KingDL1

Airing of grievances is my favorite! Happy Festivus to all, may all your poles be shiny!

Well you do know some of the intent, the criminals had the intent to commit breaking and entry followed by Burglary. You can assume the criminals would do whatever possible to get a way and possibly hurt anyone they come across while committing a daring crime in broad daylight. I am sorry that you can't comprehend the difference, it really is not that difficult. Funny Mr. Horn killed two criminals that were in the process of committing a felony while he was on his own property, worst case it is man slaughter not murder. But you seem to have Mr. Horn tried and convicted faster then you say he murdered the criminals. Do you think if he was a murderer would he have even called 911, waited on the phone for over 8 minutes, or given the criminals the opportunity to stop? Just a little stuff to chew on for your own comprehension. You constantly give the criminals the benefit of the doubt, with assuming they had no violent intent, like you know what was in their mind when they ran at Mr. Horn. Then even though Mr. Horn has the right to "stand-his-ground" and the right to protect private property by state law, and by state law he has the right to use deadly force if he felt in danger. Even more to his benefit is he was on his own property when it went down. But you don't even begin to give Mr. Horn the benefit of the doubt in a situation he did not even start. The only gray here is if Mr. Horn had the right to protect private property when it is his neighbors. If it was his own property there would not even be an argument in the eyes of Texas law. Maybe my reading comprehension is off but here is what I have found: Capt. Bud Corbett, a spokesman for the Pasadena Police Department: That seems to me like at least one moved at Mr. Horn but we will surely get better details once the police report is released. Really not seeing the revenge factor. Mr. Horn may have been mad, pissed off, violated, protective, whatever; but revenge I don't think so. But a daring broad daylight breaking & entry with burgalry by two grown men is very violent to me, and every officer of the law I have asked about it said you better consider it violent. But what do they know? Well here is the answer you are looking for: Mr. Horn is a 61 year old man clearly upset that a crime of this nature is happening right next to his house where lives with his daughter and her family. When it became apparent that the crimianls would get away he decided to do something about it. But once again you give the criminals more benefit of the doubt then Mr. Horn. I take the conversation as the process he needed to get himself prepared to do something if the police did not show up in time. Then he gives these criminals the chance to stop, not sure what else you want there. "Then when he gets back on the phone he says "One of them's in the front yard over there, one of them's in the street.""(I exceeded the number of allowed quotes) OK, not a problem with me. Well under Texas law it pretty much does, he was on his property and he felt in danger. You say you don't care for the criminals but you give them some benefit of the doubt in their intentions toward Mr. Horn, but you really give our Hero Mr. Horn no benefit of the doubt Flyer maybe you will enjoy this: It is a Bill twist. Talking points

I understand that you think a felony breaking and entry followed by robbery is comparable to being cutoff in traffic. That you don't seem to realize the situation was started when the criminals broke in to the house next door. That you think protecting property is somehow equivalent to murder if the only difference is you are protecting your neighbor's property. I understand that you seem to care more for the criminals breaking to the house then the Citizen next door. I understand that you don't get that a police officer witness said the criminals moved at Mr. Horn after he warned them to stop. I understand how worked up a 61 year old man can get while witnessing a violent crime and the dread he can have of the criminals getting away with it.

NO you don't get it, the criminals initiated the situation period. You really don't have a clue what it is like to be in that situation. To watch a crime like this take place is very emotional. At the end of the day he has an undercover police officer as a witness that he gave criminals an opportunity to stop, and a tape to back it up. He was on his property they moved toward him period, sorry you are all worried about his intents, but he still had every right to kill them. I will tell you now if I catch a criminal breaking into my house I will kill them, I am not looking for a trophy I hope it never happens. But that is, what it is. Why you are so worried about the criminals is beyond me, Mr. Horn was at home minding his own business until these criminals broke the law, and committed a violent crime.

The CNN part was just a statement as was the rest of my last post. Flyer you assume much and the law clearly provides protection of private property and defending yourself. He had to be ready to kill just to go outside. When the criminals ran at him what do you think? Regardless if they just ran past, as soon as they moved at him he was under threat. You may want to check police records before you commit to this "shot in the back stuff" because that exact scenario happens all the time. If a police officer has his gun drawn and tells you to stop in a robbery situation, you better not turn and run. Do you really think they would not shoot you in the back? The Interstate analogy is so sad it really makes me question what you are thinking, if you consider those two scenarios even remotely the same. If Mr. Horn clearly had killing on his mind I doubt he would have called and especially stayed on the phone with 911 operator. Yes criminals do have an obligation to stop if they don't want to get shot. It is commonly called citizen's arrest. A citizen has every right to protect private property and defend himself. Going outside may not have been the best choice, but once that choice was made and Mr. Horn was outside he made the correct choice. In Texas a citizen has the right to "Stand-your-ground" and Texas law is an interpretation of the Castle Law.

This looks like it is going to be one very exciting recruitment class. Man it keeps getting better.

CNN legal analyst what a joke. Please keep in mind when Mr. Horn was on the phone he was psyching himself up to go outside. Once he went outside with a gun he knew he had better ready to use it. Regardless of what part of their body the criminals were shot in, once he started shooting he needed to shoot to kill. Because both criminals ran, they should have stopped, at the point they started to move fast he did not need to know their intentions. This "shooting in the back" does not matter one bit. It is not Mr. Horns duty to know the criminals intentions nor does anyone else. Were they running for cover to shoot back, were they running to have the opportunity to get their weapons out, were they running to take his gun away, the options here are endless. The point is Mr. Horn did not need to guess, nor would the police. Again the Criminals should have stopped. Once outside Mr' Horn made the correct choice, if you think he did not never pull a gun on a criminal.

Congrats Emmitt!

Don't be so sure of that, Nate told my buddy a different story about 6 weeks ago.

Preliminary picks and rankings in.

This was key. And flyer is correct. But maybe better for another topic. Can we get back to shooting people?

This is true and I agree with it. Mr. Horn will likely have those who will throw in if he needs it just from the publicity alone. I guess the biggest disagreement here is I think Mr. Horn was worked up and pi$$ed off, and I take it you think he had been waiting for the opportunity to kill someone and this was his chance. If your assumption is correct I would jump boats.

Just a different note: I have no idea what shot Mr. Horn had in his shotgun, but anything other then buckshot would not carry very far. At close range I would prefer duck shot. As far as if the crooks had guns he still would have had the drop on them, there hands were full of loot. But that was the risk that Mr Horn took, I would not recommend it. Gang drive byes are wild and random I don't think they aim.

Maybe you need a refresher on your CHL, but you may want to check on the part about protecting private property. Enough Final words Even if I agreed with you Mr. Horn did not initiate the situation so the worst you could charge him with is man slaughter. Even with a police officer as witness they did not arrest Mr. Horn, are you saying you know more then this officer?

Regardless of your expert opinion thankfully there are those the view and interpret the law differently. In this case Mr. Horn should not go past the Grand Jury. And it is painfully obvious you have little to no experience with a live crime. You misinterpret Mr. Horn's actions, he is mad as hell that sanctuary of his neighborhood is being violated and he is not going to take it. Now keep in mind I do not recommend these actions, but the wired, scared, adrenaline going through Mr. Horn's body can account for his wording and conversation as his courage and anger worked up. If he was simply out for blood he would not have given them the chance to stop. Reason's Mr. Horn is OK: 1. He gave them an opportunity to stop. 2. They ran at him. 3. He shot them on his property 4. They were carrying private property. 5. And the Grand Jury will look at this also, the criminal records of those he shot. Oh, and all witnessed by a plain clothed police officer.

If he was square with Mr. Horn the crook only had to turn 91 degrees to get it in the back. If was not square with Mr. Horn it would even take less. Did you ever play dodge-ball? Yes they could have easily come at him and still turned away enough to get shot in the back.

The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home. The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said. The reasonable use of lethal force will be allowed if an intruder is: - Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes - Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place - Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place. The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations. Texas joins several other states including Florida that have or are considering similar laws. Sympathy for violent offenders and criminals in general runs low in Texas, underscored by its busy death row. The state leads the United States in executions with 388 since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Texas signs new self-defense by gun law You do realize that most shootings in the old west were shots in the back? The only time it was "Yellow" or cowardly was in a Duel and even then it happened plenty. The the Texas law has changed recently about what you can and can't do, when I took my CHL class we took part of it was taught by the Texas State Rep (Ray Allen) that co-authored the CHL law. He is from Grand Prairie and helped teach classes at the Academy for Firearms Training and his take on the law he wrote seemed little different then yours. The Class But you seem to have some displaced logic in your analogies. If a person robs a store and the store owner kills the robber while he is running away with a shot in the back, even if unarmed, he can on the basis of protecting his property. The point here is, that through the system robbery or even armed robbery without injuring anyone is not going to put that person on death row. But outside the system the store owner kills that person. When I caught the guy breaking into my car, if he had run at me I would have shot him, if he had run away from me I would have shot him, but he did freeze. Perhaps I should have hid in my house and hoped the Dallas Police would get there in time. But I was mad as hell and I did not call 911 until after I had this guy subdued.

Well I guess if you live in old western movies he may be a coward. But then there is reality and Mr. Horn was not looking for a duel. The officers own words: This happened fast, real fast when you listen to the timing on the 911 tape. I would have shot him also. Once again you have absolutely no reason to make such a blanket statement, Mr. Horn did what he felt was right and I am OK with that, sorry you are not.

I honestly think he did a good thing, would I recommend it to everyone? NO! I do know that at my housing association summer meeting we had representatives from the Dallas PD there and they discussed how there are several organized burglary rings active in our area. I am in a very nice neighborhood in old north Dallas next to ESD off of Midway. There had been over a hundred burglaries in the area and a couple people hurt do to what they thought to be burglary rings. He said the odds of catching them are very slim.

You do not know that they posed no threat you assume that! The officer said they ran at Mr. Horn at first, and Mr. Horn gave them a warning. If you are running toward someone and you decide they are about to shoot you will probably turn at least your torso and head away. Then the pellets would hit you in the back, which is not the same as flat out running away. Mr. Horn is a HERO!!!!

I also believe that cost figure includes the price of the land itself. The land that facility sits on is premium land, that would be great for retail and other uses, I imagine the price per foot was not cheap.

Two things if you read the article they ran at him on his property and two it looks like they have ties to Columbian organized crime, also to point out that illegal immigrants are tied to much more crime then the media likes to represent. A few months ago it was reported that more then 25% of the people waiting trial for violent crimes in Lew Sterrett were illegal immigrants. Not to say because they are illegal immigrants it is more OK to shoot them.

Two more recruiting classes, look for the 2009 season. Then we can roll in to our brand new Stadium in 2010.

He had one hot kicker!

Both men were hit by shotgun blasts after entering Joe Horn's front yard I have have to say after reading this article Mr. Horn gave these illegal immigrants from Colombia the opportunity to stop, witnessed by the Officer. Actually the whole thing is pretty wild, but being they ran at him on his own property there is no way this gets past the Grand Jury. When I caught that guy breaking in to my car I yelled, "freeze or I will blow you F'ing head off." If he had ran at me or moved his hands in anyway that were not up in the air I would killed him. But in my case he froze, and the police came and took him away. I had my duck ammo in my 12 gauge, 3 inch magnums I think they were #2 shot , so he was the only one that would been in mortal danger. After about 50 yards the shot would do very little. That was the second time my car had been broken into in my front yard in a year and I had enough. I think it was the same guy, and I have never had any trouble since.