.
c) Your safety does not have to be in jeopardy, your property will suffice.

And I’m not real sure but I think you can use deadly force to protect property when not on your own property, in other words, when out on the street, like someone trying to steal your car.


Bottom line is that when you make the decision to rob or burglarize someone you are gambling with your life. It’s a personal decision, a life style choice. Kind of pointless to yell foul if you lose your bet.


Let’s face it these two guys were overcome by the law of natural selection. They died of terminal stupidity. They were willing to gamble their lives for some TVs and stuff. They set the value of their lives, not us (society)
 
DoItRight said:
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.)
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't matter. Reread the statute, paying particular attention to the word "or."

As someone said before, it's people like this who negatively affect the cause of gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Maybe where you are, but not here. Popular support for this man is overwhelming. Of course, Quanell X is upset...but he's in the minority(no pun intended).

Please understand: According to the law, all this man had to be in fear of is that the bad guys were going to get away with his neighbor's property.

That may offend your sensibilities (and perhaps it should), but that is the way the legislators (and their constituents) want it.
 
I heard parts of the 911 call this AM, you can tell it was chopped up for air - assuming no more damming evidence is in the missing parts than "Stay inside - don't do it" - this is my take.

He called 911 and was on the phone for over 3 minutes - no police had shown up yet - the BGs were leaving, I would have great fear they would be back, perhaps at my house, perhaps when I'm sleeping.....


*****What I haven't heard, and can't find, how long after he fired did the police show up?******

That could be key, even though he had no way of knowning when they would arrive, it would be a tough sell if they got there 15 seconds later. Now if it was another 5 minutes - these guys would have already hocked the stuff.


If I was on the jury, a Not Guilty from me, knowing what I know now.
 
This is a ridiculous conversation

Listen to the entire 911 call (all three parts) that Pax linked to. Assuming the evidence backs up what 911 tape seems to indicate, I doubt this man will even be charged. Not knowing what the DA's in the Houston area are like, if he is, I am confident that he would be no-billed. There is no jury of his peers anywhere in Texas that would convict this man (again, assuming the evidence tells the same story as the 911 tape). It's a pretty cut and dried case of using deadly force to prevent the loss of property.

Like it or not, that is legal in Texas.
 
Listen to the entire 911 call (all three parts) that Pax linked to. Assuming the evidence backs up what 911 tape seems to indicate, I doubt this man will even be charged. Not knowing what the DA's in the Houston area are like, if he is, I am confident that he would be no-billed. There is no jury of his peers anywhere in Texas that would convict this man (again, assuming the evidence tells the same story as the 911 tape). It's a pretty cut and dried case of using deadly force to prevent the loss of property.

Like it or not, that is legal in Texas.
Click to expand...

Only under a specific set of circumstances and restrictions.* The laws have been linked to and posted.

I'd agree that he's unlikely to be charged, though. The worst defense attorney in Texas would still be able to walk the guy; as you said, you'd never find 12 people to unanimously convict him.

Especially in Texas. ;)

* EDIT: Note that I'm not saying he was outside these, just that it's not as clear to me as it is to you that he was definitely inside them.
 
Mr. Horn! Well done!!!!

Mr. Horn has done what a good citizen should have done: protect his property and his neighborhood from the increasing crime. He is living in a quiet suburb neighborhood and trying to avoid the big city's problems with drugs, rape, kidnapping, carjacking, burglaries and the long list of aggraveted things our society faces nowdays. Now the two junkies come out to the suburbs and ransaking the house in his neighborhood. So what should he do. Sit and wait? So the junkies get away and the next time kick his door in at broad daylight and take his stuff. Maybe next time he'll be in the shower and cannot protect himself. Or his young 18 years old daughter will be home and the junkies beat and rape her because she cannot protect herself. Or next time he'll be afraid of simply stepping out of his own door because the junkies around will attack him.

He took action and stood up for his right to live in a safe environment. Good job!

The guy will not be charged with anything most likely to answer the original question.
 
EDIT: Note that I'm not saying he was outside these, just that it's not as clear to me as it is to you that he was definitely inside them.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. Can you tell me which part of the statute gives you pause and why?
 
Ya know? this makes me sick...why is there even a debate here?


1. Breaking and Entering
2. Criminal Tresspass
3. Criminal Mischief
3. Robbery
4. Evasion
5. Leaving the scene of a crime

If they did turn & approach the man who called 911, then it could have been added:

1. Attempted Assault
2. Attempted Murder


This man, no matter what the law (which does say he was right in this case) is in the right!!!

When you have the fricken balls to take from someone what they have sweated and woken up every day of their working life to earn, you are committing an act against them no less than assaulting their person.

Try to take someone's wallet or break break into their home and are caught in the act...you deserve to get either 1. a Whoopin, or 2. Lead Poisoning if you aren't willing to stop and wait, when I tell you, for police.

There are also rumors going around that these men are illegal aliens. Well BY GOD, when they commit a crime of this caliber, it is nothing more than an illegal occupation by a military force and armed defense of our country is MOST CERTAINLY in order!
 
I get what you're saying. Can you tell me which part of the statute gives you pause and why?
Click to expand...

9.42 - 3A. Quoted and bolded by a10t2 a few posts back.

Reading all three together (9.41-9.43) this seems to be the only part that allows him to use deadly force in this situation. But it only allows it if he believes the land/property cannot be protected/recovered by any other means. First, I'm not sure that recovery of the property was his primary concern based on the conversation he had on the phone. But that's obviously entirely subjective. But with the police already on the way, I don't know how reasonable it is to believe that the property couldn't otherwise be recovered either.

Additionally, I'm not sure this covers his shooting of anybody that he didn't see carrying off property. Though obviously if all of them had property in their hands that's not an issue...I'd have to look further into the details to see if this applies, and I'm not sure I care that much.

EDIT: Again, not enough to say it was an illegal shooting...but enough that I'm not sure he was "clearly" within the law. I'd be interested to see it defended in court, especially since I'm not of the opinion it was a particularly "good" shooting either. I'm not one to shed tears for burglars, but at the same time I'm not one to see death sentences handed down in the street for simple theft either. But as I've agreed, I doubt this would ever see a courtroom due to there being zero chance of a conviction.

There are also rumors going around that these men are illegal aliens. Well BY GOD, when they commit a crime of this caliber, it is nothing more than an illegal occupation by a military force and armed defense of our country is MOST CERTAINLY in order!
Click to expand...

They had Latino names. However, I remember reading that at least one seemed to be Puerto Rican (and thus a citizen) and if that's the case it'd be unsurprising if the other was as well.

So I'm not so sure a discussion of illegal immigration has any place here.
 
They had Latino names. However, I remember reading that at least one seemed to be Puerto Rican (and thus a citizen) and if that's the case it'd be unsurprising if the other was as well.

So I'm not so sure a discussion of illegal immigration has any place here.
Click to expand...

I don't know if they are. But, if they are, a discussion about it CERTAINLY does have a place here.

Illegals are coming into this country and committing crimes against the citizens. Our government is not protecting us. Police forces across the country are ignoring the national security of you, me and every other citizen in this country.

What do you call it when a foreign force invades a country and commits crimes against that country's citizens? What happens when the government fails to protect people from this foreign force?

Like I said, I don't know if they are...but if they are, then yes, it is an added context that should be part of this discussion.

We have had here in Denver, a situation on par with the Ramos & Compean situation. Illegal immigration is causing a 'circling of the drain' in this country and it will soon be a story near you.
 
But it only allows it if he believes the land/property cannot be protected/recovered by any other means.
Click to expand...
Actually there's one important word missing from that paraphrase. The actual criteria is not just "belief" but "reasonable belief".

My understanding is that "reasonable belief" means that a reasonable person in his position would have thought as he did. So, the question is, would a reasonable person in his position think: "My neighbors certainly have insurance for that, I'm gonna let those guys run off with their stuff." or "The police will certainly catch those guys and recover all the stolen property so I'll just stand here and be a witness."?

I tend to think not.

I think the outcome is going to be heavily dependent on how good his lawyer is. I think a good one can get an acquittal.
I don't know if they are. But, if they are, a discussion about it CERTAINLY does have a place here.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it has a place on this particular subforum, but it's irrelevant on this particular thread.

1. The shooter could not possibly have known that the burglars were illegal aliens (if indeed they were).
2. Even if he had known they were illegal aliens, it would not have affected his legal options in the situation since the immigration status of a person is TOTALLY irrelevant to the question of whether you can or can't use deady force against them.

If you want to rant about illegal immigration start your own thread, this one is about the legality of deadly force in a particular situation and that topic has no bearing on it.
 
I don't know if they are. But, if they are, a discussion about it CERTAINLY does have a place here.
Click to expand...

No, it still wouldn't. We are talking about a use of force, whether it was appropriate, and what consequences the person using it could/should face if it wasn't. The race, nationality, or citizenship status of those shot has absolutely nothing to do with it, especially since the shooter could only possibly have known one of those things at the time of the shooting.

And seeing as he told the 911 operator they were black, seems he might have been wrong on that one.

You want to start an illegal immigration thread, there's a button at the top of the thread list. Use it. It's has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Actually there's one important word missing from that paraphrase. The actual criteria is not just "belief" but "reasonable belief".

My understanding is that "reasonable belief" means that a reasonable person in his position would have thought as he did. So, the question is, would a reasonable person in his position think: "My neighbors certainly have insurance for that, I'm gonna let those guys run off with their stuff." or "The police will certainly catch those guys and recover all the stolen property so I'll just stand here and be a witness."?
Click to expand...

My leaving that out was unintentional...I guess I figured it was assumed.

I'd also argue that a reasonable person would probably believe that their neighbors likely had insurance, though obviously if it's in a bag you wouldn't know the nature of the property (could be irreplaceable heirlooms...though I believe it was just cash, IIRC). I'd say between the odds that the police would catch the guys and the odds that the neighbors had insurance, the more reasonable assumption (at least if we're talking about killing people) is that the property, or at least its value, could be recovered.

Given the circumstances and public opinion, I think even a brain-dead lawyer could get an acquittal here. Even ignoring that, and arguing the law to a truly impartial jury, I'd agree that a decent lawyer could get an acquittal.
 
I'd say between the odds that the police would catch the guys and the odds that the neighbors had insurance, the more reasonable assumption (at least if we're talking about killing people) is that the property, or at least its value, could be recovered.
Click to expand...
Well, only the jury can really decide that question, but I figure that most people consider stolen property to be lost. Even when stolen property IS recovered, it's rarely ALL recovered and it's often damaged. Insurance coverage is part of the question, but I tend to think that most people don't think "insurance" when someone's running out the door with a bag full of their property. Remember, the statutes allow the defender to place himself in the actual property owner's position to make his determination.

It will be interesting to see this play out. I think they'll try HARD to get him to plead to a lesser offense to avoid trial and the possibility of setting what the DA would consider an undesirable precedent.

[edit]Interesting postscript I just read on another forum. The law specifically states "recovered", not "replaced". That might take insurance out of the picture. Just something else to consider.[/edit]
 
You want to start an illegal immigration thread, there's a button at the top of the thread list. Use it. It's has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Click to expand...

If they are illegal and the cops/govt had done their job at securing our country, this story would not be a story...it would not have happened.
 
I'd say between the odds that the police would catch the guys and the odds that the neighbors had insurance, the more reasonable assumption (at least if we're talking about killing people) is that the property, or at least its value, could be recovered.
Click to expand...
Well, only the jury can really decide that question, but I figure that most people consider stolen property to be lost. Even when stolen property IS recovered, it's rarely ALL recovered and it's often damaged. Insurance coverage is part of the question, but I tend to think that most people don't think "insurance" when someone's running out the door with a bag full of their property. Remember, the statutes allow the defender to place himself in the actual property owner's position to make his determination.

It will be interesting to see this play out. I think they'll try HARD to get him to plead to a lesser offense to avoid trial and the possibility of setting what the DA would consider an undesirable precedent.
Click to expand...
Good points, all. Even with insurance, there's almost always going to be a deductible involved...so not total recovery.

Still, I'd rather that given such a situation one be forced to actually consider the gravity of their actions (note that I don't think so in the case of defenses of people). I don't think "I'm going to go out there and shoot them" should be one's first instinct in this situation, especially when one starts citing inappropriate legal justifications for it. Which is the only reason I'd like to see him have to answer for his actions in court. I'm confident he'd not be convicted, though.

Interesting postscript I just read on another forum. The law specifically states "recovered", not "replaced". That might take insurance out of the picture. Just something else to consider.
Click to expand...

Ah. Hadn't noticed that. Well at that point I guess it all hinges on what the local populace would consider "reasonable." And this is Texas, so I guess that means he may be quite clearly within the law.

In all seriousness, though, this probably does place him within the law. I just had to get a Texas joke in there.

If they are illegal and the cops/govt had done their job at securing our country, this story would not be a story...it would not have happened.
Click to expand...

This one incident may not have...but burglars would still burgle, even during the middle of the day. And Texans would still shoot them. It could just have easily happened next year with Mr. Smith, only with citizens being shot rather than illegals.

So, to make this easier on you, why don't we pretend this is all just hypothetical and that we're talking about a couple citizens. Even better, why don't you do the legwork and show me that any/all of them actually were illegal...again, to my knowledge at least one was Puerto Rican, and thus a citizen. Come back with the facts showing that they were illegal (rather than "I heard a rumor"). It still won't be relevant, but it might keep you busy for a while.

Alternately, you could simply take JohnKSa's (and mine) advice and drop it.
 
If they are illegal and the cops/govt had done their job at securing our country, this story would not be a story...it would not have happened.
Click to expand...
I've seen that same reasoning used to argue who is at fault in a car accident in some foreign countries. The foreigner is always at fault since if he'd stayed in his home country the accident wouldn't have happened.

Start your own thread if you want to talk about illegal immigration. This thread is about defending against property crimes using deadly force.
 
1. Breaking and Entering
2. Criminal Tresspass
3. Criminal Mischief
3. Robbery
4. Evasion
5. Leaving the scene of a crime
Click to expand...

None of these are punishable with death.

What if, and this is just a what if... The 'looters' knew the house owners and where picking up some personal property, or some property they were given permission to get.

Let's say the men did not know english, and this man shot them over nothing, over his WANT to kill.
 
None of these are punishable with death.

What if, and this is just a what if... The 'looters' knew the house owners and where picking up some personal property, or some property they were given permission to get.

Let's say the men did not know english, and this man shot them over nothing, over his WANT to kill.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty big "what if." How often do you think people send folks to get their property but tell them if the door's locked to go ahead and smash a couple windows?

And I think this is covered in the law by another "reasonable belief" clause. And really, while I get what you're saying, I'm on Horn's side on that one. Any reasonable person would have believed the same.

But yes, this is generally why I think laws regarding deadly force for the protection of a third party's property need to be fairly restrictive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top