What will this guy face?

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...

I believe this man was forced into this situation because the local govt. there did not do their job. The guy waited for cops, and no one came. Too busy handing out parking tickets, no doubt. Now the media is portraying these criminals as "good family men." I don't know any good family men who go around robbing people's homes. I don't believe this man was on a killing mission. I believe he was pissed that Police hadn't come yet, knew they wouldn't do anything in the aftermath had they arrived when the guys were gone. I agree the man went a bit overboard in his words, but not in his actions.

Perhaps those things are not punishable by death, but he certainly acted within Texas Law.

Once upon a time, these things WERE punishable by death, and amazingly these hanice crimes were few and far between (imagine that!!!). We have become a culture of criminals, allowing people to get away with whatever the hell they want. Politicians and lawyers and liberals have brought us to this point.

This man acted in accordance with the law. We can not be ciminalized for what we say, so his comments in the moment are not, in my opinion, relevant. His previous actions in his life have shown me that. He is an upstanding citizen. Good enough guy for a neighbor to trust his property to the man. He has raised kids, legally can own a firearm, worked for a living, provided for his family. The guy is a good, righteous guy if you ask me. What he did was right. Give him a medal. I bet no one ever robs that house again!

We need more folks like him in our world. It would make for less criminals, that is for sure!

I don't know what I would do in that situation. Thoughts of this type of aftermath would cross my mind and perhaps keep me from acting...especially since it was a bit of a non-direct threat. But, it WAS a threat, nonetheless. He may have saved someone in the future from being hurt by these criminals.

I may react differently when handling situations between the differences of bodily and civil injury, but deep inside of me, I believe one is just as bad as another.

Many of us wake up at 5:00 am, head to work, miss our families and loved ones so that we may work our azzes off to provide for them... We make an honest effort to live within the law, to support our society and our families as best we can. Then to have someone come in and strip us of that work, that effort and that time away from our families...to make our sacrifices away from those we love pointless...it damages me on a deeper level than simply my wallet.
 
I believe this man was forced into this situation because the local govt. there did not do their job. The guy waited for cops, and no one came.
Click to expand...

He was not forced into anything, he willingly put himself in this position.

I fully understand the emotional aspect of your side, you work hard for your stuff, someone comes and takes it, complete smack to the face.

I know it sucks, I've had car break ins, I've had stuff stollen from my desk at work, I've had roomates take thousands of dollars of mine...

Property can be replaced, life cannot. These punks probably were looting the joint. Their actions were criminal and despicable...but it does not warrant death, instead of a shotgun a video camera would of been a better tool here.
 
This man acted in accordance with the law. We can not be ciminalized for what we say, so his comments in the moment are not, in my opinion, relevant.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Even aside from "hate crimes" (which I'd prefer not to discuss in this thread), homicide in general is an act where intent can play a very significant role in determining guilt and punishment. There are a great many things he could have said over that phone before killing that would be very relevant and would likely land him in prison for the rest of his life.

As it is, what he did say was enough to cast some suspicion over his motives and reasoning in shooting those men. Maybe not enough to make it a crime, and probably not enough to make a case of it if it was...but still. Point being, what you say before killing somebody can be relevant.

I may react differently when handling situations between the differences of bodily and civil injury, but deep inside of me, I believe one is just as bad as another.

Many of us wake up at 5:00 am, head to work, miss our families and loved ones so that we may work our azzes off to provide for them... We make an honest effort to live within the law, to support our society and our families as best we can. Then to have someone come in and strip us of that work, that time, to make our sacrifices away from those we love pointless...it damages me on a deeper level than simply my wallet.
Click to expand...

I can understand what you're saying here, but especially when talking about a third party's property I think the use of deadly force shouldn't be something we encourage. For starters, the shooter is always going to be making a decision with imperfect information; BerettaCouger was giving on example, I could think of plenty of other hypothetical (none of which apply here, but still) in which a mistake on the part of the shooter would lead to somebody dying over essentially nothing.

Even aside from that, how does the shooter know that I would want somebody to die over my property? Obviously I'd likely want them caught and convicted, but do you know that I'd want somebody to die over my stereo?

Of course, while it might surprise some here, I actually would. I consider my property, even perfectly replaceable material property, to represent time taken from my life. The hours I had to work to purchase it. I consider that resource to be incredibly limited. In some cases, great sacrifices were made to make that money. If you are stealing from me, and I'm legally allowed to, I doubt I'd have much problem shooting you to stop you. However, to some extent I think that should be my choice. I'd rather not have others make it for me, and instead when in doubt I'd rather rely on the justice system.

EDIT: And while I don't feel like arguing it at the moment (on the way out the door), and hope it wouldn't be necessary, there are a variety of reason that this last bit of reasoning doesn't apply to the defense of an actual third person (rather than their property).
 
JC,

Good response. The property-owner put this man in charge of his property while they were gone. That essentially says: "If something happens, take care of it however you see best fit." If the property-owner doesn't believe or think the person he leaves the property under-guard to would make sound decisions they would agree with, then they shouldn't ask the man to take care of it while they are gone.

So, if you leave your house and have someone watch it, just be sure to tell them: "If you see someone robbing my joint, just let them, don't get involved" or "If my house catches fire, don't bother trying to put it out with the hose, just let it burn all the way down before the fire dept gets here."
 
I hope the guy doesn't have to do time. If he does maybe the warden will at least give him a good job at the prison to make his life easier. Like running the electric chair.:D
 
The property-owner put this man in charge of his property while they were gone.
Click to expand...

Did they? I thought he said he didn't really know them on the 911 call. Where'd you read this? I assumed the were just at work for the day.
 
No, he didn't and it doesn't matter. LOOK AT THE FREAKING STATUTE.

Juan Carlos, I appreciate your at least taking the time to read the law.

I wish everyone else contributing to the thread would do the same.

The ONLY question here, I agree, is whether Mr. Horn had a reasonable belief that the property was recoverable.

Seeing as these men were fleeing with the property (Mr. Horn specifically mentions this in the call), the police only had at most a couple of minutes to get there before those guys were long gone.

I don't know the answer to this, but if you had to bet, how long do you think the police took to arrive even after they knew things had escalated to a shooting? I'll bet it was longer than two minutes.

And insurance? I don't think the law covers whether or not Mr. Horn knew the insured status of his neighbor's property.

Again, all of you conjecturing...(What if? Did you guys take logic in school?) PLEASE read the applicable statute before attempting to contribute.

We're discussing the law here. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, I would think you'd want to know what the law says.
 
A few comments, I suppose...

There are several points on which few have tread, so I'll add my voice in a (hopefully) productive way.

First, in some places people may be talking past each other. One says, "The dead suspects deserved it," while the other says, "This doesn't look like an honest shooting." I make no arguments other than to say that one doesn't exclude the other.

Second, the moral trauma of justifiable homicide gives me pause. The law is beneath morality, so the law excusing me wouldn't mean anything if I couldn't convince myself that my shooting was justified. My conscience would punish me in ways the law couldn't come close to matching.

Third, this seems an appropriate time for each of us to privately examine (outside of what the law says) how and when and why we're willing to use deadly force. As some so aptly pointed out, just because the law says we can do something, doesn't mean we ought to.

Those are the three items my brain is munching on at the moment. I hope you feel the same.
 
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.
Click to expand...


It’s funny that you use the “car” analogy which, by the way, badly mischaracterizes the situation.
I don’t think the argument works, this would be a more accurate characterization.



Let’s say you’re driving with no insurance and some moron rear ends you but the moron has insurance. How do you suppose the court would rule on this? Do you think the moron will be found guilty of hitting your car and doing X number of $$$ in damage to your car, or do you think the court will find that you had no business on the road without insurance and fine you for this. In other words this accident wouldn’t have happened if you had followed the law and stayed off the roads.

It seems to me that there is some sort of mental breakdown, some sort of rip in the fabric of the space mind continuum ( :D I just made that up :D ) where illegals are concerned.
 
No, he didn't and it doesn't matter. LOOK AT THE FREAKING STATUTE.

Juan Carlos, I appreciate your at least taking the time to read the law.
Click to expand...

As an aside, I was just arguing the morality with him when I responded on that one. Might not change the law in this case, but for what it's worth it'd change my opinion.
 
Yeah...trying not to get into the morality of this particular circumstance. Only addressing the original poster's question.
 
Yeah...trying not to get into the morality of this particular circumstance. Only addressing the original poster's question.
Click to expand...

That may be the hardest part, separating what is legal with what is right. Sometimes just because the law backs you up it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
 
...and sometimes it is.

I don't know which this is. I'll discuss it, though, if you want to start another thread.

I think we ought to stay within the scope of the OPs question in this one.
 
Listened to the 911 call and something stuck out to me:
911: "Don't go outside"

Wait a minute, my house, my land, 2PM (BROAD DAYLIGHT), and I CAN'T go outside because criminals are afoot ?

Does that bother anyone else?



Back to the issue at hand, shooting someone, anyone, is done a great risk. Not only to the person being shot; but the person shooting, his physci and immortal soul.

With that said - I stick with my original feelings, he should never be charged, and if he is, found Not Guilty.
 
GM Guy,

I noticed that too. This isn't a Police State. We aren't under any quarantine or martial law. The call operator has no right or authority to tell anyone on the phone not to go outside onto their own property. Really peeved me at how upset the call operator got near the end of the call.
 
If you are on the phone with a 911 operator who has cops, both uniformed officers and plain clothes officers I think it's more than prudent to tell the guy to stay inside. To prevent any possible harm to the officers and to keep the ignorant, scared, bloodthirsty guy out of harm's way also.

I think the operator got mad at the end because he just heard this moron put himself in danger, fire three shots (I think it was just three) from a shotgun that he was just ITCHING to shoot while he had cops on the way. He probably didn't want to hear another murder via telephone on that day.

I think I also saw some of the same guys on another thread say that you should follow a cop's orders...this 911 dispatcher was effectively speaking for the police in the interest of safety of everyone.

Also guys, I'm not sure that anyone considers burglary a heinous crime. I've been "burgled" before and it is a eerie feeling of having been "violated" but I wouldn't call that heinous. Again, this wasn't a capital crime and this guy would have done better trying to get the license plate of this car.

As far as the deceased...I think if they were bloodthirsty killers or hardcore thugs they would have been more likely to carjack, mug, rob, or any number of far more profitable crimes than stealing a few hundred dollars worth of junk out of a house. Punishment should fit the crime, there is a difference between a burglary and an armed robbery or mugging.

Sorry I'm not hitting the legal side of this discussion, I tend to focus more on the ethics of situations such as these. In the study of ethics legality is just a starting point as I understand it.

The Castle Doctine is a great thing because it gives home owners/car owners the right to defend themselves and their property. It is also a double edged sword because many have the shoot em and let God sort em out mentality that gives the Anti's so much ammo to demonstrate how even legal gun owners are dangerous. This is going to lead to more legislation that defines a legal shoot from an illegal shoot, if this keeps up we're going to have to ask the bad guy to hold on while we pull out our decision making flowchart to see if we can shoot or not.
 
What concerns me is the idea that a 9-1-1 operator is involved with a citizen, a shotgun and a robbery for seven minutes.

I would have hoped that a squad car in the area would have intervened before the confrontation.

Having said that, I wish the citizen would have stayed inside his home. What could have been in that bag of stolen items? A DVD player? A radio? An old jewelry box?

Clearly, that stuff is not worth the legal problems this guy might face.

And in my home state of Wisconsin, by now the media would have demonized his actions as being worse than the hoist.
 
The Castle Doctine is a great thing because it gives home owners/car owners the right to defend themselves and their property.
Click to expand...
The Castle Doctrine legislation does not apply to the situation under discussion.
 
What's happening with this guy ?

He was on Glenn Back the other day (missed it).


Last I heard a Grand Jury was considering what to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top