(TX) Joe Horn Cleared in Shooting deaths

[jahwarrior72]

i'm gonna get flamed, but i don't think he should have shot those men, despite the fact that they were lowlives. he didn't need to go outside and put himself in harm's way. it was unnecessary, and foolish. i fully support the use of deadly force to protect life, but to kill someone over a hi-def tv? is a tv, or some other material possession, really that important? he should've just called the police, and leave it at that.

that said, i'm not going to cry over those two. i'm just not gonna shoot a guy for stealing someone else's stuff.

[ChamberedRound]

i'm gonna get flamed, but i don't think he should have shot those men, despite the fact that they were lowlives. he didn't need to go outside and put himself in harm's way. it was unnecessary, and foolish. i fully support the use of deadly force to protect life, but to kill someone over a hi-def tv? is a tv, or some other material possession, really that important? he should've just called the police, and leave it at that.

that said, i'm not going to cry over those two. i'm just not gonna shoot a guy for stealing someone else's stuff.

Texas law allows the use of deadly force not only for the defense of one's life, or the life of another, but also for the defense of one's property. Would I have done what he did? I can't say, but based on Texas law I'm pretty sure he was acting within it. Obviously his peers on the jury thought so.

[MrUgly]

I'm sorry, but I can't see this as a victory. The man was in no danger, his property was in no danger and the man's neighbor was in no danger.

I do not feel he should have been cleared. I'm all for self-defense and defense of your property, but going outside, and shooting two men in the back, well, that's just wrong. That was vigilantism, plain and simple.

Also, if you are applauding the death of two humans, you should be ashamed. One death or a thousand, it's too many. It is sometimes required in society, but it should never be cause for celebration.

[Pa. Patriot]

As CH mentioned. It is legal to defend property in TX with deadly force. So yes, he should be cleared by law.

Would I defend property by lethal force given the option? Dunno. Would depend on the circumstances I guess.

Point again being it is a choice in TX and Joe chose to. I guess the crooks should consider their choice to take up residency there if they don't like it We all make choices and live with the consequences. I think I'd rather choose to live somewhere that gave me the option to defend my property by force. Because I know that even if I personally would not do so the chances of being burglarized are probably lower than not

[VMJade]

I'm sorry, but I can't see this as a victory. The man was in no danger, his property was in no danger and the man's neighbor was in no danger.

I do not feel he should have been cleared. I'm all for self-defense and defense of your property, but going outside, and shooting two men in the back, well, that's just wrong. That was vigilantism, plain and simple.

Also, if you are applauding the death of two humans, you should be ashamed. One death or a thousand, it's too many. It is sometimes required in society, but it should never be cause for celebration.

I respectfully disagree.

He absolutely should have been cleared, as he broke no law. What he did was entirely legal. You disagree with the action, that's fine, I understand. But saying a man ought to be imprisoned for taking action you disagree with, which is what you're doing, is not something I can accept.

Furthermore, I would argue that these men made a choice to illegally come to this country, and further made a choice to steal. This is the consequence of that choice.

While I may or may not have pulled the trigger in that situation, I cannot blame the man for what he did. In fact, I would feel privileged to be that man's neighbor.

I also disagree that every life is equally valuable. I just cannot stomach the thought that a criminal is worth as much as a law-abiding individual. I especially cannot agree that someone who was given a second chance (deportation) and came back to break our laws again deserves my pity.

Perhaps I disgust you, and perhaps you think I ought to be ashamed. That is your choice, and I respect it. I will not, however, respect the desire to see someone who saw a wrong and did what he could to right it imprisoned.

[Mancolt]

I'm with most of the others here as well. I'm not going to shed a tear over 2 dead criminals. Finally, justice prevailed. If he had stayed in his house, those 2 probably would have gotten away. And then they would have burglarized more houses and broken more laws. Who knows what else they would have done. One was already convicted on a Cocaine related charge...

I can't imagine that 911 tape helped this guy out in court too much. But I'm glad to see that someone is standing up against criminals and not being sued/imprisoned for it!

[1blindref]

As CH mentioned. It is legal to defend property in TX with deadly force. So yes, he should be cleared by law.

Would I defend property by lethal force given the option? Dunno. Would depend on the circumstances I guess.

Point again being it is a choice in TX and Joe chose to. I guess the crooks should consider their choice to take up residency there if they don't like it We all make choices and live with the consequences. I think I'd rather choose to live somewhere that gave me the option to defend my property by force. Because I know that even if I personally would not do so the chances of being burglarized are probably lower than not

I couldn't have said it better!

[headcase]

i'm gonna get flamed, but i don't think he should have shot those men, despite the fact that they were lowlives. he didn't need to go outside and put himself in harm's way. it was unnecessary, and foolish. i fully support the use of deadly force to protect life, but to kill someone over a hi-def tv? is a tv, or some other material possession, really that important? he should've just called the police, and leave it at that.

that said, i'm not going to cry over those two. i'm just not gonna shoot a guy for stealing someone else's stuff.

I'm sorry, but I can't see this as a victory. The man was in no danger, his property was in no danger and the man's neighbor was in no danger.

I do not feel he should have been cleared. I'm all for self-defense and defense of your property, but going outside, and shooting two men in the back, well, that's just wrong. That was vigilantism, plain and simple.

Also, if you are applauding the death of two humans, you should be ashamed. One death or a thousand, it's too many. It is sometimes required in society, but it should never be cause for celebration.

This is not a flame against either of you. You are entitled to your feelings and they should be respected. The sad fact is that those ideals are problematic in a free society. People feeling the way you do is the reason we have such a huge problem in this country, with criminals and with gun control laws. Politicians seize upon that mentality to further their goal of government control. It is the base argument used for every law that takes away the right of self-defense and property protection, from the average citizen, and places the implied responsibility on law enforcement. Law enforcement then decries that responsibility, until they want to use it against someone who rose up and defended themselves.
In a free society, the individual is solely responsible for his actions and the defense of his life, liberty, and possessions. The government claiming that you don't have that right, it belongs to them, is just a form of enslavement and a means to consolidate their power over the citizenry. Truly punishing criminals, is bad for business as far as the government is concerned. To do so would remove the main reason the masses look to them for protection. Not actual protection, but the idealogical illusion that law enforcement is there to protect them. Citizens protecting themselves and their property is a threat to that ideology, so it is heavily frowned upon. They gloss over incidents where an eighty year old shoots a would be murderer, but they vigorously prosecute a person who puts and end to an attack on his person before it gets to be a life or death struggle. Why? Not because it is wrong, although they drill that reason into everyone's consciousness, but because if they don't, other people might get the idea that it is OK to stand up for themselves. Then what happens? Well, when enough people make it known that crimes against others, even ones that don't necessarily break the threshold of life threatening, will be met by possible deadly force, those crimes start to not be committed. People start to respect other people's things, including life. Then, low and behold, people start to stand up for themselves in other areas of their lives, they get their self respect back. The next thing you know, they start questioning the government, not in a grumbling manner, but loudly, out in the light of day. They force their representation to follow their will, or they remove them, by force if necessary. And the government has been there before, and didn't like it.

So in the end, the government has no choice but to foster these same beliefs of self defense and self respect being bad, when they are actually put into practice. Then they call it vigilantism. They attempt to drive this into our psyche as early as possible. Just look at the way schools have changed in the last twenty or thirty years. The atmosphere has changed from self reliance, to relying on someone else to solve your problems. You are no longer able to even threaten to defend yourself. If you do, you're expelled. If you run to a teacher with a problem, the cause of your distress is given a talking to, and then they are led to believe that their aggression is not their fault, but the fault of society. It is a system that forms two types of products, sheep and predators. They control the ratio, to keep the government in control. What you eventually wind up with is a huge crime problem, and a population that is so conditioned against self defense, that there is no solution besides a police state. Look at Philadelphia, New York, D.C., Miami, L.A., St. Louis.......... It starts in the major cities, and trickles out into the rural areas. When people can't take it anymore, they move away, spreading their beliefs in this ideology and poisoning every area they go to. Look at how gun control and child discipline attitudes have changed in the farther reaches of the suburbs. In fact, look at how the suburbs have eaten away at the rural areas. Places that were strongholds for the industrious and self reliant, are now the land of the liberal soccer mom, touting gun control and timeouts.

The ideology behind both of your posts, is where it all started, and from where the government gets it's greatest strength.

[jahwarrior72]

i don't disagree with the use of deadly force; if some scumbag broke into my house at 2am, the police would have nothing to do but get the county coroner to my place. i'm not eager to kill someone, but i think we can all agree, some people need it.

my problem in this case, was his intent. he pretty much announced his intentions to the 911 dispatcher; he said he was going to kill them. was anyone's life in danger at that point? no. they were getting away with some stolen items, not a baby. was anyone home when they broke in? no, mr. horn knew the house was empty. he left his home to kill two men who stole some stuff. that's what i have a problem with.

again, i have no problems with someone killing another if it's their home being broken into. you can't read the mind of someone you encounter in the middle of the night; is he there to steal your tv, is is he going to rape my kids? but if my neighbors go on vacation, and ask me to keep an eye on their place, that's exactly what i'm going to do: keep an eye on it. if i catch someone leaving the house with their tv, i'm going to yell "hey, you, stop!" and call 911. if they run off, then it's up to the police. i'm not putting #00 buckshot in someone's back over it.

there's nothing courageous in mr. horn's actions. he shot someone in the back. period. in texas, he broke no laws. that may make what he did legal, but it doesn't make it right.

[VMJade]

i don't disagree with the use of deadly force; if some scumbag broke into my house at 2am, the police would have nothing to do but get the county coroner to my place. i'm not eager to kill someone, but i think we can all agree, some people need it.

my problem in this case, was his intent. he pretty much announced his intentions to the 911 dispatcher; he said he was going to kill them. was anyone's life in danger at that point? no. they were getting away with some stolen items, not a baby. was anyone home when they broke in? no, mr. horn knew the house was empty. he left his home to kill two men who stole some stuff. that's what i have a problem with.

again, i have no problems with someone killing another if it's their home being broken into. you can't read the mind of someone you encounter in the middle of the night; is he there to steal your tv, is is he going to rape my kids? but if my neighbors go on vacation, and ask me to keep an eye on their place, that's exactly what i'm going to do: keep an eye on it. if i catch someone leaving the house with their tv, i'm going to yell "hey, you, stop!" and call 911. if they run off, then it's up to the police. i'm not putting #00 buckshot in someone's back over it.

there's nothing courageous in mr. horn's actions. he shot someone in the back. period. in texas, he broke no laws. that may make what he did legal, but it doesn't make it right.

I'm with you that where we disagree is at the intent part.

In fact, we even agree on what his intent was.

I understand that you would not shoot someone in that situation.

However, I have no problem with what he did. Let me explain why:

1. The perpetrators (I refuse to call them men) committed what I consider a base, cowardly act. They broke into a man's house when he was not there to defend it himself. To me, that is a profoundly damaging thing- they know who you are, where you live, and how to get back in.

2. Pay close attention to the last line of the article. "I had no choice. they came in the front yard with me, man."
From the Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/ar...d=2007_4479736

Horn shot the pair Nov. 14 despite a 911 dispatcher repeatedly urging him not to go outside and to wait for police. Horn was seven feet from the pair when he confronted them in his front yard and said, "Move and you're dead," according to police and the 911 transcript.

Police said both were shot in the back as one moved toward him and then angled to the curb. The other fled in the opposite direction, police said.

A plainclothes Pasadena officer witnessed the shooting from his patrol car in front of Horn's house.

It was a righteous shoot according to the police office who saw it happen. He walked outside, told them to freeze, and they split up, one moving toward him and the other moving out of his line of sight. Hardly what you describe as "running off".
A police officer in the same situation would likely have performed in the same way, as evidenced by the LEO on-site not arresting him.

3. The next thing to consider is less likely for a person who's never been to Pasadena to be aware of. There are a whole hell of a lot of weapons being carried in Pasadena, and blessed few people with CHL's (LCTFs). The gang problem there is absolutely stunning. I was told by multiple LEOs when last I was there (family wedding) that it's safest to assume everyone in Pasadena is carrying. Joe Horn would know that. At that point, his understanding of the situation, I would guess, became one of "what the hell did I get myself into?"

4. Whether you like what he did or not, he has to live with what he did. I assure you, that's more complicated than any punishment you could devise for him.