Texas - I love living here!!!

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Just a FYI -- you are taught to never pull the trigger unless you are willing to KILL.

If you injure, he has a chance to kill you.

Just a note --- never so much as pull a gun on a person you are unwilling to kill unless you are a peace officer. As a civilian, you pull it, you may be shot by anyone including the cop who is looking for the guy who just broke into your neighbors house.

To further dalmations comments here.... if you shoot to harm and not to kill, you will then find yourself in court sued by the person you shot, for assault and battery. How many times have we read stories in the news about a burgular sueing a homeowner, because they were injured while trying to burgularize the home??? And in many cases, the thief wins the lawsuit!

I'm with dude, dalmations, et al... shoot the bastards.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

To further dalmations comments here.... if you shoot to harm and not to kill, you will then find yourself in court sued by the person you shot, for assault and battery. How many times have we read stories in the news about a burgular sueing a homeowner, because they were injured while trying to burgularize the home??? And in many cases, the thief wins the lawsuit!

What a paradox...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jefelump

To further dalmations comments here.... if you shoot to harm and not to kill, you will then find yourself in court sued by the person you shot, for assault and battery. How many times have we read stories in the news about a burgular sueing a homeowner, because they were injured while trying to burgularize the home??? And in many cases, the thief wins the lawsuit!

I'm with dude, dalmations, et al... shoot the bastards.

I agree that it has happened way too many times.

That is not my issue though. Maybe the guy you wounded had an ankle gun hidden, and you shoot him in the leg. He falls, pulls the gun -- shoots you, and your dead.

What were you trying to do? You either let him go if you aren't in imminent danger, or you kill him, if you are.

IMO -- 99% of the time Property isn't worth dying or having to take a life over.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I agree that it has happened way too many times.

That is not my issue though. Maybe the guy you wounded had an ankle gun hidden, and you shoot him in the leg. He falls, pulls the gun -- shoots you, and your dead.

What were you trying to do? You either let him go if you aren't in imminent danger, or you kill him, if you are.

IMO -- 99% of the time Property isn't worth dying or having to take a life over.

An "easy solution" would be, not to leave the house (like the dispatcher urged Horn) and shoot the burglars if they try to get in your house...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

An "easy solution" would be, not to leave the house (like the dispatcher urged Horn) and shoot the burglars if they try to get in your house...

Agreed, and this is the imminent danger law protection provided to families.

As to the Deadly force to Protect Private property.........to me this is a very grey area.

I want to be able to protect my home/business if their is a power outage from every hooligan who wants to steal all my "life" just because of some natural disaster or riot.

On the other hand, IMO, just property is not worth taking a life. I myself would have called the police, and then got descriptions, plate numbers if they were to drive away, etc if they were stealing from my neighbor, and hoped the police could get the property back.

If I knew my neighbors 13 year old daughter were home alone, I might even shoot them.
If they broke into my home, they just shouldn't have.

To say I would have gone outside and created a situation which put my life in danger. Nope. That was just stupid. What if he would have shot one of them, but the other would have shot him. Too many unknown variables for something I can go buy.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

An "easy solution" would be, not to leave the house (like the dispatcher urged Horn) and shoot the burglars if they try to get in your house...

and then tell your neighbor, "sorry dude, I saw the guys rob your house, and I could have stopped them, but I decided to let them get away." So the next time those guys return to the neighborhood and choose MY house to rob while I'm not home, what incentive will my neighbor have to help me out? None. He'll return the same favor of just watching and letting the criminals get away.

It's easy to sit here on a chatboard and second guess Horn. If I were in his shoes, it's hard to say if I would have gone outside or not. Based on what I know about me, I would probably go outside too, because I believe we owe it to each other to protect our neighborhood. I would help my neighbors, as I would hope they would help me.

To Horn, here are the unknowns at that moment:

1) Are these guys armed?
2) How long will it take for the cops to arrive? (Horn didn't know the plain clothes cop was there)
3) If I don't do my civic duty to stop them, how many more houses will they rob?

Horn didn't go outside and just start shooting. He told them to stop. He warned the burgulars. He told them what he would do if they disregarded his warning. The law clearly allows for deadly force to prevent a criminal from fleeing the scene of the crime (as posted by dalmations202). Is that a death penalty for every crime? No, it depends on the circumstances and the choices the criminal makes when looking down the barrel of a gun. When a man is pointing a shotgun at you, how stupid do you have to be to try and run???

[Underdog]

Personally, I don't have a problem with castle laws (everyone should have the right to defend themselves), I just don't think it was justified in this case:


Horn decided to kill those men while he was on the phone with the cops, not after they crossed into his yard - that's premeditation... Plus, if I'm in a situation where I HAVE to kill someone, I'm not calling the cops until afterward, since obviously I'm busy dealing with a life-and-death situation... If there's time to chat with the cops, maybe there's time to wait for them...

He claims he was "scared & feared for his life," even though nobody was breaking into HIS house and HIS life was never put into danger until AFTER he decided to confront those men... He also couldn't be protecting the lives of his neighbors, since he didn't notice the thieves until they were crawling OUT of the house...

Essentially, he killed 2 men over $2000 (that wasn't his) while NOBODY'S life (especially his own) was immediately in danger - which is exactly why the POLICE told him not to do it!

[jthig32]

So here's a question: At what point do you draw the line on the whole "neighbor" thing? If you're out walking your dog and you see someone in a ski mask jumping out the window of a house a block from yours, are you pulling your piece and gunning them down?

Legally, you're not allowed to do this, but I would like to pose this question to Dude and others. Would you convict someone that did that?

I mean, by the general logic of this thread, why aren't police allowed to use deadly force for all confrontations with burglars, etc?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So here's a question: At what point do you draw the line on the whole "neighbor" thing? If you're out walking your dog and you see someone in a ski mask jumping out the window of a house a block from yours, are you pulling your piece and gunning them down?

Legally, you're not allowed to do this, but I would like to pose this question to Dude and others. Would you convict someone that did that?

I mean, by the general logic of this thread, why aren't police allowed to use deadly force for all confrontations with burglars, etc?

That ends up being for a jury to decide, IMO.

I consider abortion, murder of an unborn child. That doesn't mean I have the right to kill Drs and women alike that kill children under the law. If that child is born then, and someone kills it -- then I kill them, then I am a hero for killing a child killer.

Be very careful as all of this gets to be very complicated as to where the line is for justification of killing.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So here's a question: At what point do you draw the line on the whole "neighbor" thing? If you're out walking your dog and you see someone in a ski mask jumping out the window of a house a block from yours, are you pulling your piece and gunning them down?

It's hard to say, I certainly wouldn't be as invested in that person. Maybe he's getting his stuff back?? Again because of the uncertainty probably not.

Would I acquit, also problematic. I'd be less inclined but possibly.

I mean, by the general logic of this thread, why aren't police allowed to use deadly force for all confrontations with burglars, etc?

This is because they are trained professionals who know what they are doing. But I can't see me having too much of an issue with it.

[Flacolaco]

I guess I'm with you thig, I think the guy should have stayed in his house.

He started out the right way, he called the cops. The cops were coming. But then the guy was worried they were going to get away, and decided to go outside. I don't think I could've brought myself to go outside, even with the gun.

But hey, if someone comes into my house, I reserve the right to f#ck them up.

Did the report say how long after he shot them the police arrived?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I guess I'm with you thig, I think the guy should have stayed in his house.

He started out the right way, he called the cops. The cops were coming. But then the guy was worried they were going to get away, and decided to go outside. I don't think I could've brought myself to go outside, even with the gun.

But hey, if someone comes into my house, I reserve the right to f#ck them up.

Did the report say how long after he shot them the police arrived?

It appears that the police saw it, he was in his car.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I guess I'm with you thig, I think the guy should have stayed in his house.

He started out the right way, he called the cops. The cops were coming. But then the guy was worried they were going to get away, and decided to go outside. I don't think I could've brought myself to go outside, even with the gun.

But hey, if someone comes into my house, I reserve the right to f#ck them up.

Did the report say how long after he shot them the police arrived?

Exactly. Once you transition from "they better not come in here" to "they're getting away, I gotta get them" you've just decided to play copper, and I'm not ok with that.

But yes, if you step one foot inside my house, I reserve the right to blow your head off if I catch you in there.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Exactly. Once you transition from "they better not come in here" to "they're getting away, I gotta get them" you've just decided to play copper, and I'm not ok with that.

But yes, if you step one foot inside my house, I reserve the right to blow your head off if I catch you in there.

Underdog would put you in jail.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Underdog would put you in jail.

Well that I definitely don't agree with. Very much in favor of the castle law.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Underdog would put you in jail.

Presumptuous, as usual...

I'd blow your f*cking head off if you threatened my life, but I wouldn't do it over an iPod...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I guess I'm with you thig, I think the guy should have stayed in his house.

He started out the right way, he called the cops. The cops were coming. But then the guy was worried they were going to get away, and decided to go outside. I don't think I could've brought myself to go outside, even with the gun.

But hey, if someone comes into my house, I reserve the right to f#ck them up.

Did the report say how long after he shot them the police arrived?

absolutely agree with you here, on all levels.

the police (unmarked) had already arrived when he shot them. THey saw him do it.

[92bDad]

The point is that they came towards Mr. Horn...even made it onto his property.

At this point you are in a showdown...Mr. Horn pulled his gun and they ran...what is to keep them from coming back? Now that Mr. Horn has confronted them, showed them his Gun...he is now at risk of being attacked by these criminals.

Had they just stopped, dropped and waited on the Police, then they would still be alive. But ultimately, the criminals chose the corse of action that got them killed. They chose wrong, but again, it was their choice...not Mr. Horns.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

The point is that they came towards Mr. Horn...even made it onto his property.

At this point you are in a showdown...Mr. Horn pulled his gun and they ran...what is to keep them from coming back? Now that Mr. Horn has confronted them, showed them his Gun...he is now at risk of being attacked by these criminals.

Had they just stopped, dropped and waited on the Police, then they would still be alive. But ultimately, the criminals chose the corse of action that got them killed. They chose wrong, but again, it was their choice...not Mr. Horns.

They ran away! No need to shoot them at this moment. If they would turn again and get in his direction, then he has the right to shot. This way it was vigilantism.

[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.





From what I have read, he might have been able to convince a jury of the bolded above.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally 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.





From what I have read, he might have been able to convince a jury of the bolded above.

I think the law regarding this is totally antiquated and should be reviewed and edited to adapt it to this century.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I think the law regarding this is totally antiquated and should be reviewed and edited to adapt it to this century.

Written 1973 ..... amended 2007.

Just a FYI

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Written 1973 ..... amended 2007.

Just a FYI

I as a non American find it utterly exaggerated and antiquated, to be given the right in using deadly force to protect land or tangible, movable property.

Was there ever a case in which someone used his gun, to prevent another from stealing his land? I would call this war...

Also the commensurability of shooting someone to dead because he has stolen something doesn´t fit.

To protect yourself against mortal danger, is a right I could agree with. Also as jthig32 posted, if someone tries to get in your house trying to steal something or whatever (resp. runs to your direction despite you warning him), I could agree with a shooting too.

In my opinion, this law shouldn´t be for allowing the people to play a police officer, it should only be for protecting your life against offenders.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I as a non American find it utterly exaggerated and antiquated, to be given the right in using deadly force to protect land or tangible, movable property.

Was there ever a case in which someone used his gun, to prevent another from stealing his land? I would call this war...

Also the commensurability of shooting someone to dead because he has stolen something doesn´t fit.

To protect yourself against mortal danger, is a right I could agree with. Also as jthig32 posted, if someone tries to get in your house trying to steal something or whatever (resp. runs to your direction despite you warning him), I could agree with a shooting too.

In my opinion, this law shouldn´t be for allowing the people to play a police officer, it should only be for protecting your life against offenders.

I think for the most part you and I and Dalm agree on most points.

However, the law has to be drawn up to allow for any circumstance in which a person legitimately needs to defend himself.

You err on the side of giving a homeowner too much leeway, rather than running the risk of convicting someone who was legitimately defending himself.

Then you trust the majority of citizens to not push the law to the very limit, which I think this particular person did.

[mcsluggo]

Originally 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.





From what I have read, he might have been able to convince a jury of the bolded above.

this is one of the most MORONIC codes I have ever seen.

So by the law, if a 8 year old is running away from a store with a stolen apple, he can be legally shot in the back and killed as justifiable homicide to protect property.

please tell me i am missing something.

[Flacolaco]

Does the law protect you, even if it was through your own action/stupidity (leaving his house) that you put yourself in danger?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Does the law protect you, even if it was through your own action/stupidity (leaving his house) that you put yourself in danger?

The castle law actually protects your entire property, not just your house.

So techincally I guess you could sit on your property line with a shotgun and shoot someone in a ski mask as soon as they stepped onto it.

I don't really have a problem with it, because if you restricted it to the house you would get unfortunate grey areas for people defending themselves.

However, I think people need to try and see the purpose of the law, not the letter of it. The guy in the article at the beginning of this thread is protected by the letter of the law, but this is certainly not the situation the law was put in place for, in my opinion.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The castle law actually protects your entire property, not just your house.

So techincally I guess you could sit on your property line with a shotgun and shoot someone in a ski mask as soon as they stepped onto it.

I don't really have a problem with it, because if you restricted it to the house you would get unfortunate grey areas for people defending themselves.

However, I think people need to try and see the purpose of the law, not the letter of it. The guy in the article at the beginning of this thread is protected by the letter of the law, but this is certainly not the situation the law was put in place for, in my opinion.

I think you got it exactly correct with the statement in bold above.

[GOGOJOJO]

I find it hard to believe people think it is alright to shoot two humans in the back. What if it were Kids or relatives joking around in the neighbors house. This isn't the 1800's.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dr. Zoidberg

In my opinion, this law shouldn´t be for allowing the people to play a police officer, it should only be for protecting your life against offenders.

In Texas we are large enough to realize that the police are not your true protection. I don't expect the police to show up at my house for at least 20 minutes after I call, due to the fact that they are 20 miles away usually. I have friends and family there, and they still can't make it in under 15 if they get the call.

20 minutes is dead/alive and long gone for most situations. I do not live in an urban setting, so rules for me are a little different that for some. Opinions are great, but they don't always fit. That is why we have lawmakers, judges, and police officers. They are there to sort it out.

Here in Texas, peace officers often times have less rights to do things that civilians. Other times, they have many more "rights". Circumstance defines the situation.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

^ This is a problem, which is indeed hard to solve...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

^ This is a problem, which is indeed hard to solve...

A big country is hard to rule...

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

^ This is a problem, which is indeed hard to solve...

I think it comes down to philosophy...

Philosophy A - I rely on the government (police) to protect me
Philosophy B - I rely on my own means to protect me

As dalmations said, the police can not always respond in the timeframe needed. By the time they arrive, the perpetrator is long gone, or I'm dead. 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.

I'm a Philosophy A person. I do not rely solely on the police to take care of me and my neighborhood.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I think it comes down to philosophy...

Philosophy A - I rely on the government (police) to protect me
Philosophy B - I rely on my own means to protect me

As dalmations said, the police can not always respond in the timeframe needed. By the time they arrive, the perpetrator is long gone, or I'm dead. 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.

I'm a Philosophy A person. I do not rely solely on the police to take care of me and my neighborhood.

People in a neighborhood watch program still aren't legally allowed to use deadly force to prevent a burglary. It's strictly for personal protection. Neighborhood Watch would call police and stay clear if they saw a burglary in action, not go busting in on them guns wielded.

[92bDad]

The easiest solution is to NOT ROB the house, then Mr. Horn is never put in this position.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

The easiest solution is to NOT ROB the house, then Mr. Horn is never put in this position.

I think everyone agrees with this, but it's not really in line with reality.

[ty]

I don't think I would have thought of this, but blasting the thieves in the legs might have solved the problem. No way they get away because of that, and they also can't press charges since they are illegal aliens.

[92bDad]

Here's a link to the 911 call from Joe Horn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

Again, I support Mr. Horn and his right to keep the neighborhood safe!!! Keep in mind, these criminals entered into HIS yard

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Here's a link to the 911 call from Joe Horn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

Again, I support Mr. Horn and his right to keep the neighborhood safe!!! Keep in mind, these criminals entered into HIS yard

"I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop 'em?"

Give me a freaking break.

You can clearly hear the dispatcher say "if we don't get there this guy is going to shoot their ass".

Seriously, everyone in this conversation listen to that entire thing. It's absolutely sickening. The guy wasn't scared in the slightest. He was pissed that the guys were getting away, and he walked outside and killed them.

Sickening.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

"I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop 'em?"

Give me a freaking break.

You can clearly hear the dispatcher say "if we don't get there this guy is going to shoot their ass".

'Cause action heroes is real...