Here is my list:

evidence: 4 credits

crim pro 1:  3 credits

Business crimes and corporate litigation: 2 credits

Appellate advocacy: 2 credits

LLC,Agency partnership: 2 credits

Torts: 4 credits


I want to take LLC, since I plan on starting my own firm/partnership 1 year after law school.
The idea of working 12-16 hour for someone else sickens me.

Do you think I am taking too many classes this semester, if anything I could take LLC/Partnership next semester with corporations/ fed. income taxation. That would be 10, and I can throw in a clinic with crim pro II. 

I took 17 and 16 my last two spring semesters, but one of those three credit courses was with a professor known as "Easy A (omitting last name)." So aside from the 2-3 days it took me to write the paper for the course, I essentially had 14 and 13 credits those semesters.

I'd def replace agency with something easier this semester. Your next semester, while your three courses are going to be more difficult in nature, it's only 10 credits worth of gut classes in addition to your clinic. And is crim pro really a two-semester course? 

Would you be interested in doing criminal defense work? For a lot of attorneys, that seems to pay more than prosecutors.  And in many jurisdictions, there seems to be a lot of movement between the two (I know many prosecutors who've left and went into crim defense to make more money, and know just as many former defense attorneys who are now prosecutors).

The idea of "helping others" in my future line of work is fairly important to me. I can justify working the long hours necessary as a personal injury attorney (non-ambulance chaser) on the basis that I am helping people to receive deserved compensation for their injuries as opposed to keeping insurance companies rich. Same with being a prosecutor/US attorney for obvious reasons.

I have toyed with the idea of doing criminal defense work. I can also justify this line of work on a moral basis as well (i.e. all people entitled to competent counsel, prevent oppressive police tactics, etc). However, I think I would have a hard time representing a child molester or rapist if I believe they actually committed the crime.

What if they were two little girls playing hide-and-go-seek?  What if they were soviet troops who had just parachuted in during a wartime invasion?

I am not going to address a bunch of facts that aren't true so that someone can make some strained race-based argument.  The facts are what they are.  They were two career criminals doing something extremely dangerous.  They suffered the consequence. 

Please explain how the act was extremely dangerous as it pertains to homeowners, Horn himself, or anyone in the general vicinity. The career criminals may have been engaged in an act that was dangerous to their own interests, but the overwhelming evidence indicates that the act itself was not dangerous to anyone else. The two men knew nobody was present at the home, and Horn himself knew that his neighbors were out of town. They entered a residence that was currently unoccupied by use of a crowbar to steal some personal items. They did not approach Horn or any third parties in a threatening manner throughout the course of the encounter.

Ultimately under 9.42(2)(B) a burglary was committed. However, the entire issue of this case turns on whether, under (2)(B) Horn reasonably believed that the deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the men, after burglarizing the neighbor's home, from escaping with the property. I think it's fair to assume that if Horn's belief was reasonable under 2B, he would be able to meet 3B (i.e. that he couldn't attempt to stop two men, one of whom had a crowbar, from escaping without shooting them). Not sure what Texas law is regarding the burden of proof with regards to affirmative defense, but I'm guessing that it's a preponderance of the evidence showing.

It's been a while since I listened to the call myself, but I'd ask anyone who is attempting to justify the grand jury's findings on a legal basis (and not a moral or emotional basis) to listen to the 911 call in its entirety. Horn described the two men with particularity (dress, appearance, and the like) as they entered the home and the operator informed him that police were on the way. The police did take longer to respond than what is optimal under the circumstances, but the sirens could be heard in the distance prior to the flight. The two men began to flee after hearing the sirens. So just prior to the shooting as the sirens blared, Horn knew several squad cars were close to the scene of the crime and that the police had a fairly detailed description of the men from Horn's own mouth. From my recollection of the events, the police arrived to Horn's home about a minute after the shooting. Considering the fact that (1) several squad cars were approaching the scene of the crime and (2) that the cops had a fairly detailed description of who they were looking for and (3) Horn's statements throughout indicating that he was going to shoot them no matter what...there is at least enough evidence to indict Horn.

Is society better off now that two reckless criminals are off the street? Probably. Will this case serve to deter potential future criminals of burglarizing homes in Texas? Probably. But juries are asked to disregard their preconceived notions of fairness and retribution and examine the facts as they exist. The objective facts indicate that due to the police response at the time of flight, and the knowledge within Horn's arsenal that was properly dispensed to the operator, that deadly force was not necessary to apprehend the suspects and recover the stolen goods.

Well, it's not even self defense,

Quote

The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the “actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.”

So you can kill someone to defend your property from theft... so in theory a store clerk can shoot fleeing robbers in the back, or anyone, can shoot anyone else to protect any property, regardless if it's yours.

Just to clarify, the two guys broke into his neighbor's house (when the neighbors weren't home) and briefly ran across Horn's lawn. I'm not sure what the Texas burglary statute is, but I'm assuming that their actions didn't rise to the level of burglary (i.e that the two men had an "intent to commit a felony" at the time they entered Horn's property). So the grand jury believed that Horn "reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary" to ward off one guy carrying a tire iron and the other carrying a pillowcase filled with jewelry as they briefly entered his property and began to flee afterwards. Texas law obviously doesn't require that a victim retreat prior to using deadly force.

If you listen to the 911 tape this guy was literally itching for them to come onto his property and was warned a half-dozen times by the operator to go inside and put his gun away. This is something that the Texas legislature should address, and likely wont. This sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. Suppose some dumb 17 year old kids decide to break into someones home and steal a bunch of stuff. The next door neighbor could sit on his stoop with a rifle, and wait for the burglars to run across his lawn in the direction of the house...shoot them both in the head and then claim that he "had no other choice."

This guy is the South's version of Bernie Goetz, except that his actions were far more egregious.

Barbri gives you everything you need for the bar exam. Unless you want these books as a keepsake of some sort, you will have no future need for any of them once you graduate.