PDA

View Full Version : Pasadena TX burglary


banyon
12-12-2007, 07:17 PM
Pasadena moves to ban picketing of houses after burglary shooting

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5371373.html

© 2007 The Associated Press

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mA__Shw5x90&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mA__Shw5x90&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


PASADENA, Texas — The City Council has given preliminary approval to a ban on picketing residential dwellings to prevent another protest on the street where a homeowner fatally shot two suspected burglars.

Protesters squared off Dec. 2 on the street where Joe Horn, 61, shot the men Nov. 14. Horn's neighbors urged the council to prevent a repeat of the competing rallies, which drew hundreds of people to the neighborhood.

"This all comes down to safety," councilman J.J. Isbell said. "It doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on. It is an unsafe issue in our neighborhood."

The council unanimously approved the ordinance Tuesday. It requires final approval on a second vote next week.

Horn killed Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, with gunshots to the back, police have said.

Horn's attorney has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him. On a tape of the 911 call, Horn threatened to kill the men despite the dispatcher's urging that Horn stay inside his house.

Horn has not been charged in the case, although the district attorney will likely present the case to a grand jury to determine if charges should be filed.

The suspected burglars were illegal immigrants from Colombia. Police are trying to determine if they were part of a crime ring linked to burglaries and fake immigration documents.

Activists critical of Horn have said he should be charged with murder, while Horn's supporters defended his actions to protect himself and his property.

Debra Wright, who lives on Horn's home, said the competing protests created a "circus atmosphere."

"When they do them, you can't drive up and down the street. It's a circus atmosphere and people were blocking my driveway," she said.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 upheld a similar ordinance passed by Brookfield, Wis. The court said that ordinance didn't violate the First Amendment because it allowed other forms of protest, such as mass marches and door-to-door leafletting.

banyon
12-12-2007, 07:20 PM
Anyone else following this story?

Iowanian
12-12-2007, 08:38 PM
He should stick a sign out the door that says

"Intruder....take 10 more steps towards the front door....click"

KILLER_CLOWN
12-12-2007, 08:45 PM
Yeah i heard the 911 call the day it happened. The man should not be prosecuted but the protesters should be allowed.

Chiefnj2
12-12-2007, 08:49 PM
I like Iowanian's response, but the cops probably took all firearms from him already.

No protests. Sadly, they will probably have to prosecute him because of the 911 tape.

Rain Man
12-12-2007, 08:54 PM
[SIZE=4]
Debra Wright, who lives on Horn's home, said the competing protests created a "circus atmosphere."

"When they do them, you can't drive up and down the street. It's a circus atmosphere and people were blocking my driveway," she said.




I think the fact that she's living on that guy's roof also contributes to the circus atmosphere.

banyon
12-12-2007, 10:28 PM
Holy Crap! I got AustinChief to vote in one of my silly political polls. I am truly special now. :D

jAZ
12-12-2007, 11:27 PM
How the f*ck can anyone vote that the guy should not be prosecuted?

Did anyone voting for that actually listen to the 9/11 call?

He's guilty as f*ck of cold blooded murder and they caught it on tape.

He's going to the electric chair because he's a stupid m*therf*cker.

Brock
12-12-2007, 11:30 PM
He's going to the electric chair because he's a stupid m*therf*cker.

I'll bet you 100 dollars that doesn't happen.

banyon
12-12-2007, 11:32 PM
How the f*ck can anyone vote that the guy should not be prosecuted?

Did anyone voting for that actually listen to the 9/11 call?

He's guilty as f*ck of cold blooded murder and they caught it on tape.

He's going to the electric chair because he's a stupid m*therf*cker.

jAZ are you drunk?

doomy3
12-12-2007, 11:34 PM
I think the fact that she's living on that guy's roof also contributes to the circus atmosphere.


ROFL ROFL

jAZ
12-12-2007, 11:51 PM
jAZ are you drunk?
No, I'm just amazed.

I heard that audio clip on Digg before it became the big news media story.

It pissed me off at how cavalier and stupid the guy was. The 911 operator must have told him 5 different times not to leave his house, that it wasn't necessary, the guy said he was going to go out and shoot them.

It's a freaking property crime IN SOMEONE ELSE's PROPERTY!

How can anyone justify letting that lunitic get away with murder?

Brock
12-13-2007, 12:11 AM
How can anyone justify letting that lunitic get away with murder?

Speaking for myself, I don't agree with what he did, but I don't think a couple of illegals in the burglary business is any great loss. I'd give him some variation of manslaughter I suppose, were I on that jury. No real jail time.

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 12:12 AM
I voted that he shouldn't be prosecuted, but that's not really what I meant. He definitely should face a trial, and he should be found guilty of discharging a firearm in city limits and fined $50 or thereabouts.

He should face trial, and a jury shouldn't convict him. (I say this not being able to open the sound file, but rather just hearing about it secondhand.)

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 12:18 AM
This reminds me of a story I heard once.

In a small Appalachian town, a rich guy controlled everything and took advantage of everyone, and was uniformly hated by the entire town, most of whom had been victimized by his greed at some point.

Eventually, one of his mules went missing and turned up in the barn of a poor dirt farmer. The rich guy immediately had the farmer arrested and the case went to trial, where a jury of his peers heard the evidence. The facts weighed strongly against the farmer.

The jury was sequestered, and in two hours came back with a decision.

"Your honor," said the foreman, "we find the defendant not guilty as long as he returns the mule."

The judge was a man of law and said, "That's unacceptable. You go back into the jury room, and you come back with a verdict about whether the man is guilty or not guilty of stealing that mule."

The jury went back, and returned 30 minutes later.

"Your honor," said the foreman, "we find the defendant not guilty. He can keep the mule."

patteeu
12-13-2007, 12:53 AM
I'll bet you 100 dollars that doesn't happen.

It's true. He's scheduled to ride the lightning right after Karl Rove. :rolleyes:

patteeu
12-13-2007, 12:56 AM
I was torn between allowing the protests and not allowing them because I don't really have a good idea of what this protest was like.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:05 AM
Speaking for myself, I don't agree with what he did, but I don't think a couple of illegals in the burglary business is any great loss. I'd give him some variation of manslaughter I suppose, were I on that jury. No real jail time.
Not that I agree with you (obviously), but thanks for the response.

So my question to you is

1) Would your judgement change if he killed 2 legal imigrants breaking into someone else's house?
2) What if it was 2 US citizens?
3) Should people be allowed to kill each other over property crime in general? What if it's not your property that's being threatened/stolen?

The circumstances of this situation are so blatant, that I have a hard time comprehending anyone who defends anything about this case.

But at least you can accept manslaughter. That's something.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:08 AM
I voted that he shouldn't be prosecuted, but that's not really what I meant. He definitely should face a trial, and he should be found guilty of discharging a firearm in city limits and fined $50 or thereabouts.

He should face trial, and a jury shouldn't convict him. (I say this not being able to open the sound file, but rather just hearing about it secondhand.)
Heh.

So what's your thinking here?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:09 AM
I was torn between allowing the protests and not allowing them because I don't really have a good idea of what this protest was like.
Why should this guy get away with killing 2 people for breaking into someone else's home?

patteeu
12-13-2007, 01:16 AM
Why should this guy get away with killing 2 people for breaking into someone else's home?

My understanding is that he said they came on his property and he was afraid they were going to kill him.

I could see charging this guy with something that was effectively a slap on the wrist, but nothing he's going to serve hard time for. Don't steal.

If I came home and my neighbor killed a couple of people who were robbing my house, I'd be happy that he didn't just stand by and watch them do it.

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 01:28 AM
Heh.

So what's your thinking here?

I think you have to put the person on trial and look at the evidence to be sure that he didn't commit murder. For example, if you looked at the evidence and it turned out that the dead criminals were actually coworkers of his who he was competing against for a promotion, and he invited them over for a free stereo, then the guy gets the chair (in Texas).

However, if this guy was doing no more than shooting a couple of thieves who are part of a burglary ring, give the guy a medal and a slap on the wrist. I've got no problem with someone killing a property thief during the commission of a crime. A criminal is a criminal, and if they knew that their victims could shoot at them, maybe they'd pick a different line of work.

And by the way, their race or nationality has nothing to do with it. A thief is a thief, whether it's a high school dropout stealing a stereo or Winona Ryder shoplifting clothes from Nieman Marcus. (If I caught Winona, though, I probably wouldn't kill her. I would just wrestle her to the ground and hold her down with my body until help arrived, and I would never call for help.)

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:32 AM
However, if this guy was doing no more than shooting a couple of thieves who are part of a burglary ring, give the guy a medal and a slap on the wrist. I've got no problem with someone killing a property thief during the commission of a crime. A criminal is a criminal, and if they knew that their victims could shoot at them, maybe they'd pick a different line of work.
Would you kill the man who stole your bike? I mean that seriously.And by the way, their race or nationality has nothing to do with it. A thief is a thief, whether it's a high school dropout stealing a stereo or Winona Ryder shoplifting clothes from Nieman Marcus. (If I caught Winona, though, I probably wouldn't kill her. I would just wrestle her to the ground and hold her down with my body until help arrived, and I would never call for help.)
ROFL

Hard to ever ask you a serious question, but I'm very interested in your thought. I'm quite suprised by your response, honestly.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:33 AM
My understanding is that he said they came on his property and he was afraid they were going to kill him.

I could see charging this guy with something that was effectively a slap on the wrist, but nothing he's going to serve hard time for. Don't steal.

If I came home and my neighbor killed a couple of people who were robbing my house, I'd be happy that he didn't just stand by and watch them do it.
Should thieves get the electric chair for stealing then?

If not, why not?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:35 AM
My understanding is that he said they came on his property and he was afraid they were going to kill him.
Did he claim that they approached him to kill him before or after he approached them to kill them?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:38 AM
However, if this guy was doing no more than shooting a couple of thieves who are part of a burglary ring, give the guy a medal and a slap on the wrist. I've got no problem with someone killing a property thief during the commission of a crime. A criminal is a criminal, and if they knew that their victims could shoot at them, maybe they'd pick a different line of work.
Couple things.

1) According to our constitution, those two men were presumed innocent of any crime of stealing until they have their day in court
2) Dead people don't get a day in court, ever
3) The killer wasn't the victim of the break-in

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 01:40 AM
Would you kill the man who stole your bike? I mean that seriously.
ROFL



If I was standing behind a doorway with a baseball bat and he was walking through the door with my bike, I would want to feel comfortable taking a strong shot to the criminal's head and not worrying about being tried for murder. I would want to feel comfortable nailing him hard enough that there's a 100 percent chance that he would go down and not get up, and not worrying whether I hit him "too hard." You can never hit a criminal "too hard".

The bottom line is that if I was face to face with a criminal on my property, heck yes, I think I should be allowed to kill him. How do I know he's not going to pull a gun if I just say, "Stop, thief!"? He's a criminal and he chose to be there. He should be the one who faces the risk, not me.

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 01:41 AM
Couple things.

1) According to our constitution, those two men were presumed innocent of any crime of stealing until they have their day in court
2) Dead people don't get a day in court, ever
3) The killer wasn't the victim of the break-in

So you don't think a bank guard should be allowed to shoot a bank robber? Even if the bank robber is shooting customers? Same thing.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:45 AM
If I was standing behind a doorway with a baseball bat and he was walking through the door with my bike, I would want to feel comfortable taking a strong shot to the criminal's head and not worrying about being tried for murder. I would want to feel comfortable nailing him hard enough that there's a 100 percent chance that he would go down and not get up, and not worrying whether I hit him "too hard." You can never hit a criminal "too hard".

The bottom line is that if I was face to face with a criminal on my property, heck yes, I think I should be allowed to kill him. How do I know he's not going to pull a gun if I just say, "Stop, thief!"? He's a criminal and he chose to be there. He should be the one who faces the risk, not me.
The main difference between my bike example, your response and this case before us (and your reponse to it)... is that this man was not victim of any crime and wasn't threatened by these two men until he went outside specifically to shoot them for committing what he assumed was a criminal act on his neighbor.

He put himself in danger in order to shoot two people not threatening him in anyway and not commiting any crime against him.

pr_capone
12-13-2007, 01:50 AM
Did he claim that they approached him to kill him before or after he approached them to kill them?

They were shot 10 feet from his front door. I've never known a property line that ended 10 feet or less from a front door... other than a trailer park perhaps.

As for your question regarding killing someone in the case of property theft... it really depends on the situation.

If my neighbor gets robbed and I know for a fact they are not home... I call the police, try to get a description of the thieves, and any vehicle they have.

If my neighbor gets robbed and I know for a fact they ARE home, I go in the home with my sidearm... after calling the police.

If someone comes into my home, I will open fire until I hear clicks.

My wife and I had a long discussion about this.

She feels that I should be able to asses whether the intruder means us harm, or just wants our stuff. At the very least, she feels that I should confront any intruder WITH my weapon and detain them until the police arrive.

I am not so forgiving. I do not want to give the intruder any opportunity to explain themselves, not because I am trigger happy, but because:

* I do not know their intentions for breaking in
* I do not know their prior criminal history
* I do not know if they are armed
* I do not know if they will retreat if confronted
* I do not know if I will be able to detain them until the police arrive

Simply, I am not going to take a chance on my family being injured because I hesitated.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:52 AM
So you don't think a bank guard should be allowed to shoot a bank robber? Even if the bank robber is shooting customers? Same thing.
Not quite the same thing.

The bank guard is shooting in self defense as the robber is shooting people in the bank (and he's presumably in the bank and thus at risk of being killed himself), and not because he the bank was being robbed.

A more accurate analogy would be one where a bank witnesses two men leaving someone else's bank with a bag of money and despite warnings not to, he threatens to leave his secure bank and go outside and shoot them the men... and then he does exactly that and kills them.

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 01:54 AM
As far as Sharon Tate could tell at first, Charles Manson just wanted her transister radio.

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 01:59 AM
Not quite the same thing.

The bank guard is shooting in self defense as the robber is shooting people in the bank (and he's presumably in the bank and thus at risk of being killed himself), and not because he the bank was being robbed.

A more accurate analogy would be one where a bank witnesses two men leaving someone else's bank with a bag of money and despite warnings not to, he threatens to leave his secure bank and go outside and shoot them the men... and then he does exactly that and kills them.


An even more accurate analogy is that they're leaving the first bank and there's a bunch of them and they're headed toward his bank. Do you attack while you've got surprise, or do you face them down outnumbered voluntarily? I'd vote to utilize surprise.

Obviously, the key issue here is whether he should have hidden and called the police (who most likely wouldn't have arrived in time) or whether he should have gone out to confront them. If it was my neighbor, I'd be happy that he confronted them.

For all anyone knows, they were checking out pictures of the neighbor's 14-year-old daughter and making plans to come back and rape her. If someone is committing a crime, I personally think that you have to assume that they have bad intent.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:59 AM
As far as Sharon Tate could tell at first, Charles Manson just wanted her transister radio.
What about Sharon Tate's neighbor?

Basically it seems that the reasoning of those siding with the shooter boils down to... Caveat Criminal/Robber/Burglar.


But what about Caveat Hero/Vigilante?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:02 AM
An even more accurate analogy is that they're leaving the first bank and there's a bunch of them and they're headed toward his bank. Do you attack while you've got surprise, or do you face them down outnumbered voluntarily?
False choice.

You lock the door and then maybe shoot them as they try to enter your bank.

But if you go out into the street to confront guys leaving someone else's bank, caveat hero.

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 02:04 AM
What about Sharon Tate's neighbor?

Basically it seems that the reasoning of those siding with the shooter boils down to... Caveat Criminal/Robber/Burglar.


But what about Caveat Hero/Vigilante?


Sharon probably would have appreciated intervention by a neighbor.

Kitty Genovese probably would have appreciated intervention by a passerby, too.

In any such situation, the citizen is at a big disadvantage. The criminal is choosing to be there and had time to prepare ahead of time. The risk is all absorbed by the unlucky citizen. Our laws should shift more of the risk to the criminal, in my opinion.

Again, though, you have to have a trial to ensure that all is as it appears. Otherwise, I could invite my psycho ex-boss over, kill him, and say that he was trying to steal my bike. That's not cool. It's fun to think about, but it's not cool.

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 02:05 AM
False choice.

You lock the door and then maybe shoot them as they try to enter your bank.

But if you go out into the street to confront guys leaving someone else's bank, caveat hero.


What's wrong with being a hero?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:06 AM
If my neighbor gets robbed and I know for a fact they are not home... I call the police, try to get a description of the thieves, and any vehicle they have.
In this case, the guy didn't care one bit if anyone in the house next door was at risk. He wanted to confront the thieves and shoot them for commiting a crime in his town.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:07 AM
What's wrong with being a hero?
It comes with the risk of committing murder if you do it poorly.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:14 AM
Again, though, you have to have a trial to ensure that all is as it appears. Otherwise, I could invite my psycho ex-boss over, kill him, and say that he was trying to steal my bike. That's not cool. It's fun to think about, but it's not cool.
The only exception to this is self defense.

And as I've tried to say and illustrate.

This man put his own life in the hands of these guys by leaving his house to confront them after being warned by 911 not to.

He then killed them.

Their presumed crime was stealing something from his neighbor (though, as you point out, they might have been guests of his neighbor and they were escaping a burning house through a window and saving the stuff they could safely reach on the way out).

He doesn't know what's happening next door, but leaves his house and kills them after threatening to shoot them before he left the house.

pr_capone
12-13-2007, 02:18 AM
He doesn't know what's happening next door, but leaves his house and kills them after threatening to shoot them before he left the house.

Keep in mind, though, that he did not gun them down on the neighbors property. The thieves were on HIS property, 10 feet from his door.

Unless this old man shot, then dragged the body onto his property, it was a lawful shooting... at least in Texas.

Why else, other than to cause the old man harm, would someone step foot on a person's property after committing a felony which would surely land him back in prison?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:18 AM
My understanding is that he said they came on his property and he was afraid they were going to kill him.
That excuse falls apart when you are recorded as telling the 911 operator that you are planning to leave your house and shoot them and despite orders from 911 not to do that, he proceeds to leave his house, shoot them and kill them.

The facts suggest that the 2 dead men have a stronger self defense claim against him, than he does against them.

Caveat Hero.

Rain Man
12-13-2007, 02:19 AM
Your burning house example is a perfect example of why we need a trial, and why people should make sure they know the situation before they act. If you try to be a hero and kill innocent people, then you have to pay the price for that. If you just kill a couple of criminals, then you made the right choice.

I really don't like criminals, if you haven't already figured that out. I think they make a rational choice to commit crime because they view the risk as being low enough to be tolerable. I think society needs to raise that perceived risk level.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:22 AM
Keep in mind, though, that he did not gun them down on the neighbors property. The thieves were on HIS property, 10 feet from his door.

Unless this old man shot, then dragged the body onto his property, it was a lawful shooting... at least in Texas.

Why else, other than to cause the old man harm, would someone step foot on a person's property after committing a felony which would surely land him back in prison?
Self defense.

I'm not kidding.

He was getting ready to shoot them with a gun.

Running away won't save their life. His bullets are faster.

Disarming him is the only way to protect themselves from being murdered.

If a man points a gun at you, are you going to rely on his good will or are you going to act to save your life?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:26 AM
I really don't like criminals, if you haven't already figured that out. I think they make a rational choice to commit crime because they view the risk as being low enough to be tolerable. I think society needs to raise that perceived risk level.
So anyone can kill anyone that they witness committing a crime? Should our legal system execute people from shoplifting? I mean if you can essentially have a "citizen's execution" for a property crime, why not a state execution for the same?

pr_capone
12-13-2007, 02:31 AM
Self defense.

I'm not kidding.

He was getting ready to shoot them with a gun.

Running away won't save their life. His bullets are faster.

Disarming him is the only way to protect themselves from being murdered.

If a man points a gun at you, are you going to rely on his good will or are you going to act to save your life?

There is always that option where you drop to the ground and don't move until the police arrive to cart you back to jail.

I really do not know what was going through the guy's head when he approached the old man.

I am pretty sure that *I* would not approach a man with a shotgun after I had just robbed a home though. First instinct would be to run and hope that he either is a bad shot if he does open fire, or that at least he has buckshot instead of a slug if he is a good shot.

When caught doing something wrong, people tend to want to escape the situation and as in-tact as possible. Knowing though, that he was an illegal alien and has been convicted of felonies in the past, he might have had a mind to eliminate the only person who could pick him out of a line up.

At least to me, that situation gives the old man a reasonable shot at a self defense... well, defense.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:38 AM
There is always that option where you drop to the ground and don't move until the police arrive to cart you back to jail.

I really do not know what was going through the guy's head when he approached the old man.

I am pretty sure that *I* would not approach a man with a shotgun after I had just robbed a home though. First instinct would be to run and hope that he either is a bad shot if he does open fire, or that at least he has buckshot instead of a slug if he is a good shot.

When caught doing something wrong, people tend to want to escape the situation and as in-tact as possible. Knowing though, that he was an illegal alien and has been convicted of felonies in the past, he might have had a mind to eliminate the only person who could pick him out of a line up.

At least to me, that situation gives the old man a reasonable shot at a self defense... well, defense.
Against the instructions of the 911 operator, he left the security of his home (he had a loaded gun to protect his own home) and shortly after claiming on tape that he was going to shoot them (premeditated shooting), he in fact put himself in harm's way, and shot and killed 2 guys who's only crime was breaking into someone else's house.

Again, this guy was at no risk of harm, until he decided to confront them and he shot them.

Had they broken into his home, and had he not told the 911 operator before hand that he planned on shooting them... then you might justify "self defense".

But without that, he's committed murder.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2007, 08:35 AM
....The City Council has given preliminary approval to a ban on picketing residential dwellings...

The only question I have is why don't they already ban it, like many other cities already do???

Key word: RESIDENTIAL

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 09:04 AM
This man did the correct thing, he is also receiving death threats from illegals by the dozen. I only hope my neighbors would do the same for me, especially since they came back twice to get more loot.

banyon
12-13-2007, 09:10 AM
The only question I have is why don't they already ban it, like many other cities already do???

Key word: RESIDENTIAL

That's why I voted as I did.

It's not a public forum.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:10 AM
Should thieves get the electric chair for stealing then?

If not, why not?

Probably not in most cases.

Because the crime isn't serious enough to warrant the ultimate punishment from our government. But that doesn't change my opinion about how to deal with a citizen who is protecting his neighborhood and who doesn't already have the criminals safely in custody.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:13 AM
Did he claim that they approached him to kill him before or after he approached them to kill them?

Probably not.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:14 AM
Probably not in most cases.

Because the crime isn't serious enough to warrant the ultimate punishment from our government. But that doesn't change my opinion about how to deal with a citizen who is protecting his neighborhood and who doesn't already have the criminals safely in custody.
So why is it OK for this guy to kill 2 people breaking into someone else's house (not his) if it's not OK to kill 2 other guys breaking into some other house?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:15 AM
Probably not.
I asked "before or after". What does "probably not" mean in that context?

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:17 AM
Couple things.

1) According to our constitution, those two men were presumed innocent of any crime of stealing until they have their day in court
2) Dead people don't get a day in court, ever
3) The killer wasn't the victim of the break-in

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the way our government views people. That's not relevant here.

If it turned out that these two men were actually removing property from the neighbor's house with the permission of the neighbor, I might support charging Joe Horn with a crime. As it turns out, he correctly diagnosed a crime in progress, IMO.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:17 AM
The only question I have is why don't they already ban it, like many other cities already do???

Key word: RESIDENTIAL
That's why I voted as I did.

It's not a public forum.
They aren't (as far as I can tell) picketing on RESIDENTIAL property. But presumably PUBLIC property.

Where do you draw the line? What about mixed use (ie, in front of a loft-type property with a business downstairs and a loft/residence up stairs?

banyon
12-13-2007, 09:19 AM
This may be the thing that saves him in the end:

The operator said, “No, no.” But Mr. Horn said: “I can’t take a chance of getting killed over this, O.K.? I’m going to shoot.”

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:25 AM
"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the way our government views people. That's not relevant here.

If it turned out that these two men were actually removing property from the neighbor's house with the permission of the neighbor, I might support charging Joe Horn with a crime. As it turns out, he correctly diagnosed a crime in progress, IMO.
Until a trial occurs, these men are innocent of any crime, no matter Joe's opinion on the street at that moment. He approached 2 men who until he approached them, were no threat to him. He then shot them and claimed it was because they threatened him.

In fact, the audio recording proves otherwise. He approached and threatened their lives.

And also in fact, his shooting was premeditated and recorded so on tape.

He left his house in order to shoot them. They died as a result of that shooting.

He is a murder. And at worst he an aggravated manslaughterer (if that's a word).

banyon
12-13-2007, 09:26 AM
They aren't (as far as I can tell) picketing on RESIDENTIAL property. But presumably PUBLIC property.

Where do you draw the line? What about mixed use (ie, in front of a loft-type property with a business downstairs and a loft/residence up stairs?

In general this is the test (I posted this in a different thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=173539&highlight=public) about Fred Phelps):

Supreme Court jurisprudence has over the last fifty years developed a framework for differentiating places available for public speech.

They differentiate between 1) public forums - places that have traditionally been used for political speech and are held in trust for the public (streets, parks) You can only regulate speech in these places with content-neutral time place and manner restrictions (unless there are really compelling reasons to regulate content), 2) limited public forums- public property that the government could close to the public, but instead has opened it for public use for expressive activity (university campuses are a typical example, the campus could close to the public if they choose, but if they let some groups demonstrate, they must stay content neutral) As long as the state keeps the property open, they must comply with the requirements that would apply to category 1 public forums, and 3) non-public forums government property that they can close to all speech activities. They can regulate speech, so long as the regulation is "reasonable" and "viewpoint-neutral".

There are many Supreme Court cases that decided whether ceertain places were public forums (1) or non-public (3). They ruled on County jails, U.S. Army posts, City subway advertisements, "postal sidewalks", airports. The problem with the Phelps gang is that the Court hadn't really previously ruled if public cemetaries were public forums. Why not? Because no one had been f***ing petty and spiteful enough to protest funerals in a vindictive and offensive way before.

It's my recollection from watching the video that these people weren't marching, didn't apply for any permits and were basically standing in people's yards.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:28 AM
This may be the thing that saves him in the end:

The operator said, “No, no.” But Mr. Horn said: “I can’t take a chance of getting killed over this, O.K.? I’m going to shoot.”
"...this..." refers to leaving his house to confront them.

Ie, "I'm going to recklessly approach 2 men I think are robbers and take my gun to shoot them".

The thing that might save him will be jury selection.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:28 AM
If I was standing behind a doorway with a baseball bat and he was walking through the door with my bike, I would want to feel comfortable taking a strong shot to the criminal's head and not worrying about being tried for murder. I would want to feel comfortable nailing him hard enough that there's a 100 percent chance that he would go down and not get up, and not worrying whether I hit him "too hard." You can never hit a criminal "too hard".

The bottom line is that if I was face to face with a criminal on my property, heck yes, I think I should be allowed to kill him. How do I know he's not going to pull a gun if I just say, "Stop, thief!"? He's a criminal and he chose to be there. He should be the one who faces the risk, not me.

Exactly. And this doesn't apply to Rain Man because he's actually Chuck Norris-like in his ability to kick ass with his bare hands, but for me I can't take a chance that that thief is going to get up and get into hand to hand combat with me because I've got the fighting skills of Barney Fife.

banyon
12-13-2007, 09:31 AM
"...this..." refers to leaving his house to confront them.

Ie, "I'm going to recklessly approach 2 men I think are robbers and take my gun to shoot them".

The thing that might save him will be jury selection.

You make it sound like he got in his motorcycle and led them on a high speed chase.

He was standing in his doorway on his own property.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:32 AM
public forums - places that have traditionally been used for political speech and are held in trust for the public (streets, parks)
Keyword "streets".

It's my recollection from watching the video that these people weren't marching, didn't apply for any permits and were basically standing in people's yards.
Then the banning can be limited to trespassing on private property in order to protest (which is surely a redundant ban on trespassing itself).

But banning protest on a public street (which is the more interesting point here) simply because the protest is directed at an individual is wrong.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:33 AM
Not quite the same thing.

The bank guard is shooting in self defense as the robber is shooting people in the bank (and he's presumably in the bank and thus at risk of being killed himself), and not because he the bank was being robbed.

A more accurate analogy would be one where a bank witnesses two men leaving someone else's bank with a bag of money and despite warnings not to, he threatens to leave his secure bank and go outside and shoot them the men... and then he does exactly that and kills them.

How does this play against your "innocent until proven guilty" reasoning? Rain Man's analogy is just fine to tease out that issue.

Chiefnj2
12-13-2007, 09:37 AM
Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand...

banyon
12-13-2007, 09:38 AM
Keyword "streets".


Then the banning can be limited to trespassing on private property in order to protest (which is surely a redundant ban on trespassing itself).

But banning protest on a public street (which is the more interesting point here) simply because the protest is directed at an individual is wrong.

You can march through a street, but you can't stand in it.

The ban is not worded in a way to direct itself at an individual. It would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Chiefnj2
12-13-2007, 09:41 AM
If they let them protest I wonder if they will do a big illegal immigrant sweep of the protest.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:44 AM
I asked "before or after". What does "probably not" mean in that context?

OK, change that "probably not" to "I don't know".

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:44 AM
If they let them protest I wonder if they will do a big illegal immigrant sweep of the protest.
Caveat Immigrant?

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:48 AM
So why is it OK for this guy to kill 2 people breaking into someone else's house (not his) if it's not OK to kill 2 other guys breaking into some other house?

Because I don't think it's OK for the government to kill someone who is already safely in custody for this type of crime, in most circumstances.

I see the case of an individual who is observing the crime as it occurs and who is not necessarily trained or equipped to safely apprehend the criminals as distinguishable.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:50 AM
How does this play against your "innocent until proven guilty" reasoning? Rain Man's analogy is just fine to tease out that issue.
In RM's analogy, the guard is under direct threat to his life. He can act in self defense without acting to prevent a presumed crime.

But that wasn't the case in this case, so I proposed a revision of the analogy that is more tightly related to the facts of this case. The security guard wasn't acting to prevent robbers from shooting people in his bank. He (analogetically?) left his safe bank and went into the street to confront 2 assumed robbers of another bank.

Finally, security guards are presumably indentified as such, and not some random threatening person pointing a gun at you.

The analogy was flawed.

Saggysack
12-13-2007, 09:50 AM
I really don't have a opinion on the case. I do think it is quite funny though that jAZ views those 2 burglars as innocent till proven guilty but doesn't allow Joe Horn the same.

Only thing I see here is 2 sides of the arguement buried in their own bullshit. Buy a reality shovel.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:52 AM
Because I don't think it's OK for the government to kill someone who is already safely in custody for this type of crime, in most circumstances.

I see the case of an individual who is observing the crime as it occurs and who is not necessarily trained or equipped to safely apprehend the criminals as distinguishable.
And simliarly is not properly equiped to judge if it's a crime or if he's shooting and killing a heroic citizen.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:53 AM
Until a trial occurs, these men are innocent of any crime, no matter Joe's opinion on the street at that moment. He approached 2 men who until he approached them, were no threat to him. He then shot them and claimed it was because they threatened him.

In fact, the audio recording proves otherwise. He approached and threatened their lives.

And also in fact, his shooting was premeditated and recorded so on tape.

He left his house in order to shoot them. They died as a result of that shooting.

He is a murder. And at worst he an aggravated manslaughterer (if that's a word).

The guy who is raping your wife while you lay bleeding on the floor from a gut shot is just as "innocent until proven guilty" as these guys were, but no one would object if you draw your backup weapon from it's ankle holster and shoot the guy in the head. You just don't understand what "innocent until proven guilty" is all about.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:54 AM
It's my recollection from watching the video that these people weren't marching, didn't apply for any permits and were basically standing in people's yards.

He ought to just shoot a few of them. That will probably take care of the problem. ;)

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:54 AM
I really don't have a opinion on the case. I do think it is quite funny though that jAZ views those 2 burglars as innocent till proven guilty but doesn't allow Joe Horn the same.
Were I to go shoot him right now, you'd have a point. I will not be doing that, and do in fact (as I alluded to by saying his best shot at getting off is "jury selection") want to see him prosecuted (as I voted) and go before a jury (again, as I indicated).

;)

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:56 AM
He ought to just shoot a few of them. That will probably take care of the problem. ;)
That is sarcasm, but it's exactly what happened.

He killed 2 guys who he thought were committing a relatively benign crime (against someone else no less).

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:57 AM
In RM's analogy, the guard is under direct threat to his life. He can act in self defense without acting to prevent a presumed crime.

But that wasn't the case in this case, so I proposed a revision of the analogy that is more tightly related to the facts of this case. The security guard wasn't acting to prevent robbers from shooting people in his bank. He (analogetically?) left his safe bank and went into the street to confront 2 assumed robbers of another bank.

Finally, security guards are presumably indentified as such, and not some random threatening person pointing a gun at you.

The analogy was flawed.

It's not flawed for the purpose that I'm using it. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't have an "except for cases of self defense" caveat. The fact is, it doesn't apply to this case at all.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 09:58 AM
The guy who is raping your wife while you lay bleeding on the floor from a gut shot is just as "innocent until proven guilty" as these guys were, but no one would object if you draw your backup weapon from it's ankle holster and shoot the guy in the head. You just don't understand what "innocent until proven guilty" is all about.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in either of your or RM's analogies because in both cases, you are acting in self defense.

This guy was not acting in self defense when he left the safety of his own home to go shoot 2 presumed robbers of SOMEONE ELSES home.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 10:00 AM
And simliarly is not properly equiped to judge if it's a crime or if he's shooting and killing a heroic citizen.

If he turns out to be wrong then I'd have a problem with his actions if I determined that he acted recklessly or unreasonably. He ought to be fairly certain that he's right about his assumptions before he pulls his trigger, but I don't want to paralyze him by making the risk too high.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 10:01 AM
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in either of your or RM's analogies because in both cases, you are acting in self defense.

This guy was not acting in self defense when he left the safety of his own home to go shoot 2 presumed robbers of SOMEONE ELSES home.

Like I said, you just don't understand what "innocent until proven guilty" is all about. It has no relevance here.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 10:03 AM
It's not flawed for the purpose that I'm using it. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't have an "except for cases of self defense" caveat. The fact is, it doesn't apply to this case at all.
He wasn't acting in self-defense. That's your flaw.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 10:03 AM
Like I said, you just don't understand what "innocent until proven guilty" is all about. It has no relevance here.
I do, acting in self defense has no relevance here.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 10:04 AM
Until a trial occurs, these men are innocent of any crime, no matter Joe's opinion on the street at that moment. He approached 2 men who until he approached them, were no threat to him. He then shot them and claimed it was because they threatened him.

In fact, the audio recording proves otherwise. He approached and threatened their lives.

And also in fact, his shooting was premeditated and recorded so on tape.

He left his house in order to shoot them. They died as a result of that shooting.

He is a murder. And at worst he an aggravated manslaughterer (if that's a word).

This is all speculation on your part. The only fact you’ve posted here is that they died as a result of a shooting. Otherwise it’s all speculation based on an audio not video tape, and I assume a little hearsay as to other evidence.
But, since we are speculating lets add this up. There is no evidence I’ve seen or heard that Mr. Horn ever left his property. In fact, the evidence I’ve seen and heard tends to point to these two men approaching Mr. Horn after he announced his presence.
You can’t hear these two men on the audio tape so you have no way of concluding who was threatening whom. The closest you can come to hearing a “threat” is when Mr. Horn says, “No, you’re dead” just before shooting, but that begs the question of why did he say that? What was he responding too, since it’s obviously a response to something these two men said.
Since we can hear Mr. Horn fairly clearly, it’s a reasonable speculation that he was actually in his doorway, or on his own porch, leading back to the first point that he didn’t leave his property.
We also can surmise that since we hear the police cars showing up just moments after this shooting that Mr. Horn didn’t have time to tamper with the evidence.
Now, as far as I know the investigation is on going. If that investigation turns up enough evidence to show, I believe the term would be, malicious intent then he should be prosecuted. If it doesn’t, he shouldn’t.
I'll leave that one up to the Texas legal system.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 10:06 AM
This is all speculation on your part. The only fact you’ve posted here is that they died as a result of a shooting. Otherwise it’s all speculation based on an audio not video tape, and I assume a little hearsay as to other evidence.
But, since we are speculating lets add this up. There is no evidence I’ve seen or heard that Mr. Horn ever left his property. In fact, the evidence I’ve seen and heard tends to point to these two men approaching Mr. Horn after he announced his presence.
You can’t hear these two men on the audio tape so you have no way of concluding who was threatening whom. The closest you can come to hearing a “threat” is when Mr. Horn says, “No, you’re dead” just before shooting, but that begs the question of why did he say that? What was he responding too, since it’s obviously a response to something these two men said.
Since we can hear Mr. Horn fairly clearly, it’s a reasonable speculation that he was actually in his doorway, or on his own porch, leading back to the first point that he didn’t leave his property.
We also can surmise that since we hear the police cars showing up just moments after this shooting that Mr. Horn didn’t have time to tamper with the evidence.
Now, as far as I know the investigation is on going. If that investigation turns up enough evidence to show, I believe the term would be, malicious intent then he should be prosecuted. If it doesn’t, he shouldn’t.
I'll leave that one up to the Texas legal system.
Have you heard the recording yourself?

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 10:07 AM
Have you heard the recording yourself?

Yes. You?

banyon
12-13-2007, 10:08 AM
“I had no choice,” Mr. Horn said when he called 911 back. “They came in the front yard with me, man.”

Captain Corbett said that a plainclothes officer had pulled up just in time to see Mr. Horn pointing his shotgun at both men across his front yard, that Mr. Ortiz had at one point started to run in a way that took him closer to Mr. Horn, and that both men “received gunfire from the rear.”

That fact, alone, however, was not necessarily conclusive, Captain Corbett said. “It tells an investigator something, but not everything,” he added. “They could still have been seen as a threat.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 10:12 AM
“I had no choice,” Mr. Horn said when he called 911 back. “They came in the front yard with me, man.”

Captain Corbett said that a plainclothes officer had pulled up just in time to see Mr. Horn pointing his shotgun at both men across his front yard, that Mr. Ortiz had at one point started to run in a way that took him closer to Mr. Horn, and that both men “received gunfire from the rear.”

That fact, alone, however, was not necessarily conclusive, Captain Corbett said. “It tells an investigator something, but not everything,” he added. “They could still have been seen as a threat.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Now that’s an interesting bit of evidence I hadn’t heard before. Typically, shooting someone from behind could not be construed as “self defense”.
I’ll still wait for the results of the investigation.

ChiefsGirl
12-13-2007, 10:21 AM
I think a person should be able to protect their home and property but I think this guy went too far. The 911 operator tried really hard to talk him out of it. And he did shoot them in the back. It hardly seems as if he was defending himself.

banyon
12-13-2007, 10:24 AM
Now that’s an interesting bit of evidence I hadn’t heard before. Typically, shooting someone from behind could not be construed as “self defense”.
I’ll still wait for the results of the investigation.

They could have been turning to avoid the blast.

noa
12-13-2007, 10:29 AM
I am very sympathetic to the importance of private property in America, and of course have little sympathy for thieves, but still, human life has to trump that.
If the guy truly felt that his life was threatened, then I'd be okay with him shooting to kill.
However, it does seem that they weren't threatening him when he shot them in the back.
Traditionally, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property, unless it is the only option for protecting yourself or your family.
Either way, I think the guy should be prosecuted and let him make his case in court.
As for Rain Man, if a guy stole your bike without threatening your safety and you shot him in the head, you might feel justified in doing so, but you would probably go to jail for it.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 10:32 AM
I think a person should be able to protect their home and property but I think this guy went too far. The 911 operator tried really hard to talk him out of it. And he did shoot them in the back. It hardly seems as if he was defending himself.

Lets wait for the final results of the investigation.
The position of the plain cloths officer and his line of sight angle to the crime scene is all pertinent to the investigation. Depending on the line of sight angle to the crime scene, it could appear as though these two men were walking away from Mr. Horn when they weren’t. Though, the direction of the entrance wounds would be pretty telling evidence in this regard.
There is a slight possibility it could still be “self defense”, but an eyewitness account of them being hit from behind puts a pretty big ding in Mr. Horn’s defense.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 10:33 AM
They could have been turning to avoid the blast.

Good point.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 10:36 AM
I am very sympathetic to the importance of private property in America, and of course have little sympathy for thieves, but still, human life has to trump that.
If the guy truly felt that his life was threatened, then I'd be okay with him shooting to kill.
However, it does seem that they weren't threatening him when he shot them in the back.
Traditionally, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property, unless it is the only option for protecting yourself or your family.
Either way, I think the guy should be prosecuted and let him make his case in court.
As for Rain Man, if a guy stole your bike without threatening your safety and you shot him in the head, you might feel justified in doing so, but you would probably go to jail for it.

Texas recently introduced a law called, IIRC, the “Castle Doctrine” that makes deadly force acceptable for protecting property.
Mr. Horn is leaning pretty heavily on that, we’ll see what shakes out at the end.

noa
12-13-2007, 10:44 AM
Actually, I just took a look at the law Radar and you are right. I guess the laws in Texas are different. That definitely changes my perspective on this case.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 10:51 AM
Texas recently introduced a law called, IIRC, the “Castle Doctrine” that makes deadly force acceptable for protecting property.
Mr. Horn is leaning pretty heavily on that, we’ll see what shakes out at the end.
Your own property or that of someone else?

jAZ
12-13-2007, 10:54 AM
Texas recently introduced a law called, IIRC, the “Castle Doctrine” that makes deadly force acceptable for protecting property.
Mr. Horn is leaning pretty heavily on that, we’ll see what shakes out at the end.
Interesting, and highly releveant information.

Thanks for adding it.

Based on this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

It doesn't sound like he'll have much of a case, since they weren't breaking into his home.

Were his neighbor to have killed them when they were in his home, that's different.... as I've tried to say all along.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 10:56 AM
Yes. You?
Yes, as I said, it showed up on Digg before the media got hold of the story.

My description is a reasonable retelling of the facts as witnessed by the audio recording.

Your assessment of my retelling is off base and suggests that you haven't heard the audio recording.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 11:07 AM
Yes, as I said, it showed up on Digg before the media got hold of the story.

My description is a reasonable retelling of the facts as witnessed by the audio recording.

Your assessment of my retelling is off base and suggests that you haven't heard the audio recording.

You added a lot of speculation not apparent on the audio tape. I pointed that out.
When I added speculation to my take, I tried to point it out also. That’s the difference.

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 11:08 AM
Your own property or that of someone else?

I don’t know. The lawyers are apparently going to have to work that one out.

Holy crap! Hit the 100th and didn’t even notice. :eek: I’m slipping.

banyon
12-13-2007, 11:21 AM
Actually, this is probably the worst punishment of all. How would you like this to be your scene of death:

Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, was found across the street beside a sleigh and a Santa cow with a sign, “Have a Moo-ry Christmas,”

banyon
12-13-2007, 11:54 AM
A TX property crime statute (this is different than most states):

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00

jAZ
12-13-2007, 12:24 PM
A TX property crime statute (this is different than most states):

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00
Wow.

Does this mean if I'm in Texas, can shoot and kill someone if I witness them vandalizing the wall of a liquor store?

Thank can't be constitutional, but I will stand corrected if that's the relevant Texas law (and it is constitutional).

patteeu
12-13-2007, 12:37 PM
Wow.

Does this mean if I'm in Texas, can shoot and kill someone if I witness them vandalizing the wall of a liquor store?

Thank can't be constitutional, but I will stand corrected if that's the relevant Texas law (and it is constitutional).

:spock: What would be unconstitutional about a law like the one you describe? (Answer: Nothing. If a state wants to make it a defense to the charge of murder that a shooter had a reasonable belief that the victim was vandalizing wall, they could do it. It might be unwise, but it shouldn't be unconstitutional.).

But maybe it will make you feel better to know that I think you're misreading this particular law.

StcChief
12-13-2007, 12:42 PM
Pasedena TX is sh1t hole. in the smelly ship canal area
by all the refineries.

Burglar was likely trying to get away from the smell.

In Texas shot first ask questions later.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 12:43 PM
A TX property crime statute (this is different than most states):

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00



Mr. Horn better hope his neighbor remembers the time he requested Mr. Horn protect his property.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 12:45 PM
Wow.

Does this mean if I'm in Texas, can shoot and kill someone if I witness them vandalizing the wall of a liquor store?

Thank can't be constitutional, but I will stand corrected if that's the relevant Texas law (and it is constitutional).


What would be the basis for a constitutional challenge?

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 12:54 PM
Mr. Horn better hope his neighbor remembers the time he requested Mr. Horn protect his property.
Mr. trndobrd better hope he remembers the definition of 'or.' ;)

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:00 PM
What would be the basis for a constitutional challenge?
Two areas seem obvious...

Article 4 & 8.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 01:00 PM
Mr. trndobrd better hope he remembers the definition of 'or.' ;)


I assumed Mr. Horn didn't have a legal duty to protect his neighbor's property, nor have I heard any mention on Mrs. Horn being at the neighbor's house. In fact, I believe Joe Horn is the one with the history sexing up the married ladies.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:03 PM
:spock: What would be unconstitutional about a law like the one you describe? (Answer: Nothing. If a state wants to make it a defense to the charge of murder that a shooter had a reasonable belief that the victim was vandalizing wall, they could do it. It might be unwise, but it shouldn't be unconstitutional.).

But maybe it will make you feel better to know that I think you're misreading this particular law.
The state would in doing so contract out the role of judge, jury and executioner. And in doing that violate A4 and A8.

Baby Lee
12-13-2007, 01:03 PM
I assumed Mr. Horn didn't have a legal duty to protect his neighbor's property, nor have I heard any mention on Mrs. Horn being at the neighbor's house. In fact, I believe Joe Horn is the one with the history sexing up the married ladies.
there's an 'or' between (1) and (2) as well.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 01:04 PM
Two areas seem obvious...

Article 4 & 8.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"


Felony theft is not a privilege. In this case the state is not an actor, nor is the felon in state custody.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 01:06 PM
there's an 'or' between (1) and (2) as well.


Oh...that 'or'. Good thing I'm not in the Defense biz anymore.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:08 PM
I assumed Mr. Horn didn't have a legal duty to protect his neighbor's property, nor have I heard any mention on Mrs. Horn being at the neighbor's house. In fact, I believe Joe Horn is the one with the history sexing up the married ladies.
I think (for once) BL is right.

JH (according to that law) may indeed "reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property".

As I read it, that statute effectively legallizes killing someone if you witness them commit any sort of "criminal mischief" committed against "tangile property".

If I throw toilet paper into the trees of your house and BL sees me, he can kill me for doing so.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:10 PM
Felony theft is not a privilege. In this case the state is not an actor, nor is the felon in state custody.
The state is an actor by making the law cited above. "No State shall make or enforce any law..." is the key language here.

StcChief
12-13-2007, 01:13 PM
I think (for once) BL is right.

JH (according to that law) may indeed "reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property".

As I read it, that statute effectively legallizes killing someone if you witness them commit any sort of "criminal mischief" committed against "tangile property".

If I throw toilet paper into the trees of your house and BL sees me, he can kill me for doing so.
yep. Shot first and ask questions later.

imagine if the rest of america operated that way....

Criminals wouldn't know who had guns and was afraid to use them.

Conceal and carry attempt to keep 'em from messing with you and your property

jAZ
12-13-2007, 01:18 PM
yep. Shot first and ask questions later.

imagine if the rest of america operated that way....

Criminals wouldn't know who had guns and was afraid to use them.

Conceal and carry attempt to keep 'em from messing with you and your property
The state can't authorize such behavior constitutionally.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 01:24 PM
The state can't authorize such behavior constitutionally.

Please stop talking about the constitution. It's supposed to be an accessible document, but apparently it's not accessible enough.

StcChief
12-13-2007, 01:24 PM
The state can't authorize such behavior constitutionally.
so these "guys" breaking in to your house, whatta do?
what do you want your neighbor to do call cops hope they show up.

ChiefsGirl
12-13-2007, 01:27 PM
so these "guys" breaking in to your house, whatta do?
what do you want your neighbor to do call cops hope they show up.

I don't own anything worth killing people over. Even a couple of worthless thieves.

banyon
12-13-2007, 01:30 PM
The state can't authorize such behavior constitutionally.

The state didn't.

You've got the 5th/14th amendment all wrong. It is a prohibition on government taking without process, not a private person taking.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 01:47 PM
The state is an actor by making the law cited above. "No State shall make or enforce any law..." is the key language here.


The law does not interfere with anyone's "privileges or immunities".

Yes, the state created the law, but the state is not an actor in the sense of taking away someone's life, liberty or property. The 5th amendment is a restriction on government actions, not the actions of individual citzens.

If I take you hostage, I am not violating the Constitution and you have no constitutional claim against me. I would be violating a state criminal statute and you would have a claim against me in tort law.

This section of the TX Penal code is, in fact, a defense to homocide. Similar to codified mental impariment statutes, it does not interfere with Constitutional rights of the individual killed.

Taken to the ultimate extreme, there is no Constitutional requirement that any state create or enforce any criminal statute prohibiting homocide.

banyon
12-13-2007, 01:50 PM
The law does not interfere with anyone's "privileges or immunities".

Yes, the state created the law, but the state is not an actor in the sense of taking away someone's life, liberty or property. The 5th amendment is a restriction on government actions, not the actions of individual citzens.

If I take you hostage, I am not violating the Constitution and you have no constitutional claim against me. I would be violating a state criminal statute and you would have a claim against me in tort law.

This section of the TX Penal code is, in fact, a defense to homocide. Similar to codified mental impariment statutes, it does not interfere with Constitutional rights of the individual killed.

Taken to the ultimate extreme, there is no Constitutional requirement that any state create or enforce any criminal statute prohibiting homocide.

That was better than my explanation. I was feeling lazy today. :)

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 01:52 PM
That was better than my explanation. I was feeling lazy today. :)


Fess up! Now that you're working for The Man, you don't give a damn about any of those alleged Constitutional rights, do you?

patteeu
12-13-2007, 01:54 PM
Fess up! Now that you're working for The Man, you don't give a damn about any of those alleged Constitutional rights, do you?

LMAO

Radar Chief
12-13-2007, 02:00 PM
I don't own anything worth killing people over. Even a couple of worthless thieves.

Thats assuming all they want is your stuff.
I have mixed feelings about this law as I’d have a hard time ending someone’s life over my neighbors Tivo. If I caught someone breaking into my house, they’d get a .45 ACP JHP center mass and I wouldn’t loose a wink of sleep over it. But doing the same thing over my neighbors junk? I just don’t know.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:11 PM
The state didn't.

You've got the 5th/14th amendment all wrong. It is a prohibition on government taking without process, not a private person taking.
If the state makes a law specifically authorizing a person to take action, the state takes action. Enacting that law is the violation of the constitution.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:22 PM
The law does not interfere with anyone's "privileges or immunities".

Yes, the state created the law, but the state is not an actor in the sense of taking away someone's life, liberty or property. The 5th amendment is a restriction on government actions, not the actions of individual citzens.

If I take you hostage, I am not violating the Constitution and you have no constitutional claim against me. I would be violating a state criminal statute and you would have a claim against me in tort law.

This section of the TX Penal code is, in fact, a defense to homocide. Similar to codified mental impariment statutes, it does not interfere with Constitutional rights of the individual killed.

Taken to the ultimate extreme, there is no Constitutional requirement that any state create or enforce any criminal statute prohibiting homocide.
When the state takes affirmative action to outline death as a permissable reaction to observation of a property crime, that state is taking ownership of the actions.

Were the state to take no legislative position on the issue, it wouldn't then be a constitutional issue.

But Texas enacting that law raises all kinds of constitutional questions. Hell, it takes away the role of the judicial branch of government entirely and (again) assigns the role of judge, jury and executioner to the general public (something that our constitution establishes agreed systems explicitly to prevent).

banyon
12-13-2007, 02:32 PM
If the state makes a law specifically authorizing a person to take action, the state takes action. Enacting that law is the violation of the constitution.

They didn't specifically authorize anything. They generally outlined the parameters of the self-defense portion of their homicide statute.

The state didn't do anything one way or the other to convince Mr. Horn to pull the trigger.

banyon
12-13-2007, 02:36 PM
Fess up! Now that you're working for The Man, you don't give a damn about any of those alleged Constitutional rights, do you?

Hey, I've still got 20 days left before I lose my "objectivity". :)

jAZ
12-13-2007, 02:42 PM
They didn't specifically authorize anything. They generally outlined the parameters of the self-defense portion of their homicide statute.

The state didn't do anything one way or the other to convince Mr. Horn to pull the trigger.
They very much do authorize taking specific action and that legislatively endorsed action against property crimes is very much a cruel and unusual punishment.

That law, as I read it, quite literally authorizes a citizen adjudicated death sentence for TP-ing a person's house.

There is no way in hell that such a law is constitutional.

banyon
12-13-2007, 02:59 PM
They very much do authorize taking specific action and that legislatively endorsed action against property crimes is very much a cruel and unusual punishment.

I guess you must mean something different by "specific" than I do. What do you mean?

That law, as I read it, quite literally authorizes a citizen adjudicated death sentence for TP-ing a person's house.

Not at all. Maybe go back and re-read this part:
if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be

There is no way in hell that such a law is constitutional.

Which is it, the TX legislature is full of idiots who couldn't have seen what your cursory analysis revealed, or is it that maybe you haven't thought this through fully?

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 03:49 PM
When the state takes affirmative action to outline death as a permissable reaction to observation of a property crime, that state is taking ownership of the actions.

Were the state to take no legislative position on the issue, it wouldn't then be a constitutional issue.

But Texas enacting that law raises all kinds of constitutional questions. Hell, it takes away the role of the judicial branch of government entirely and (again) assigns the role of judge, jury and executioner to the general public (something that our constitution establishes agreed systems explicitly to prevent).


This is quite a novel view of Constitutional law, but let's follow the rabbit down the hole....

By your definition, the state takes ownership of actions that occur within the bounds of an affirmative defense to the criminal code.* Thereby, the state is violating my constitutional rights when someone stabs me and successfully asserts the affirmative defense of incapacity. I have been killed without due process. The state has created a system by which my neighbor's dog is the final arbiter of life and death for those of us unfortunate enough to be part of the great conspiracy (at least in the mind of the killer).

Similarly, the state would be violating some Constitutional right of mine if I was shot and killed while attempting to rape someone who successfully defended herself and asserted a claim of self-defense.

You suggestion that but for the state taking a position on homocide in the first place, it would not be a Constitutional issue. However, the result would be the same, someone would be dead without due process and the individual responsible would not be imprisoned.

In truth, no duties are assigned to anyone unless they are acting at the direction of state agents. The actions of an individual, legal or illegal, have never been constrained by the Constitution. It is only when that person acts as an agent of the state that Constitutional protections become realized.

jAZ
12-13-2007, 08:54 PM
I guess you must mean something different by "specific" than I do. What do you mean?
"A person is justified in using force or deadly force"
Not at all. Maybe go back and re-read this part: "if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be"
9.43 extends 9.42 which says...

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land ... when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.. to prevent the other's imminent commission of ... criminal mischief during the nighttime..."


If the landowner sees a teen with his arm cocked and ready to commit criminal mischief and throw the toilet paper... and the owner is 100 yards away holding a gun... the only way reasonable to "prevent the other's imminent commission of ... criminal mischief" (throwing that TP) is the fire his gun. He can't run as 100 yards and tackle the guy before the guy can throw the TP. The bullet travels much faster than he can.

Again, the language speaks to his reasonable belief that deadly is needed to prevent the criminal mischief. NOT that it's reasonable to use deadly force to prevent that mischief in the first place. In fact the law explicitly defines the latter as reasonable by it's very authorization, which is my point.
Which is it, the TX legislature is full of idiots who couldn't have seen what your cursory analysis revealed, or is it that maybe you haven't thought this through fully?
I don't know if they need to be idiots in order to pass this law. They could just not care. This is the "shoot first, ask questions later" Lone Star State we are talking about.

Not to mention all the varied federal laws that are passed because politics of the moment are weighted more heavily than any collective judgement of the constitutionality of the law itself (see Protect America Act of 2007).

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 09:19 PM
I don't own anything worth killing people over. Even a couple of worthless thieves.


That would be a reasonable thought process if not for one minor detail.

Too many thieves are willing to Kill YOU for those same worthless possessions.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:22 PM
That would be a reasonable thought process if not for one minor detail.

Too many thieves are willing to Kill YOU for those same worthless possessions.

Please keep your voice down. jAZ is trying to study law at the ChiefsPlanet law school. His teachers appear to have their work cut out for them as the lessons don't seem to be taking.

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 09:28 PM
The neighbor, whose home he was protecting should purchase a few cases of air horns.....stand at the edge of the curb blast them in the direction of any protesters ear he can locate within 100 feet.

Nothing like protesting for some thieving, burglarizing c@cksuckers.

I'll bet Shawn Taylor's family wishes Mr Jones had been his neighbor.

pr_capone
03-13-2008, 12:25 AM
How the f*ck can anyone vote that the guy should not be prosecuted?

Did anyone voting for that actually listen to the 9/11 call?

He's guilty as f*ck of cold blooded murder and they caught it on tape.

He's going to the electric chair because he's a stupid m*therf*cker.

Yeah.... so how is your prediction working out for you so far?

No charges have been pressed and was never arrested.

After all your blustering about your knowledge of the law and how it was going to be applied to Mr. Horn's case... I have a little something for you to snack on.

http://www.english-country-garden.com/a/i/birds/crow-1.jpg