Don't Mess With Texas

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Bang.... Bang... Bang....

[JesseMartin]

I really feel the need to rephrase what I posted early on in this topic.

All but maybe one or two of the gun-owners I know are very responsible, and as such, make sure they know practically everything there is to know about their rights to shoot somebody. I heard the tape of the 911 call and the interview with the DA, and it really sounds like this guy was the same way. He knew the ins and outs of the law. Most Texas gun-owners do...we COULD debate about whether or not those laws should exist in their current form, but as the laws stood when he shot the guys, though he was "on the border" of violating them, he BARELY stuck to the laws...get a jury in Texas that would convict, either in criminal or civil court...I doubt you could find one.

As far as the R/D debate reborn...am I the only one who finds it odd that the Republicans have had problems with fiscal responsibility, and that many of their accusers are other Republicans?

Imagine a modern Republican president with advisors who know what they're doing.

Sorry to both sides...Bush isn't that smart, but he's not stupid either...regardless, he's not exactly a genius on issues regarding the economy. He had to "dance with who brung him", so to speak, to keep enough hard-core conservatives on his side. Analysts have a theory about why presidents do things seemingly out of character in their last year or so in office when they're two-termers. I think Bush's policy stances look better this year than they ever did...and I wonder what could have been if he hadn't been indebted to the GOP so much that he had to cowtow to them the first 6 1/2 years.

[UNTflyer]

As far as the R/D debate reborn...am I the only one who finds it odd that the Republicans politicians have had problems with fiscal responsibility

All better. I'm a Republican and after 40+ years of Democrat rule, the GOP finally got Congress in 1994. It took them just 6 years to devolve into tax and spend politicians.

Pork is power.

[fan19740]

You have to feel somewhat for Mr. Horn. His actions, right or wrong, have placed his name all over the Internet. I'm sure all of the unwanted attention around this controversial topic is unhealthy for a man who doesn't appear to be in the best of shape. However, just like the two burglars, Mr. Horn is now facing the consequences of his actions.

This topic is far from being cut and dry. Certainly strong cases can be made for both sides, but I will not call Mr. Horn a hero. That's ridiculous.

I found this excerpt from CNN.com. You can decide for yourself.

KING: Joining me now, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor.

Jeff, let's start from the beginning. This is fascinating stuff, when you listen to these audio recordings. But Joe Horn has not been charged. Do you think he will be? And, if so, does he have a defense?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, on the letter of the law, it sure looks like he's guilty of probably something, and perhaps even just murder, because think about what he did.

He had -- warned repeatedly not to use his -- not to go out and use his gun. He's told that these there -- there are non-uniform, there are plainclothes officers in the area. And he takes a shotgun out there, which sprays, you know, shot all over the place.

I mean, he engaged in incredibly dangerous behavior, and he killed two people. But, you know, I hate to engage in regional profiling, but this is Texas. And you can see, a lot of people are going to be sympathetic to him.

KING: You mentioned, this is Texas. It's an American tradition, but certainly a frontier tradition, you have the right to protect your own property. Have you ever heard of a right to protect your neighbor's property?

TOOBIN: I never have, but this is why there are grand juries, because grand juries can decide, under all the circumstances, that there's not a -- there's no right to -- that -- that -- that there's no case to be made here.

Certainly, on the facts of these cases, this does not appear to be anything like self-defense, which Texas law and every state's law allows. But, again, the grand jury made say, hey, let him go.

KING: You mentioned the -- the operator at the top. The operator was one cool customer.

TOOBIN: Right.

KING: He repeatedly said, don't go out is there, sir, repeatedly said, there are police officers out there, repeatedly said, don't get your gun. Do not do it.

If this case were to go to trial, how much of a problem would that be, the cool and repetitive nature of the warnings?

TOOBIN: You know, we -- we often, in the press, sometimes criticize 911 operators. But, boy, I have to say, I was so impressed by -- by this operator here.

I think it's a big problem for Joe Horn, because this operator is giving precisely the rational, intelligent advice that you would hope someone like this would give.

KING: And let's listen to a little bit more of it here. In another part of that call, Joe Horn actually references a new law on the books in Texas that he thinks gives him the legal right to get that gun and go outside. Let's listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

HORN: OK, but I have a right to protect myself, too, sir.

911 OPERATOR: Yes, you do.

HORN: And you understand that.

(CROSSTALK)

HORN: And the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st. And you know it and I know it.

911 OPERATOR: I understand that.

HORN: I have a right to protect myself.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

KING: "You know it and I know it."

Jeff, he's actually talking about the so-called castle doctrine. That was a state law, not a national law. But it went into effect in Texas on September 1. Could Joe Horn use this in his defense?

TOOBIN: I don't think so, because it refers to a property owner. It refers to self-defense on your property, your own castle. That's why they call it the castle law. This is not an attack on his -- on his property. This is an attack on his next-door neighbor's property.

KING: And we talked about the operator's demeanor on that call. You just heard Joe Horn there. His attorney has suggested his client was afraid for his safety.

Do you get that sense from listening to the call? And, even if so, is that a defense?

TOOBIN: No. I mean, I read the full transcript, heard this call. He does not appear to be someone who's in a panic. It's a very cool and rather chilling determination to go out and use his gun, against the instructions of the 911 operator.

KING: This is a fascinating episode, a potential legal case. We will keep track of it. Jeffrey Toobin, thanks very much.

TOOBIN: OK, John.

[UNTflyer]

The latest police report sent to the DA yesterday said that they were both shot in the back, one as he ran towards Horn and then "angled away towards the curb". OK, maybe on that one you can argue about how quickly a suspect can turn once he sees a gun and your trigger finger has already begun to fire.

But that doesn't explain how the other one was shot in the back while he "fled in the opposite direction".

And this line of the 9/11 call is doom for Mr. Horn: "You wanna bet? I'm going to kill them. They're getting away."

I'm going to kill them. They're getting away.

Joe Horn committed murder.

[KingDL1]

The latest police report sent to the DA yesterday said that they were both shot in the back, one as he ran towards Horn and then "angled away towards the curb". OK, maybe on that one you can argue about how quickly a suspect can turn once he sees a gun and your trigger finger has already begun to fire.

But that doesn't explain how the other one was shot in the back while he "fled in the opposite direction".

And this line of the 9/11 call is doom for Mr. Horn: "You wanna bet? I'm going to kill them. They're getting away."

I'm going to kill them. They're getting away.

Joe Horn committed murder.

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.

[UNTflyer]

CNN legal analyst what a joke.

I never mentioned a CNN legal analyst.

Please keep in mind when Mr. Horn was on the phone he was psyching himself up to go outside.

Psyching himself up to go outside and kill someone.

Once he went outside with a gun he knew he had better ready to use it.

Yeah, that's helpful when you intend to kill someone.

Regardless of what part of their body the criminals were shot in, once he started shooting he needed to shoot to kill.

Again, that's helpful when your intent is 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.

WRONG!!!! Texas law clearly states that you must be defending yourself in order to legally shoot to kill. If someone is running AWAY from you, it doesn't matter what their intentions are... your life or property is not in imminent danger. Horn left the safety of his home to confront two burglars that posed no threat to his body, family, or property. And he did so with the intent to kill. That makes him a murderer.

This "shooting in the back" does not matter one bit.

It most certainly does, especially when a cop says one of the suspects was fleeing the scene when he was shot in the back.

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.

And when some jerkoff cuts me off on the Interstate, I have no idea what their intentions are. maybe they are trying to run me off the road... maybe they are fleeing a hit and run, who knows?!?! I guess I better shoot them!

The point is Mr. Horn did not need to guess, nor would the police.

If the police shot an unarmed burglar in the back who was fleeing the scene, he would be investigated and charged.

Again the Criminals should have stopped.

Umm, criminals do not have a legal obligation to stop when a citizen tells them to. However, a citizen does have the legal obligation to NOT SHOOT SOMEONE who poses no threat.

Once outside Mr' Horn made the correct choice

Going outside with the intent to kill was the wrong choice.

And to wrap this all up, because of this incident some are considering revisiting the Castle Law. Which was my point from the very beginning, that Horn did something incredibly stupid and ILLEGAL and now the rest of us gun owners are going to suffer. Personally, I hope he goes to prison for what his stupid and reckless actions.

[KingDL1]

I never mentioned a CNN legal analyst.

Psyching himself up to go outside and kill someone.

Yeah, that's helpful when you intend to kill someone.

Again, that's helpful when your intent is to kill.

WRONG!!!! Texas law clearly states that you must be defending yourself in order to legally shoot to kill. If someone is running AWAY from you, it doesn't matter what their intentions are... your life or property is not in imminent danger. Horn left the safety of his home to confront two burglars that posed no threat to his body, family, or property. And he did so with the intent to kill. That makes him a murderer.

It most certainly does, especially when a cop says one of the suspects was fleeing the scene when he was shot in the back.

And when some jerkoff cuts me off on the Interstate, I have no idea what their intentions are. maybe they are trying to run me off the road... maybe they are fleeing a hit and run, who knows?!?! I guess I better shoot them!

If the police shot an unarmed burglar in the back who was fleeing the scene, he would be investigated and charged.

Umm, criminals do not have a legal obligation to stop when a citizen tells them to. However, a citizen does have the legal obligation to NOT SHOOT SOMEONE who poses no threat.

Going outside with the intent to kill was the wrong choice.

And to wrap this all up, because of this incident some are considering revisiting the Castle Law. Which was my point from the very beginning, that Horn did something incredibly stupid and ILLEGAL and now the rest of us gun owners are going to suffer. Personally, I hope he goes to prison for what his stupid and reckless actions.

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.

Umm, criminals do not have a legal obligation to stop when a citizen tells them to. However, a citizen does have the legal obligation to NOT SHOOT SOMEONE who poses no threat.

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.

Edited December 20, 2007 by KingDL1

[UNTflyer]

If Mr. Horn clearly had killing on his mind I doubt he would have called and especially stayed on the phone with 911 operator.

From the moment he got 911 on the line, all he talked about was going out to shoot them. And he clearly announced his INTENT to kill.

"I'm going to kill them."

It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. He was going out to kill them, and he made the decision before there was any danger to himself.

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.

They have the right to defend their own property and to defend themselves from an imminent threat. Neither Horn's property nor his person were under any threat until he walked out the door with a gun and the intent to kill.

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.

You don't get it... the moment he stepped out the door with the intent to kill, he was committing a crime.

[KingDL1]

From the moment he got 911 on the line, all he talked about was going out to shoot them. And he clearly announced his INTENT to kill.

"I'm going to kill them."

It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. He was going out to kill them, and he made the decision before there was any danger to himself.

They have the right to defend their own property and to defend themselves from an imminent threat. Neither Horn's property nor his person were under any threat until he walked out the door with a gun and the intent to kill.

You don't get it... the moment he stepped out the door with the intent to kill, he was committing a crime.

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.

[UNTflyer]

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.

What situation??? He went outside with the intention to kill someone after he was already told there were cops outside. HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THAT SITUATION!

He was looking for trouble and told 911, like a MORON, that he was going outside to kill these guys.

I will tell you now if I catch a criminal breaking into my house I will kill them

Nobody was breaking into his house.

Why you are so worried about the criminals is beyond me

After 8 pages of posts, if you don't understand the issue I have with what Horn did then you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

I'll try to explain one more time:

He. Broke. The. Law. And he tried to use the new Castle law to shield himself from prosecution, which puts the REST OF US AT RISK. He did the exact thing that the lawmakers who argued against this law said would happen- he abused the law and stretched it way beyond the breaking point, just so he could get his rocks off and kill two people that posed no threat to him.

Do you get it now? Horn is a murderer. His own 911 call will do him in, and I hope the DA prosecutes him. I hope the fat idiot goes bankrupt defending himself before he goes away for life.

I'm done with this subject.

[UNTLifer]

What situation??? He went outside with the intention to kill someone after he was already told there were cops outside. HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THAT SITUATION!

He was looking for trouble and told 911, like a MORON, that he was going outside to kill these guys.

Nobody was breaking into his house.

Oh, come on and argue with me.

1. He was not told the cops were outside. He saw the burglars getting away and went out to stop them.

2. You're right. Nobody was breaking into his house. They walked on to his property and came toward him.

3. He shot and unfortunately one died.

As I stated earlier, these two were illegal aliens, gang members, drug dealers/runners, deported, snuck into the country again illegally, committing a crime in broad daylight. Plus, Mr. Horn told them to stop and they didn't, so he shot. Go back and read Emmitt's post. In case you forgot, he's a policeman.

[JesseMartin]

All better. I'm a Republican and after 40+ years of Democrat rule, the GOP finally got Congress in 1994. It took them just 6 years to devolve into tax and spend politicians.

Pork is power.

Not really "all better"...all else held equally, I tend to vote Republican. The R's did take care of some long-due business starting in 1994, but as of late have been spending worse than most Dems ever do.

I found this excerpt from CNN.com. You can decide for yourself.

KING: Joining me now, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor.

Remember, he was a FEDERAL prosecutor. He worked on issues involving FEDERAL law. Texas state law is entirely different from federal law, and he wasn't an appellate judge or anything. This case would go in an entirely different legal direction than his legal expertise.

Again, that's helpful when your intent is to kill.

WRONG!!!! Texas law clearly states that you must be defending yourself in order to legally shoot to kill. If someone is running AWAY from you, it doesn't matter what their intentions are... your life or property is not in imminent danger. Horn left the safety of his home to confront two burglars that posed no threat to his body, family, or property. And he did so with the intent to kill. That makes him a murderer.

Actually, that is correct, but in assault cases. In burglary cases, there are some very specific rules of law that he did follow. Again, we have a federal prosecutor talking about STATE law in a FEDERAL sense, which makes no ACTUAL sense, because he was talking about general principles, not letter of the law in the state. I think the dude was pretty trigger-happy, but he certainly seemed to know his Texas rights...or else he was very lucky (see my previous post in this thread for more info. on exactly how he had to do it to be within the law).

Also please remember...true Republicans favor states' rights over federal alignment, so be careful when some "expert" comes in and talks about something when it's not even his area of expertise!

[KingDL1]

What situation??? He went outside with the intention to kill someone after he was already told there were cops outside. HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THAT SITUATION!

He was looking for trouble and told 911, like a MORON, that he was going outside to kill these guys.

Nobody was breaking into his house.

After 8 pages of posts, if you don't understand the issue I have with what Horn did then you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

I'll try to explain one more time:

He. Broke. The. Law. And he tried to use the new Castle law to shield himself from prosecution, which puts the REST OF US AT RISK. He did the exact thing that the lawmakers who argued against this law said would happen- he abused the law and stretched it way beyond the breaking point, just so he could get his rocks off and kill two people that posed no threat to him.

Do you get it now? Horn is a murderer. His own 911 call will do him in, and I hope the DA prosecutes him. I hope the fat idiot goes bankrupt defending himself before he goes away for life.

I'm done with this subject.

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.

[JesseMartin]

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.

Good points; all of those would basically serve as mitigating factors if anyone actually tried to prosecute...as far as we've discussed this issue, does anyone have any recent news? I looked and don't see him in custody or being charged at all...though that means nothing, as many times, charges are applied weeks, or even months or years, after the fact.

[UNTflyer]

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.

Well, i thought I was done until your histrionic knee-jerking skirt-raising hyperbole just pissed me off before I even had my morning coffee.

1. I was comparing being cutoff in traffic to your logic of not knowing intent. Sorry that you can't comprehend that.

2. Sure, I understand when the situation started. You can't seem to comprehend that it ended when Horn murdered two people.

3. I care nothing for criminals, I care about the law. You don't seem to care that Mr. Citizen next door was under no threat whatsoever, and therefore broke the law.

4. I understand that a police officer has reported that both unarmed men were running AWAY from Horn. Does you understand spatial orientation and realize that a person is no threat if they are moving away from you?

5. Do you understand that a burglary is not a violent crime, and that the law does not allow a citizen to kill for revenge?

I notice in all your rpelies you fail to address the fact that Horn clearly stated before he even left the house that he intended to kill these guys. Listen to the 911 call all the way through. Horn was setting this all up so that he can kill them and claim the Castle law as his defense. Then listen as he says "Move, you're dead" and almost immediately you hear two shotgun blasts, and then one about 10 seconds later.

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 understand he was pissed off that he saw two people breaking into a house, but the law does not permit what he did.

Now that you have taken the approach of egging me on by claiming I care more for criminals (after I repeatedly stated otherwise), I would point out that intelligent people can disagree on this. Building up strawmen to tear down is a sure sign that you have lost the argument.

Edited December 21, 2007 by UNTflyer

[fan19740]

Because they were illegal aliens, drug dealers, and gang members, they deserved to die? What does their character have to do with them being shot?

[fan19740]

You're right JesseMartin, a CNN Legal Analyst and former Federal Prosecutor should have no business commenting on this matter. I don't know what the powers-that-be at CNN were thinking.

[KingDL1]

Well, i thought I was done until your histrionic knee-jerking skirt-raising hyperbole just pissed me off before I even had my morning coffee.

1. I was comparing being cutoff in traffic to your logic of not knowing intent. Sorry that you can't comprehend that.

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.

2. Sure, I understand when the situation started. You can't seem to comprehend that it ended when Horn murdered two people.

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.

3. I care nothing for criminals, I care about the law. You don't seem to care that Mr. Citizen next door was under no threat whatsoever, and therefore broke the law.

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.

4. I understand that a police officer has reported that both unarmed men were running AWAY from Horn. Does you understand spatial orientation and realize that a person is no threat if they are moving away from you?

Maybe my reading comprehension is off but here is what I have found:

Capt. Bud Corbett, a spokesman for the Pasadena Police Department:

Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present.

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."

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.

"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

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.

5. Do you understand that a burglary is not a violent crime, and that the law does not allow a citizen to kill for revenge?

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?

I notice in all your rpelies you fail to address the fact that Horn clearly stated before he even left the house that he intended to kill these guys. Listen to the 911 call all the way through. Horn was setting this all up so that he can kill them and claim the Castle law as his defense. Then listen as he says "Move, you're dead" and almost immediately you hear two shotgun blasts, and then one about 10 seconds later.

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.

I understand he was pissed off that he saw two people breaking into a house, but the law does not permit what he did.

Well under Texas law it pretty much does, he was on his property and he felt in danger.

Now that you have taken the approach of egging me on by claiming I care more for criminals (after I repeatedly stated otherwise), I would point out that intelligent people can disagree on this. Building up strawmen to tear down is a sure sign that you have lost the argument.

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

Edited December 22, 2007 by KingDL1

[emmitt01]

You don't get it... the moment he stepped out the door with the intent to kill, he was committing a crime.

This is beyond laughable. What crime do you commit when you walk outside with intent to kill? I'll wait................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Ummm, none. Killing is what gets you arrested...intending to kill gets you nothing. Only hate crime laws punish bias or intent...and even they require that the act be carried out. And, again, you love to throw around the word "murder", I can only guess because it has some shock value. Name for me again the innocents in this scenario. Again, I'll wait.........................................................................................................

What we can agree on here is that he shouldn't have walked out his front door. Yes, he should have stayed on the line and been a good witness. But that's where our agreement ends. Once he was outside, regardless of his intentions, he followed the law to the letter.

Go back and re-read my original post for my responses to the remainder or your repetitive unfounded stretches.

[JesseMartin]

You're right JesseMartin, a CNN Legal Analyst and former Federal Prosecutor should have no business commenting on this matter. I don't know what the powers-that-be at CNN were thinking.

Your sarcasm kind of proved the point...he's a Legal Analyst because of being a former Fed. Pros., wherein he had no dealings with state laws. There were no comments about state-specific laws, under which Mr. Horn's actions fall...as this isn't a matter of federal law, and as he didn't make any mention of state laws, it's just a way of CNN filling up on people who have the same opinions as their higher-ups. If he were to discuss state law and how it relates to this case, I would be much more interested than I am in his general opinion.

I should have phrased it more like this...

In a case regarding state law, what does it matter what a guy thinks of how it fits with federal law, where the suspect would likely never be charged? The point is, he's talking about an entirely different type of law enforcement, and again, Emmitt is right, whatever we think of this guy's actions/intent, he (barely) followed state law. If you think that blows, mention it to your state rep. and state senator. A few calls can go a long way.

[Cr1028]

It sure sounded to me that the reason he was on the 911 call so long was to get permission from the 911 operator. "You want me to stop them?" "Wanna bet? I'm gonna go kill them." "You hear the shotgun clickin and I'm goin" It sounds like, you dare me to go out there? This isn't the wild west.

If I was in his situation, I would've stayed in my house and helped the 911 operator as well as I could, if I had a gun and was frightened enough, I may have shot them if they were standing at my front door or window. They were not though, they were fleeing.

I'm just wondering how long it will take for one of you pro-Horns to take the law into your hands and gun down O.J.

[All About UNT]

Anyone who says the burglars deserved to die is straight up crazy.

You haven't been robbed before have you?

[UNTFan23]

You haven't been robbed before have you?

What was the desire to dust off the cobwebs on this thread?