Wish I had neighbors like this....

[israfael]

The reports states that "under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night. "

No matter what the legislator says NOW about his intent, statutes are interpreted based on their plain meaning and not some after thought by its writer.

It's always "night" somewhere.  :twisted:

[azsarge]

Interesting question. From my perspective, he overstepped his bounds. Basically, he gave these guys the death penalty over what was probably simple burglary and grand theft. Had a prosecutor sought this penalty for these crimes in a court of law, he would be laughed out of his profession. Horn is probably going to get hit with an indictment, but he will plea out because of the intense support and media coverage. I doubt if he will do too much jail time.

Breaking into my house, with the intent to steal, vandalize, or cause injury to myself or family IS deserving of the death penalty.  I'm sorry, but that type of crime will get you nothing but 2 in the chest and one in the computer.  It's not the property value of the stolen items, it's the uncertainty of the intent.  3 bullets per intruder and a carpet cleaning bill is a small price to pay for the certainty that me and my family will live through the night.

Now, would I shoot someone coming out of a neighbors house, knowing that no harm was brought to my neighbor?  I doubt it.

DO I blame Mr. Horn for doing what he did?  Of course not.

I think he's going to prison, unless he can pull a "self-defense" plea out of his ass, though.

[Bullseye]

And it's not just a case of lost property or damage anymore. Cases of Home Invasion are up, and even a "simple burglary" is much more likely to escalate into bodily harm or death now that is was 15-20 years ago.

Sorry, but if someone breaks into my house - I'm with Sarge -  it's "center of body mass" time.

[Cheeze_IZ_G00d]

The problem is the intruders were not in his house. I can't say I wouldn't do anything different if the guys busted into my house, but the fact is they were stealing a TV from a neighbor in broad daylight. This is not a case of self-defense, castle doctrine, etc., it is a case of murder.

[Doc Hollywood]

Murder can be justified.....

Good thing we have rules of evidence and jury instructions.... this guy would be tried and convicted even before an indictment otherwise......

[Maestro]

I think I'd have to agree with the general concensus here.  Is the guy probably going to jail? Yep.  Do I feel bad for the burglers? Nope.  Do I think he did a bad thing?  Screw em.  Murphy's law of probability:  Stupid people die.

[andyhinds]

And it's not just a case of lost property or damage anymore. Cases of Home Invasion are up, and even a "simple burglary" is much more likely to escalate into bodily harm or death now that is was 15-20 years ago.

Sorry, but if someone breaks into my house - I'm with Sarge -  it's "center of body mass" time.

What about if somebody breaks into your neighbours house?  That's what this is about, his life wasn't in danger, his property wasn't in danger... he took it upon himself to escalate the situation.

[Doc Hollywood]

And it's not just a case of lost property or damage anymore. Cases of Home Invasion are up, and even a "simple burglary" is much more likely to escalate into bodily harm or death now that is was 15-20 years ago.

Sorry, but if someone breaks into my house - I'm with Sarge -  it's "center of body mass" time.

What about if somebody breaks into your neighbours house?  That's what this is about, his life wasn't in danger, his property wasn't in danger... he took it upon himself to escalate the situation.

I did a quick read of the statute there in Texas and its plain language seems to allow for the shooter to have been acting to protect his neighbor's property.

Generally speaking, defense of others and others' property is permitted but use of deadly force in defense of others' property has not been allowed since the 1800's.

But the statute allows the use of deadly force for 'crime prevention" related to property crimes.... here there is a burglary occuring and the shooter stopped it.  Thats permitted.  (Burglary can occur daytime or nightime, not just at night).  

The law enforcement agencies did not charge him up front because its a matter of legal sufficiency and thats why its going to the grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to support each and every element of a crime.  The 911 tape is but one small part of the evidence to be considered and by itself proves nothing other than the shooter shot 2 criminals - facts already admitted by the shooter.  for all we know the criminals were armed and pointed their weapons at the shooter.  Cops are being very quiet about the investigation so far...

The people I know in the legal community who are following this issue seem to think that the grand jury will not come back with an indictment.

The State has the burden of proof that this guys did not have a clean shoot (same thing here in Arizona now thankfully) not the other way around - he doesn't have to prove his defense - its presumed.

Personally, I wouldn't have taken the shot unless they attempted to come into my house, and I would not have gone outside - but I don't expose myself to that kind of risk - plus we all know how the cops like to shoot in this town anyway.

It sure didn't take the activists long to pull the race card here though.....

 :roll:

[Cheeze_IZ_G00d]

And it's not just a case of lost property or damage anymore. Cases of Home Invasion are up, and even a "simple burglary" is much more likely to escalate into bodily harm or death now that is was 15-20 years ago.

Sorry, but if someone breaks into my house - I'm with Sarge -  it's "center of body mass" time.

What about if somebody breaks into your neighbours house?  That's what this is about, his life wasn't in danger, his property wasn't in danger... he took it upon himself to escalate the situation.

This is my main beef with this whole thing. As for that statute, I don't think you should be able to justify deadly force simply in defense of a neighbor's television set.

[Doc Hollywood]

This is my main beef with this whole thing. As for that statute, I don't think you should be able to justify deadly force simply in defense of a neighbor's television set.

Thats because you are looking at this issue from a limited focus... all you see is the shooting was over property.  It wasn't.

The real LEGAL ISSUE here is that the statutes in Texas AUTHORIZE DEADLY FORCE TO STOP BURGLARY, a felony.  Same here in Arizona.  The LAW sees this as a case of deadly force used to stop a burglary, not to defend a TV set.

And since the statutes in Texas (as well as Arizona) permit the use of deadly force in these instances to stop a crime... the issue of how the public feels about that fact is resolved - its not a democracy - its a constitutional republic and the democratic masses can't simply outvote these rights, thankfully.

But again, its not about a TV set....  new reports state that:

"Horn went outside, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, to see where the suspects were heading when he came face-to-face with them in Horn's front yard, Lambright said.

Horn is 61 and heavyset. The suspected burglars were young and strong enough to beat him to death with their bare hands, Lambright said. So when one or both of them "made lunging movements," Horn fired, Lambright said.

"He's trying to protect his own life," Lambright said. "

I heard somewhere a bookie in vegas is taking bets on whether this guys will be charged or not......

[Doc Hollywood]

In other news...

A suspected thief who was shot and killed outside a Porter residence by the homeowner has a criminal history and was on probation for a theft conviction, Montgomery County authorities said today.

Sheriff's Sgt. Bill Bucks added that the property owner, Gerald Lynn Southworth, had reported thefts from that address in the two days before the shooting and stayed overnight to guard his property.

''We don't see any criminal wrongdoing," Bucks said.

The case will be referred to a Montgomery County grand jury, which is standard procedure in fatal shootings.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 40854.html

[AirsoftBen]

As far as I am concerned he committed no crime according to Texas law. I don't think it was very smart of him to go outside but that was his choice.

My Question is why where the men in his yard when he went outside? They are now trespassing on his property. If they where shot within 15 feet from Mr. Horn they where close enough to be considered a threat given Mr. Horn's age and physical condition.

If they where dumb enough to get within 15 feet of a man with a shotgun I say they got lucky to make it to 38 and 30.

[israfael]

Thats because you are looking at this issue from a limited focus... all you see is the shooting was over property.  It wasn't.

You're absolutely right.  Here are two other thoughts to consider.  First, crimes are not static events.
I.e. Washington Redskins Safety Sean Taylor. "Miami-Dade Police were investigating the attack, which came just eight days after an intruder was reported at Taylor's home." and "Taylor died Tuesday, one day after being shot at his home in an affluent Miami suburb during what officials said appeared to be an attempted burglary."(foxnews.com)
Second, if unstopped, crimes escalate.
I.e. Say Mr. Horn didn't shoot them; say he didn't even go outside. Then a week later the burglars come back for the vcr/dvd, and kill Mr. Horn's neighbor this time. Which would you rather have on your conscience?

Say then a week after that, they go to another neighborhood seeing how easy it was to get away with it and do it again.  As it stands, it's highly doubtful anyone is going to be burglarized, or worse, in that neighborhood anytime soon.

As for the criminals, they forfeited their civil rights the moment they stopped being civil and walked onto someone else’s residence to steal someone else’s hard-earned property.  You can't pick and choose which laws you want to obey for which social privileges and rights.

At least in my perspective.

[Cheeze_IZ_G00d]

Thats because you are looking at this issue from a limited focus... all you see is the shooting was over property.  It wasn't.

You're absolutely right.  Here are two other thoughts to consider.  First, crimes are not static events.
I.e. Washington Redskins Safety Sean Taylor. "Miami-Dade Police were investigating the attack, which came just eight days after an intruder was reported at Taylor's home." and "Taylor died Tuesday, one day after being shot at his home in an affluent Miami suburb during what officials said appeared to be an attempted burglary."(foxnews.com)
Second, if unstopped, crimes escalate.
I.e. Say Mr. Horn didn't shoot them; say he didn't even go outside. Then a week later the burglars come back for the vcr/dvd, and kill Mr. Horn's neighbor this time. Which would you rather have on your conscience?

Say then a week after that, they go to another neighborhood seeing how easy it was to get away with it and do it again.  As it stands, it's highly doubtful anyone is going to be burglarized, or worse, in that neighborhood anytime soon.

As for the criminals, they forfeited their civil rights the moment they stopped being civil and walked onto someone else’s residence to steal someone else’s hard-earned property.  You can't pick and choose which laws you want to obey for which social privileges and rights.

At least in my perspective.

First, Sean Taylor is a completely different story. Those burglars broke into HIS house while he slept. They did not break into his neighbor's house and steal a TV. Mr. Horn went outside to confront these guys, with the intent of "stopping these guys," he did not stay inside his house as instructed by the dispatcher. The problem is that he took the step to escalate the situation, he had intent, and he acted on the intent. In fact, if I were the prosecutor, I would argue that Mr. Horn could not have acted in self-defense because he was the aggressor.

Second, the hallmark of our judicial system is innocent until proven guilty. This is what our system relies on and if it fails, then our justice system goes with it. Hell, what if, hypothetically, these guys were movers? What if they went around the back first, and came out the front door with a TV? Mr. Horn wouldn't know because by his own admission he doesn't know those people very well. The outcome would be the same, but the discussion would be quite different. We would be saying that Mr. Horn overreacted, and he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Finally, crimes will continue to happen everywhere. This is why people still commit capital murder, even if it means the death penalty. Unfortunately, there is no absolute in crime deterrence as even death does not scare everyone.

[djmtott]

what if, hypothetically, these guys were movers? What if they went around the back first, and came out the front door with a TV?

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

You lost all credibility there...