Texas - I love living here!!!

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

So the assessment is that the undercover officer was on the scene and witnessed the shooting.

And Mr. Horn was acquitted.

This tells me that Mr. Horn was justified in his actions. After all, it was witnessed by a police officer, so the criminals must have done something against the law that provided Mr. Horn with legal protection to use deadly force.

He was well within his rights. I wonder if the ACLU would come to Mr. Horn's defense with all these other folks attacking him? Do they truly defend the rights of all?

He saw not only the shooting, he saw too, that one of the burglars run to Horn but a little later changed direction and run away from him to the street. He also saw that both burglars have been shot in the back.

Why did he do nothing?

Maybe he was frightened of Out-of-control Mr. Horn and instead being shot by him too, he decided to stay in the car...

Why didn´t he arrest Mr. Horn?

Because this moronic codes (as mcsluggo posted) cover such needless reactions, to shoot someone from behind...

Also to mcsluggos statement: How big would the wailing be, if those two burglars would have been 12 year old kids...

I don´t have anything of using guns against offenders, but I have something against killing other lives only because they have stolen something, as I also have the opinion a live is worth much more then property. This definitely doesn´t fit in our century. For stopping thieves I am all for

Originally Posted by jefelump

This is why many neighbors have Neighborhood Watch programs, where local citizens patrol the neighborhood. These people are not law enforcement officers. They are people like you and me. Some of them carry handguns (with license/permit), and others do not.

if those people passed a training course and know how to behave in such a situation.

[jefelump]

The undercover cop didn't arrest Mr Horn, because he broke no law. Even if he were afraid of being shot himself, he could have gone to Mr Horn's door (after he returned to the phone and called 911 again), knocked on the door, flashed his badge, and arrested Mr Horn, with no fear of being shot (if there had been a crime committed and reason to arrest him).

And if it were 2 12 year olds, it would not have been "reasonable" to shoot them. He could have apprehended them, even if he had to chase them and tackle them. We're talking about 2 adults here, not children/minors.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And jthig, regarding your post #84.... Texas Penal Code 9.42 does not mention the crime taking place "on your property." It reads "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". The phrase "the property" does not mean "your property".

So you're saying anyone with a concealed handgun can ride around looking for any kind of robbery, and shoot the burglars? Wrong.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

It has to be your property, or a special exception to the law allows for a neighbor's property to be protected, if they specifically asked the person to watch it.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The undercover cop didn't arrest Mr Horn, because he broke no law. Even if he were afraid of being shot himself, he could have gone to Mr Horn's door (after he returned to the phone and called 911 again), knocked on the door, flashed his badge, and arrested Mr Horn, with no fear of being shot (if there had been a crime committed and reason to arrest him).

And if it were 2 12 year olds, it would not have been "reasonable" to shoot them. He could have apprehended them, even if he had to chase them and tackle them. We're talking about 2 adults here, not children/minors.

12 year olds can't have guns? Please.

It wasn't "reasonable" to shoot those the adults that he did.

Again, he's protected by the letter of the law, not the intent of the law. He essentially got away with double murder on a technicality.

And btw, I've read quotes from the guy admitting he made a mistake and would stay inside if given a chance to do it over again.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by jthig32

12 year olds can't have guns? Please.

It wasn't "reasonable" to shoot those the adults that he did.

Again, he's protected by the letter of the law, not the intent of the law. He essentially got away with double murder on a technicality.

And btw, I've read quotes from the guy admitting he made a mistake and would stay inside if given a chance to do it over again.

I never said 12 year olds could have guns. Dr.Zoidberg brought the example of 12 year olds. But by saying "12 year olds can't have guns", you're implying they are law abiding 12 year olds. If they have broken into a house and stolen goods, then they are not law abiding 12 year olds. They could have taken their daddy's gun, since in this hypothetical situation they are not law abiding citizens.

And while I respect your opinion that it wasn't "reasonable" to shoot these men, the jury disagreed. They acquitted.

And I have no doubt he regrets it and says he shouldn't have done it. Who walks around proud of having killed someone?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So you're saying anyone with a concealed handgun can ride around looking for any kind of robbery, and shoot the burglars? Wrong.

I never said that. The following is the law, as posted by dalmations202:

Texas Penal Code 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.

Show me where it states in this code that the property has to belong to you, or that the crime has to be committed on your property.

Originally Posted by jthig32

It has to be your property, or a special exception to the law allows for a neighbor's property to be protected, if they specifically asked the person to watch it.

Texas Penal Code 9.42 doesn't state it has to be your own property. However, it does make reference to Penal Code 9.41, which follows:

9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


So you're actually right. If you look at both codes, 9.42 includes 9.41.

[mary]

Dispatcher: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

That pretty much sums it up for me. No penal code or legal argument can change what I believe is right.

The grand jury's decision was gutless.

But that is the system, and we have to live with it.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The undercover cop didn't arrest Mr Horn, because he broke no law. Even if he were afraid of being shot himself, he could have gone to Mr Horn's door (after he returned to the phone and called 911 again), knocked on the door, flashed his badge, and arrested Mr Horn, with no fear of being shot (if there had been a crime committed and reason to arrest him).

And if it were 2 12 year olds, it would not have been "reasonable" to shoot them. He could have apprehended them, even if he had to chase them and tackle them. We're talking about 2 adults here, not children/minors.

Yes, thats what I wrote, those moronic codes (law) covered Mr. Horn.

You are really sure that Mr. Horn wouldn´t have shot the cop? I am not, because it was an undercover cop. He would have gone toward Mr. Horn and probably been shoot by an already upset Mr.-trigger-happy as he wouldn´t have known this man is not someone of the burglars. Maybe Mr. Horn would have asked the cop to freeze and the cop probably would have tried to flash his badge, but Mr. Horn would have thought the man tried to pick a gun...

Now to the kid situation. It was night time, so if the two burglars would have been tall strongly built kids, he probably wouldn´t have noticed that those two persons are kids...

Or taken as granted that these two burglars would have been kids, Mr. Horn would have noticed that and would have tried to apprehend them. In the USA everyone, even kids are able to get some guns. So maybe Mr. Hero Horn would have been shot by kids then...

So my conclusion:

(1) To shot someone for protecting property is not proportional.
(2) It´s not worth to risk your life for protecting property.
(3) To shoot someone who runs away from you should never be covered by any law.
(4) To shoot an offender or someone who tries to get in your house and doesn´t stop or go away despite your demand is OK.
(5) To protect the property and stop burglars under neighborhood watch programs thru people which are well trained and know how to act under this situation is acceptable.
(6) Mr. Horn is a exception and it was dumb from him to flout the request of the dispatcher not to leave the house.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

So my conclusion:

(1) To shot someone for protecting property is not proportional.
(2) It´s not worth to risk your life for protecting property.
(3) To shoot someone who runs away from you should never be covered by any law.
(4) To shoot an offender or someone who tries to get in your house and doesn´t stop or go away despite your demand is OK.
(5) To protect the property and stop burglars under neighborhood watch programs thru people which are well trained and know how to act under this situation is acceptable.
(6) Mr. Horn is a exception and it was dumb from him to flout the request of the dispatcher not to leave the house.

(1) So nobody should be afraid of being shot for stealing your property.
(2) I agree Mr Horn's decision to go outside wasn't the smartest decision he could have made, but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same.
(3) So if someone stole $2,000 from you, you wouldn't try to stop him just because he already has it and is running away from you? If he wasn't running yet, it would be OK? What if he had raped your wife too? To say "To shoot someone who runs away from you should never be covered by any law" is a little too general for me.
(4) Agree
(5) And what if those Neighborhood Watch people shoot the criminal? Still OK?
(6) You're right. He could have been shot or killed himself. But at the same time I understand why he did it, and I applaud him.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

(1) So nobody should be afraid of being shot for stealing your property.
(2) I agree Mr Horn's decision to go outside wasn't the smartest decision he could have made, but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same.
(3) So if someone stole $2,000 from you, you wouldn't try to stop him just because he already has it and is running away from you? If he wasn't running yet, it would be OK? What if he had raped your wife too? To say "To shoot someone who runs away from you should never be covered by any law" is a little too general for me.
(4) Agree
(5) And what if those Neighborhood Watch people shoot the criminal? Still OK?
(6) You're right. He could have been shot or killed himself. But at the same time I understand why he did it, and I applaud him.

(1) Agree
(2) You would risk your life for protecting property? WOW, just WOW...
(3) In your understanding of the law, the burglar or raper, would already have been shot before he is able to steal something or rape your wife... See point (4)
(4) ...
(5) Depends on the situation and because of that those people should be well trained.
(6) I don´t understand and applaud him, as it was a dumb decision not to follow the advice of the dispatcher, and risk his life.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

(1) Agree
(2) You would risk your life for protecting property? WOW, just WOW...
(3) In your understanding of the law, the burglar or raper, would already have been shot before he is able to steal something or rape your wife... See point (4)
(4) ...
(5) Depends on the situation and because of that those people should be well trained.
(6) I don´t understand and applaud him, as it was a dumb decision not to follow the advice of the dispatcher, and risk his life.

You avoided the question in numbers 3 and 5.

(3) You said no law should allow you to shoot someone while running away. I say that's too general. So if someone stole that money from you and/or raped your wife, would you be opposed to the law allowing you to shoot him? By your prior statement, the answer is you are opposed. We're not talking about what happened before he committed the crime. He's now running away, and your wife is on the floor raped and crying. Would you shoot if you had a gun? He's no longer in your house posing any kind of threat to you. He's running away.

(5) Pick your situation. These neighborhood watch people are not on their own property. They see a crime (pick your crime, doesn't matter). They decide shooting the criminal is appropriate. Would you support it? Yes or No?

[Flacolaco]

I get confused when articles/threads like this are posted in the political forum, even if that's probably the correct place for them to end up.

The story itself is not inherently political. There's no politics in it. It's the anticipation of the thread author that a conservative/liberal divide would spring forth from any discussion of the topic...and the posting of the thread in the political forum becomes like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Is it totally inconceivable that we, d-m.com, could have a serious discussion in The Lounge?

Anyway, carry on....

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Is it totally inconceivable that we, d-m.com, could not have a serious discussion in The Lounge?

NEVER!!!

[92bDad]

It appears as though we have had a great discussion about this topic and yes it is political.

It's also personal, as most politics are. It's about each of us as individuals and what we choose to believe and live by.

My beliefs stand behind Mr. Horn, but I know for a fact that there are people who stand against Mr. Horn and who stand behind the rights of the criminals to live through a criminal act.

All in all...if the criminals would take their time and allow us as citizens to think through what is happening, we probably would either aprehend and turn them over to the police or let the police aprehend them. But as it stands, these crimes are done quickly and as citizens we have to act according to our belief system.

Mr. Horn is to be commended for taking action. I believe if I where walking in his neighborhood and I happen to get in an accident, he would be there to lend a hand. I also believe if I were attacked in his neighborhood, he would jump in to attempt a rescue.

In other words, he wouldn't simply stand by or sit by and watch.

How many times have we seen videos of someone who has been hit by a car where citizens are watching and walking away afraid to help. Or the stories of people getting raped or beaten in public while others watch or walk by with no action.

I want to know that I can count on my neighbors if I am in trouble, and I know that my neighbors can count on me.

Yes, this is a very political and personal topic. I believe the my personal views become represented better by one political party.

Thank you to all for writing and discussing your opinions and beliefs.

Thanks also for showing that Mavs fans are the greatest and that we can also be very diverse in our views!!

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

You avoided the question in numbers 3 and 5.

(3) You said no law should allow you to shoot someone while running away. I say that's too general. So if someone stole that money from you and/or raped your wife, would you be opposed to the law allowing you to shoot him? By your prior statement, the answer is you are opposed. We're not talking about what happened before he committed the crime. He's now running away, and your wife is on the floor raped and crying. Would you shoot if you had a gun? He's no longer in your house posing any kind of threat to you. He's running away.

(5) Pick your situation. These neighborhood watch people are not on their own property. They see a crime (pick your crime, doesn't matter). They decide shooting the criminal is appropriate. Would you support it? Yes or No?

(3) At first, no I wouldn´t shoot someone, who runs away with my property (property < life).

In my understanding of a legislation, you have to protect a human life. So to shoot someone who doesn´t offend you and runs away, indifferent what he did before, is murder.

Of course a rape situation is the next extreme case. How will you know what you would do, if you never was in such a situation? I definitely would have tried to catch him or shoot him in the legs. It also could be possible that I would kill him, but in my view of justice I have to bear the consequences to be accused of murder in emotion then.

(5) If the criminals assail someone or the neighborhood watch people themselves, it is acceptable. If no one is threatened and the criminal only tries to escape with stolen goods, then to shoot is not acceptable (at least not with the intention to kill). The precondition is always a good training for those neighborhood watch people how to act in those situations.

[mcsluggo]

I see nothing that prohibits that scenario in that law. the clause you state is clearly augmented with

B. [bold] to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary,[/bold] robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;

The law allows you to use deadly force to protect your property if you could reasonably expect your property to not be recoverable otherwise. period.

I agree that a jury would be influenced by a child being killed...but that is due to "common sense" not due to anything in that ass-backwards, ignorant law.

Killing in self defense is an unfortunate but fully understood and justifyable act. Killing to protect property... is not.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Thats not my opinion. If these men would have been dangerous criminals, someone would have picked his gun and shot you. You can´t keep an eye on 10 guys. To use a gun in order to prevent 10 men from robbing you, only works against gangster wannabes...

gangster wannabes are what you are looking at 99% of the time. Serious killers do not carefully walk a circle to intimidate and cause fear. They just kill you and get it over with. If they are posturing like that, they are just gangster wannabes.

True, I could not beat 8 gun wielding determined criminals. But, I can sure as heck prevent a group of thugs from mugging me. I can demonstrate that the contents of my pocket are not worth the cost of obtaining the contents of my pocket.

Had I judged them as serious threats, I would not have gone through the posturing of spinning the revolver wheel or pulling the knife. I would have just started shooting.

[wmbwinn]

Other than discussing this specific case, why keep discussing the off duty cop?

There is not an off duty cop hanging around when you need one. And the on duty cop won't get there fast enough (at least not predictably enough to satisfy me, I don't like the odds when it is my family at risk).

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

gangster wannabes are what you are looking at 99% of the time. Serious killers do not carefully walk a circle to intimidate and cause fear. They just kill you and get it over with. If they are posturing like that, they are just gangster wannabes.

True, I could not beat 8 gun wielding determined criminals. But, I can sure as heck prevent a group of thugs from mugging me. I can demonstrate that the contents of my pocket are not worth the cost of obtaining the contents of my pocket.

You can never be sure if you are straitened of gangster wannabes or real criminals. To show a gun either will scare or provoke. You never know how the opponent will react. Especially if it´s so many guys. The chance of being robbed might be bigger without a gun, but if you don´t resist and provoke you maybe won´t get shot.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

You can never be sure if you are straitened of gangster wannabes or real criminals. To show a gun either will scare or provoke. You never know how the opponent will react. Especially if it´s so many guys. The chance of being robbed might be bigger without a gun, but if you don´t resist and provoke you maybe won´t get shot.

Consider me of the same ilk as those who fight on in the face of insurmountable odds. I know myself well enough to know that in a situation like that, I'm going to fight. It is not necessarily an issue of logic. It was not logical to chase a man down from my dorm room and tackle him and take away his knife and hold him with his own knife. That was not logical and my wife was quite upset.
It would not be logical to fight 8 armed men over the contents of my pockets.

But, in the face of such a situation, I know that I will react to fight. It is just me. As such, I want a gun... (or 100). I simply possess no passive traits.

Besides, I like to collect old military guns. I have 2 Russian guns, 1 Israeli, 1 Turk, 1 Yugo, 1 German capture remarked Yugo, 2 WWI era German rifles, 1 German handgun with military markings from both WWI and WWII, 2 Swedish, 2 Swiss, 2 Spanish, 1 Brit, 1 US WWI refurbished by the US Army Armory for the Viet Nam War, and I'm probably forgetting some. It is a hobby. I am quite destructive of paper targets. I also created my own Wildcat cartridge...
I don't really have 100 guns, but I am not far from that figure...

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Other than discussing this specific case, why keep discussing the off duty cop?

There is not an off duty cop hanging around when you need one. And the one duty cop won't get there fast enough (at least not predictably enough to satisfy me, I don't like the odds when it is my family at risk).

Why are you discussing your family being at risk at all? No one was at risk in this situation.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

My beliefs stand behind Mr. Horn, but I know for a fact that there are people who stand against Mr. Horn and who stand behind the rights of the criminals to live through a criminal act.

Is it really your opinion that anyone committing a crime forfeits the right to live?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Other than discussing this specific case, why keep discussing the off duty cop?

There is not an off duty cop hanging around when you need one. And the one duty cop won't get there fast enough (at least not predictably enough to satisfy me, I don't like the odds when it is my family at risk).

It was not the point, if there was a cop or not. The problem was Mr. Horn went out of the house risking his life, despite not being threatened by the burglars.

And because of the not fast enough problem, the neighborhood watch program. Also if you are threatened, I have nothing against using guns.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Why are you discussing your family being at risk at all? No one was at risk in this situation.

I find it boring to continue to only discuss this case on its narrow strange merits. I'd rather expand and discuss the issues as they deal with the larger world.

My point is that I am not going to wait on the police to protect my family if they are threatened.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I find it boring to continue to only discuss this case on its narrow strange merits. I'd rather expand and discuss the issues as they deal with the larger world.

My point is that I am not going to wait on the police to protect my family if they are threatened.

And everyone in this thread agrees with you.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

And everyone in this thread agrees with you.

Even me, as I wrote several times...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Is it really your opinion that anyone committing a crime forfeits the right to live?

As Doc Zoidberg continues to point out, it depends on the details. A person in my home who is not supposed to be there and who has a criminal intent of any kind is likely to be killed. If he flees from my home under those circumstances, I will pursue him. That is not a theoretical idea. As I have already pointed out, I have already done that. I will stop him with force if needed (already done that personally).

So, commit a crime of this nature, and you may very well die.

See how that creates a deterrent to crime?

And, as you can see in my earlier posts, I did not have to kill anyone.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

It was not the point, if there was a cop or not. The problem was Mr. Horn went out of the house risking his life, despite not being threatened by the burglars.

And because of the not fast enough problem, the neighborhood watch program. Also if you are threatened, I have nothing against using guns.

Threaten my neighbor with a crime inside of his house and I will pursue you outside his house if I fail to catch you inside his house.

[wmbwinn]

"Threaten my neighbor with a crime inside of his house and I will pursue you outside his house if I fail to catch you inside his house."

Isn't that how we ended up in Gulf War I?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Threaten my neighbor with a crime inside of his house and I will pursue you outside his house if I fail to catch you inside his house.

Um, going into your neighbor's house makes you guilty of breaking and entering...

Plus, what if the thief has a gun too? You better hope he has the aim of a Bond villain or Stormtrooper...

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Someone who commits a crime of this nature is very well appreciate to get shot. In my opinion it won´t deter any criminal...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Um, going into your neighbor's house makes you guilty of breaking and entering...

Plus, what if the thief has a gun too? You better hope he has the aim of a Bond villain or Stormtrooper...

There are very few in the world who can out shoot me.
Besides, as I have already pointed out, when threatened, I fight despite odds.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

There are very few in the world who can out shoot me.
Besides, as I have already pointed out, when threatened, I fight despite odds.

You sound like a real gunslinger. A true american hero.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Someone who commits a crime of this nature is very well appreciate to get shot. In my opinion it won´t deter any criminal...

The gangsters of Chicago chose to not mug me because of the deterrent nature of my weapon.

Criminals pick on easy targets.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The gangsters of Chicago chose to not mug me because of the deterrent nature of my weapon.

Criminals pick on easy targets.

My opinion: You had luck!

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

You sound like a real gunslinger. A true american hero.

I have killed no one. I have not pointed a gun at a human in my life. But, I have the right to "depending on the circumstances" as Doc Zoidberg points out.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

My opinion: You had luck!

My opinion:
Gangsters want easy targets and did not think my pocket contents were worth the fight.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I have killed no one. I have not pointed a gun at a human in my life. But, I have the right to "depending on the circumstances" as Doc Zoidberg points out.

I don't disagree with your right to. Just amused by your bold claim as to your abilities.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
The gangsters of Chicago chose to not mug me because of the deterrent nature of my weapon.

Criminals pick on easy targets.

Doc Zoidberg: "My opinion: You had luck!"

When was the last time you saw a picture in the news of a man built like Arnold Schwarzenegger who was mugged?
Any stories of a gun store getting robbed?
Any stories of the police station getting robbed?

Criminals prefer easy targets.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't disagree with your right to. Just amused by your bold claim as to your abilities.

Glad I could amuse you