Law School Discussion

What do you think about the Joe Horn case?

Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #50 on: July 02, 2008, 03:00:42 PM »
Vigilantism is hardly the travesty of the decade.

no634

  • ****
  • 173
    • View Profile
Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #51 on: July 02, 2008, 10:32:56 PM »
Recidivist seems unnecessary there.

You seem so happy they're dead....why?

I am indifferent that they are dead.  I have been using recidivist and "career criminals" repeatedly; it is important to acknowledge that these were bad people, who made a livelihood of preying on the law abiding.  It isn't some highschool kids breaking into a garage on a Friday night to steal a couple beers.  Both of these guys were here illegaly for the specific purpose of committing dangerous crimes.  I couldn't be any more indifferent.


In this case the dead aren't sympathetic, but what happens the next person capped is a 16-year-old playing a prank?

This article is about the injuries:

"The buckshot hit Ortiz in the back of both shoulders and elsewhere on the left side of his back, according to his autopsy. The pellets penetrated his left lung, heart, spleen, aortic root, left jugular vein and other areas, the Medical Examiner's Office reported."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5866090.html

no634

  • ****
  • 173
    • View Profile
Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #52 on: July 02, 2008, 10:36:40 PM »
By the by, the limb shots were out of the question because Horn told the 911 operator that he intended to kill the men.


Operator: Mr. Horn, do not go out the house.

Horn: I'm sorry. This ain't right, buddy.

Operator: You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with that gun. I don't care what you think. Stay in the house.

Horn: You wanna make a bet? I'm gonna kill 'em.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5866865.html

Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2008, 04:09:26 AM »
We have some vigilantes in our midst.

hope you're not talking about me. vigilantes take justice into their own hands. realizing the value of when nature or someone else does it for you isn't the same thing.

those two were a drain. increased insurance costs because they're f-ing thieves. increased taxes because we have to pay to prosecute, feed and house criminals like them.

Nevertheless, vigilante justice is not acceptable in a civilized society.

Also, neither you nor noname has explained how it is ok for a private citizen to do something that would be completely unacceptable and in violation of the Constitution if a trained police officer did it, even if that officer was authorized by statute.

Regardless of the taxes and insurance costs (some people only think with their wallet), burglary is not punishable by death, this man wasn't in fear he just had an itchy trigger finger.

Would you impose the death penalty for burglary?

Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2008, 07:39:25 AM »
Comparing a State execution to a civilian shooting is apples and oranges.  It simply has no merit.

If you don't like Texas' law, don't move to Texas.  If the dangerous felons don't like Texas' law, they can move as well.

Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2008, 07:43:20 AM »
Your logic would apply to all fleeing criminals. [sarcasm] Why not shoot any fleeing criminal, the embezzlers on down?  Hell, what do we need a justice system for if we can just shoot them all or their offenses.  Better yet, lets set them free, so they can flee and give us pretext to shoot them.  It will be like a fox hunt but better and cheaper than incarceration. [/sarcasm]

Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #56 on: July 03, 2008, 07:57:19 AM »
My guess is that burglary is written into the statute because it is one of the most dangerous crimes.

Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2008, 08:17:13 AM »
Your logic would apply to all fleeing criminals. [sarcasm] Why not shoot any fleeing criminal, the embezzlers on down?  Hell, what do we need a justice system for if we can just shoot them all or their offenses.  Better yet, lets set them free, so they can flee and give us pretext to shoot them.  It will be like a fox hunt but better and cheaper than incarceration. [/sarcasm]

yeah, the sarcasm tag isn't going to mask the fact that you're being intentionally obtuse in regard to Texas statute. here it is, one more time, for the cheap seats:

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.
"when and to the DEGREE he REASONABLY believes deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other  ... from escaping with the property"

Using deadly force may be ok, but the degree of deadly force he used was totally unreasonable.  The grand jury made a political decision not to indict.

Also, does nightime modify only theft, or every enumerated crime?

My question is, for you budding civil rights scholars out there, is this statute unconstitutional as applied to the burglars?  How can the state authorize a citizen to do something that the state itself is barred by the Constitution from doing?


Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2008, 08:24:53 AM »
Your logic would apply to all fleeing criminals. [sarcasm] Why not shoot any fleeing criminal, the embezzlers on down?  Hell, what do we need a justice system for if we can just shoot them all or their offenses.  Better yet, lets set them free, so they can flee and give us pretext to shoot them.  It will be like a fox hunt but better and cheaper than incarceration. [/sarcasm]

yeah, the sarcasm tag isn't going to mask the fact that you're being intentionally obtuse in regard to Texas statute. here it is, one more time, for the cheap seats:

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.

To the DEGREE he REASONABLY believes is necessary to prevent escape with the property.

Both the degree of force and his belief were unreasonable.

Also, this type of action completely defeats the point of a criminal justice system.  Dont you agree?

My problem is this, how can the state authorize private citizens to do something that the state it self cannot do?  This seems like a civil rights issue.  How can the courts give effect to this provision?

Re: What do you think about the Joe Horn case?
« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2008, 08:27:29 AM »
Comparing a State execution to a civilian shooting is apples and oranges.  It simply has no merit.

If you don't like Texas' law, don't move to Texas.  If the dangerous felons don't like Texas' law, they can move as well.

What is the difference exactly?  If a Horn were a police officer, he would be in flagrant violation of the Constitution, no one can dispute that.