Don't Mess With Texas

UNT_92_Fan · December 12, 2007

"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb."
Oh yeah...and does somebody want to explain the physics of this to me?

Damn Hippies

UNTflyer · December 12, 2007

"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb."
Oh yeah...and does somebody want to explain the physics of this to me?

He ran towards Horn, saw the gun and decided that discretion is the better part of valor, so he was going to hightail it out of there with his loot.

AT THIS POINT, the creep posed a threat to... NOBODY!

But Horn shot him in the back for one reason... revenge.

He should go to jail.

KingDL1 · December 12, 2007

He ran towards Horn, saw the gun and decided that discretion is the better part of valor, so he was going to hightail it out of there with his loot.
AT THIS POINT, the creep posed a threat to... NOBODY!
But Horn shot him in the back for one reason... revenge.
He should go to jail.

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!!!!

Edited December 12, 2007 by KingDL1

greenminer · December 12, 2007

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!!!!

You're truly desperate to defend Horn, aren't you? :rolleyes: Would you be defending him if these guys were clearly not on his property and clearly no threat to him, yet he still shot them in the back?

I'll be interested to hear more of what Corbett saw. If some of your read into what is said about the location of the confrontation, it's really weird:

Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

Was Corbett in between these fellas and the street? That's the only way I can make sense of that. Which would only further the argument that he was seeking the confrontation, and not avoiding it or protecting his house.

UNTflyer · December 12, 2007

You do not know that they posed no threat you assume that!
Mr. Horn is a HERO!!!!

If the burglar was running AWAY, as the officer stated, then he was no threat.

Only a coward shoots someone in the back.

Mr. Horn is a coward.

KingDL1 · December 13, 2007

You're truly desperate to defend Horn, aren't you? Would you be defending him if these guys were clearly not on his property and clearly no threat to him, yet he still shot them in the back?
I'll be interested to hear more of what Corbett saw. If some of your read into what is said about the location of the confrontation, it's really weird:
Was Corbett in between these fellas and the street? That's the only way I can make sense of that. Which would only further the argument that he was seeking the confrontation, and not avoiding it or protecting his house.

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.

KingDL1 · December 13, 2007

If the burglar was running AWAY, as the officer stated, then he was no threat.
Only a coward shoots someone in the back.
Mr. Horn is a coward.

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:

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.
Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

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.

UNTflyer · December 13, 2007

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.

This is the 2nd time you have made this "Old West" argument. cShooting someone in the back who is running away is a cowardly act, 150 years ago and today.

I'm a CHL holder, and one of the things that is pounded into your head when you attain a CHL is that you better be damn certain when you fire your weapon that there is a clear threat to your person. A burglar running AWAY FROM YOU is not a clear threat.

And sorry, we don't let people get away with murder because they "feel" what they did was right. If that were the rule, I'd leave a daily carnage on I-35 of all the people who cut me off when they jump across the double HOV line.

Hey I would probably save someone's life by killing an unsafe driver, right?

untbowler · December 13, 2007

This is the 2nd time you have made this "Old West" argument. cShooting someone in the back who is running away is a cowardly act, 150 years ago and today.
I'm a CHL holder, and one of the things that is pounded into your head when you attain a CHL is that you better be damn certain when you fire your weapon that there is a clear threat to your person. A burglar running AWAY FROM YOU is not a clear threat.
And sorry, we don't let people get away with murder because they "feel" what they did was right. If that were the rule, I'd leave a daily carnage on I-35 of all the people who cut me off when they jump across the double HOV line.
Hey I would probably save someone's life by killing an unsafe driver, right?

wow you equate agressive driving to someone with a criminal past who was caught breaking into a house.

Answer these questions.

Would these two sleazebags be alive if they had not illegally entered our country 2x?

Would these dirtbags still be alive if they were not actively engaging in criminal activity when they were shot?

Cr1028 · December 13, 2007

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.

Could someone please tell me who in the history of mankind has had the reflexes and speed to turn their body 180 degrees in the time between the hammer falling on a shotgun and the pellets traveling 7-10 feet? He raised his shotgun to his shoulder and they still ran at him, he fires the gun and they have time to turn their body? It couldn't have been they were scared by the cocking of the gun because he cocked to show the 911 operator that he was going to go shoot someone. So the only explanation is that the guy turned his back in the time it takes a shotgun pellet to leave a shotgun and travel 7 feet. Wow. Also, it didn't seem like there was much downtime in the phone call, he cocks the gun and says he's going, you hear him walk out the door, say "move, you're dead", then he immediately shoots 3 times. He comes back in and the 911 operator commands him to put the gun down so he doesn't shoot an undercover officer.

UNTflyer · December 13, 2007

wow you equate agressive driving to someone with a criminal past who was caught breaking into a house.

No I was merely following the same flawed logic initiated by others who claim that Horn "probably saved lives", even though at present we have no idea if they had a violent criminal record.

Answer these questions.
Would these two sleazebags be alive if they had not illegally entered our country 2x?
Would these dirtbags still be alive if they were not actively engaging in criminal activity when they were shot?

The questions are pointless. The fact is that these men are currently dead and they were shot in the back as they were running away.

Did Horn KNOW that they were commiting a burglary? How did he know this wasn't a Seinfeld situation? (Remember the episode where Jerry's Dad asked a neighbor to send the coats in the garage and the old man had to bust the window?) The men had no weapons, so I seriously doubt that they ran towards a man pointing a shotgun at them.

The disturbing part of this is how people (like you) justify killing people because they had it coming. Burglary is not a capital offense, and I don't buy Horn's argument that he felt threatened, especially when he was so eager to go out there and shoot them. He wouldn't have felt "threatened" if he kept his butt in the house like he was told to do.

Cr1028 · December 13, 2007

The disturbing part of this is how people (like you) justify killing people because they had it coming. Burglary is not a capital offense, and I don't buy Horn's argument that he felt threatened, especially when he was so eager to go out there and shoot them. He wouldn't have felt "threatened" if he kept his butt in the house like he was told to do.

My two biggest points.

UNTflyer · December 13, 2007

What he should have done was stay on the phone, observed the perps, and watched them as long as possible reporting what he saw to 911. In the 911 call did he give a description? height, wight, what they were wearing, what direction they were heading, what they were carrying?

Nope, all he did was try to get the 911 operator to agree that it was OK to run out the door, guns blazing.

Horn isn't a hero... he's a DUMB gun-owner that gives the rest of us gun owners a bad name.

KingDL1 · December 13, 2007

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

This is the 2nd time you have made this "Old West" argument. cShooting someone in the back who is running away is a cowardly act, 150 years ago and today.
I'm a CHL holder, and one of the things that is pounded into your head when you attain a CHL is that you better be damn certain when you fire your weapon that there is a clear threat to your person. A burglar running AWAY FROM YOU is not a clear threat.
And sorry, we don't let people get away with murder because they "feel" what they did was right. If that were the rule, I'd leave a daily carnage on I-35 of all the people who cut me off when they jump across the double HOV line.
Hey I would probably save someone's life by killing an unsafe driver, right?

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.

KingDL1 · December 13, 2007

Could someone please tell me who in the history of mankind has had the reflexes and speed to turn their body 180 degrees in the time between the hammer falling on a shotgun and the pellets traveling 7-10 feet? He raised his shotgun to his shoulder and they still ran at him, he fires the gun and they have time to turn their body? It couldn't have been they were scared by the cocking of the gun because he cocked to show the 911 operator that he was going to go shoot someone. So the only explanation is that the guy turned his back in the time it takes a shotgun pellet to leave a shotgun and travel 7 feet. Wow. Also, it didn't seem like there was much downtime in the phone call, he cocks the gun and says he's going, you hear him walk out the door, say "move, you're dead", then he immediately shoots 3 times. He comes back in and the 911 operator commands him to put the gun down so he doesn't shoot an undercover 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.

Edited December 13, 2007 by KingDL1

FirefightnRick · December 13, 2007

None of your "four strikes" are the issue.

Would they had been the issue though had Mr. Horn instead been overtaken by the two before he had a chance to shoot and himself shot to death? The counter arguement would have then been "these men had no business being here and allowed to continue their criminal activity.....Why don't we do something about our leaky borders,.....this should not have happened,.....how could this happen,......why were these two men allowed to roam our streets and murder this man?...".

By the way for those who have the stomach and are curious as to what it must be like to have to decide what to do when dealing with the criminal mind during a gun confrontation should watch this entire 8 minute video. You may have to click on "Confirm Age" to see it: TEXAS DPS OFFICER SHOT BY TWO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Plainly you can see that even though a SKILLED, WEAPONS-TRAINED POLICE OFFICER HAD THE CLEAR ADVANTAGE AND IS DIRECTLY POINTING HIS WEAPON AT THE PASSENGER AND STANDS WITH IT RIGHT BESIDE AND BEHIND THE RIGHT EAR OF THE DRIVER, BOTH CRIMINALS WERE STILL WILLING TO AGRESSIVELY GO ON THE ATTACK WHILE STARING DEATH STRAIGHT IN THE EYE WITH LITTLE CONCERN FOR THEMSELVES.

We don't know all there is to learn form Horn's situation and it will come out eventually. But after seeing this above I know, and I knew before watching it, how I would have reacted had I been in his shoes, because I have before, twice. And I live it now professionally and see the aftermath from these situations. I know I was harsh in a previous post but truthfully, please know that it's my wish that no one here ever lives it or see's it or has to make that kind of decision themselves.

Rick

UNTflyer · December 13, 2007

The new law, which takes affect on September 1....
- 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.

At the time they were shot in the back, they were not trying to enter a protected place... they were trying to flee a crime scene. To you it may seem like not such a big point, but in a court room it is.

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

Then I suggest you take a refresher CHL class, because if you shoot a fleeing suspect your ass is going to prison.

You seem to fail to grasp the fine points in this case. If a criminal is actually in the process of committing a crime such as entering a protected place, by all means shoot him... shoot him twice. You won't get any type of argument from me.

But this was not the case here. They were getting away, and that pissed off Mr Horn and he went running out of his house eager to kill and exact revenge. His exact words were "I can't let them get away with it." He stretched the right of home protection way past the breaking point.

This was not an act of self-defense or protecting property and after I have patiently read your arguments and those of others, my opinion is that you are just plain wrong. Once you purge the hyperbole and xenophobia from the argument, you are still talking about a man who shot two unarmed men fleeing a crime scene in broad daylight.

Edited December 13, 2007 by UNTflyer

Censored by Laurie · December 13, 2007

BOTH CRIMINALS WERE STILL WILLING TO AGRESSIVELY GO ON THE ATTACK WHILE STARING DEATH STRAIGHT IN THE EYE WITH LITTLE CONCERN FOR THEMSELVES

Wow...these guys sound just like Mr. Horn...well...except they had a gun pointed at them as well and probably actually feared for their lives.

I heard the officer also had 3 unpaid speeding tickets and an illegal poker night every saturday...only a matter of time before that time bomb went off anyway.

KingDL1 · December 13, 2007

At the time they were shot in the back, they were not trying to enter a protected place... they were trying to flee a crime scene. To you it may seem like not such a big point, but in a court room it is.

Then I suggest you take a refresher CHL class, because if you shoot a fleeing suspect your ass is going to prison.
You seem to fail to grasp the fine points in this case. If a criminal is actually in the process of committing a crime such as entering a protected place, by all means shoot him... shoot him twice. You won't get any type of argument from me.
But this was not the case here. They were getting away, and that pissed off Mr Horn and he went running out of his house eager to kill and exact revenge. His exact words were "I can't let them get away with it." He stretched the right of home protection way past the breaking point.
This was not an act of self-defense or protecting property and after I have patiently read your arguments and those of others, my opinion is that you are just plain wrong. Once you purge the hyperbole and xenophobia from the argument, you are still talking about a man who shot two unarmed men fleeing a crime scene in broad daylight.

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.

UNTflyer · December 13, 2007

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.

"Thankfully" there are those willing to ignore the law and look the other way??

LOL, you know what, by all means next time someone breaks into your car and runs away when caught, you go ahead and shoot them in the back. I'd love to see you justify it.

Your perfect record of jumping to the wrong conclusions continues unabated. I have experienced a crime, and a much more personal one than you experienced. I was once assaulted by multiple persons, a case of mistaken identity when a little gang of thug teenagers thought I was someone else and beat my ass on a dark street. It's one of the reasons I went to get my CHL.

The scenario you described being willing to shoot someone who broke into your car just shows you have that same shoot-to-avenge mentality as Joe Horn. Thankfully, we have a criminal justice system that will determine his fate and not leave it up to emotional people like yourself.

FirefightnRick · December 13, 2007

So did any of you watch the video?

Rick

Smitty · December 13, 2007

What bothers me is not the legal debate, but the fact that Mr. Horn chose to leave his home to engage in a gun fight in the middle of a residential area. In doing so, there was a serious risk of a stray round going through someone's window and hitting an innocent bystander. He's very, very lucky that the robbers did not have guns - for his own well being and for the safety of his neighbors. Think of how many stories we've heard of gang gun fights claiming a child caught in the crossfire.

If criminals invade your home, I absolutely support using deadly force against them. But Mr. Horn endangered his neighbors by taking the fight outside. I have no doubt a lot of his neighbors - maybe even all of them - support him, but I doubt they would be so supportive if an innocent had been shot in a needless gun battle.

KingDL1 · December 13, 2007

"Thankfully" there are those willing to ignore the law and look the other way??
LOL, you know what, by all means next time someone breaks into your car and runs away when caught, you go ahead and shoot them in the back. I'd love to see you justify it.
Your perfect record of jumping to the wrong conclusions continues unabated. I have experienced a crime, and a much more personal one than you experienced. I was once assaulted by multiple persons, a case of mistaken identity when a little gang of thug teenagers thought I was someone else and beat my ass on a dark street. It's one of the reasons I went to get my CHL.
The scenario you described being willing to shoot someone who broke into your car just shows you have that same shoot-to-avenge mentality as Joe Horn. Thankfully, we have a criminal justice system that will determine his fate and not leave it up to emotional people like yourself.

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?

UNTflyer · December 13, 2007

So did any of you watch the video?

I did. Scumbags. Were they ever caught?

UNTflyer · December 13, 2007

And are you willing to pay all the legal fees and time required to defend your actions in such a questionable situation? And yes, it is questionable otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As for me, I would have observed and reported but I would not have gone outside to confront them. If my property or my life isn't involved, I'm not getting involved. And before you jump on me about such a "selfish" attitude, I ask if I was your neighbor would you be paying the $300/hr that my attorney would charge to defend me?

I hope Mr. Horn got his kicks in killing these guys, because one way or another he is going to pay for his bad decisions.