What do you think about the Joe Horn case?

[008]

My guess is that burglary is written into the statute because it is one of the most dangerous crimes.

What about drunk drivers?  Can we shoot them?  Seems they are way more dangerous than any buglar ever would be.  Also, burglary is not by itself a crime of violence, maybe you are confusing it with robbery

[NoUsername]

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.

What if he were a martian or a stray dog or a box of cereal?  Arguing facts that aren't present is a sure sign of a weak argument.

A police officer is an agent of the government.  A state execution is an action of the government.  The Bill of Rights is a restraint of the government, not an individual.

[008]

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.

What if he were a martian or a stray dog or a box of cereal?  Arguing facts that aren't present is a sure sign of a weak argument.

A police officer is an agent of the government.  A state execution is an action of the government.  The Bill of Rights is a restraint of the government, not an individual.

Right and the government is condoning private deprivation of due process through its legislation.  To me, it is akin to enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant between two private citizens.

[NoUsername]

Right and the government is condoning private deprivation of due process through its legislation.  To me, it is akin to enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant between two private citizens.

To me, its akin to a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter.  It wasn't their's to take, it wasn't their right to commit a dangerous felony, and Joe dismissed them.  Did us all a favor.

[NoUsername]

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. 

[008]

What you are saying is that the propriety of a shooter's actions does not depend on his actions, but on the identity of the people he shot. Career criminals = ok, frat boys ≠ ok

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. 

Haha fair enough, although I wasn't even thinking about race.  I guess I'm just curious if the reason you like this killing so much because you think Joe was justified, or if you just have a general thirst for the blood of these criminals.  I guess it could be both.

The statute is not as clear as you make it sound.  I has a reasonableness component that I think was flagrantly violated.  That the GJ didnt indict him only goes to show their bias and unwillingness to send an old and popular man to prison for murder.

has anyone actually said they "like this killing" in this thread? there have been words like "ambivalent" and "deserved" but there hasn't been any expression of joy over people getting killed. just that they got what they deserved and that no tears would be shed for them. and if anyone's thirsty for the blood of criminals, it would be the legislators who made it open season on burglars, among others who are open to the application of deadly force, per the statute. as has been said before, if you don't like the law and you're a resident of Texas, there are ways to remedy the situation.

[PSUDSL08]

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.

[NoUsername]

They thought no one was in the home.  Turns out they were right.  It doesn't negate the fact that breaking into anothers home is one of the most dangerous things someone can do.  Your home is your castle, the place where you are supposed to have 100% control over what you encounter, the place where you are supposed to have 100% control over who has access.  The law clearly recognizes this, as the home is the one place where you are authorized to kill an intruder in virtually any state regardless of whether they had a weapon.  There is a presumption that when someone forces their way into a home, they intend to do harm. 

These two idiots thought no one was home.  Thank God they were right.  They aren't harvard scholars, they could have easily been wrong.  It is no mitigation in my eyes.



As to the sirens in the background, I didn't hear them on the tape.  I can't speak to whether Joe Horne knew the police were coming are not.  I really don't care.

[008]

They thought no one was in the home.  Turns out they were right.  It doesn't negate the fact that breaking into anothers home is one of the most dangerous things someone can do.  Your home is your castle, the place where you are supposed to have 100% control over what you encounter, the place where you are supposed to have 100% control over who has access.  The law clearly recognizes this, as the home is the one place where you are authorized to kill an intruder in virtually any state regardless of whether they had a weapon.  There is a presumption that when someone forces their way into a home, they intend to do harm. 

These two idiots thought no one was home.  Thank God they were right.  They aren't harvard scholars, they could have easily been wrong.  It is no mitigation in my eyes.



As to the sirens in the background, I didn't hear them on the tape.  I can't speak to whether Joe Horne knew the police were coming are not.  I really don't care.

Exactly, you really don't care whether he was right or wrong, because he shot people you detest. 

There is more than enough to indict, but the prosecutor passed the buck to the GJ.

[NoUsername]

1.  Right and wrong is subjective.
2.  Legal v. illegal is the issue.  It appears that what he did was legal, in the eyes of the people who heard all the evidence.
3.  I don't care not because I detest them, but because the world is a safer place without them, and because they assumed the risk when they voluntarily chose to do something illegal and extremely dangerous.  If you play Russian Roulette, don't come crying to me when the gun goes off.