PDA

View Full Version : Hero or criminal? Shooting in Texas.



Pages : [1] 2

Matthew
Dec 5th 2007, 02:36 AM
This happened in Pasadena, Texas. Joe Horn called 911 and told the operator that two men were burglarizing his neighbor's house. Horn informed the operator that he had a shotgun. The operator repeatedly told him not to go outside. As the men came back out of the neighbor's house and began to leave Horn told the operator that he was going outside to confront the men. He goes outside, says "Boom. You're dead," and three shots are fired.

The end result is that the two burglars are dead. Now, there is an uproar in Houston over whether this guy is a murderer or a hero. The two men who were shot were black and Horn is white so this has become a racial issue. Predictably whites have lined up to support Horn, blacks have lined up to support the burglars, and Texas ends up looking like a state filled with morons running around stealing things and shooting people. Being a Texan myself I hate to say that.

For more details you can read about the story here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

and listen to the entire audio of the 911 call here: Edited out link

I first heard the audio and then read a story on it. When I read the story there was one sentence toward the end that said Horn was unlikely to be charged. My jaw just about hit the floor. But, I seem to be in the minority in thinking that charges should be brought.

So, what I want to know is, was Horn right or wrong in what he did?

I think he was wrong because he confronted the criminals after five minutes of the operator telling him to stay inside and don't do anything. Like I said, I seem to be in the minority so I certainly welcome other opinions.

th1bill
Dec 5th 2007, 04:32 AM
This happened in Pasadena, Texas. Joe Horn called 911 and told the operator that two men were burglarizing his neighbor's house. Horn informed the operator that he had a shotgun. The operator repeatedly told him not to go outside. As the men came back out of the neighbor's house and began to leave Horn told the operator that he was going outside to confront the men. He goes outside, says "Boom. You're dead," and three shots are fired.
You answered a couple of my questions and I'm very sorry to say you did so much sooner than i was hoping for. In my mind I questioned how long before someone brought this uo and then would put their own spin on the matter, both are answered.

He did not say 'boom,' Joe said, "Move and your dead!. Both of the illegal immigrants with forged papers stating they were from Mexico, they were from Colombia, and the Texas DPS was investigating both of them for Organized Crime, and their Texas Driver's License was illegally obtained.

That the 911 operator warned him not to go outside is true, they were worried about Joe's safety. After Joe told those two criminally enmgaged illegal immigrants that they were under citizen's arrest, "Move and your dead," they both moved toward him. He did not shoot them in the back you know.


The end result is that the two burglars are dead. Now, there is an uproar in Houston over whether this guy is a murderer or a hero.

The people getting the press do so on a very regular basis, we see them in the news almost daily trying to make crime legal and a normal way of life. They are Farracan's (sp?0 stool pidgins and that makes them radical Black Muslims. The DA, the Grand Jury, and all six branches of the Texas Police Forces are in complete support of Joe.[quote]

The two men who were shot were black and Horn is white so this has become a racial issue.[quote]

And I repeat, they were Columbian gangsters and they were not black. People of color? Yes, but I'm half native American so just like the black man, the brown man and the white man, we are all colored. 99% of the racial strife in southeast Texas is generated by Yankee Unions trying to get enough strife generated to get a foothold in this 'right to work' state. [quote]
Predictably whites have lined up to support Horn, blacks have lined up to support the burglars, and Texas ends up looking like a state filled with morons running around stealing things and shooting people. Being a Texan myself I hate to say that.
If you are a Texan, I find it very hard to brlieve that you have put a spin on this story and the investigation that is being so publicly transparent is not even finished at this point.

For more details you can read about the story here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

and listen to the entire audio of the 911 call here: Edited link

I first heard the audio and then read a story on it. When I read the story there was one sentence toward the end that said Horn was unlikely to be charged. My jaw just about hit the floor. But, I seem to be in the minority in thinking that charges should be brought.

So, what I want to know is, was Horn right or wrong in what he did?

I think he was wrong because he confronted the criminals after five minutes of the operator telling him to stay inside and don't do anything. Like I said, I seem to be in the minority so I certainly welcome other opinions.
Look, I volunteered to go to war in Vietnam 3 times in four years so I expect you already know my answer. Just the same, what Joe did was foolish, he could easily been murdered right there in his front yard where the two illegal criminals died. Yes, he shot them in his yard unless more evidence is found that says otherwise. But in the end I went to Vietnam to help a group of people that I love to this very day find freedom and Joe went forward to protect his neighbor's and his own property.

Carried to it's logical conclusion, there is no reason to believe his house was not their next target.

jeffreys
Dec 5th 2007, 04:57 AM
Joe is a criminal.

That being said, good lord, who can blame him?

He called 911, and the police don't show up for almost 10 minutes. In the meantime these (possibly armed) robbers are just making off with his neighbor's property.

Had the police arrived in time and arrested these two punks, they would have been released from jail shortly thereafter, and they would have resumed their life of crime. They were illegals with a criminal history.


I can't say that what Joe Horn did was right. But I'm not sure I can say that what he did was wrong either. Homeowners have the right to protect ourselves and our property from criminals.

Matthew
Dec 5th 2007, 05:16 AM
You answered a couple of my questions and I'm very sorry to say you did so much sooner than i was hoping for. In my mind I questioned how long before someone brought this uo and then would put their own spin on the matter, both are answered.

Whoa, there's no spin here. I briefly summed up what happened and provided a link to a CBS article and the full audio for everyone to listen to.


He did not say 'boom,' Joe said, "Move and your dead!. Both of the illegal immigrants with forged papers stating they were from Mexico, they were from Colombia, and the Texas DPS was investigating both of them for Organized Crime, and their Texas Driver's License was illegally obtained.

"Move and your dead!" seems much more logical to me, but the CBS article says that he said "Boom. You're dead." The audio seems to confirm this. Either way though, it does not change my position.

Illegals or not seems irrelevant given that Mr. Horn didn't have any knowledge about who they were.


That the 911 operator warned him not to go outside is true, they were worried about Joe's safety. After Joe told those two criminally enmgaged illegal immigrants that they were under citizen's arrest, "Move and your dead," they both moved toward him. He did not shoot them in the back you know.

Quannel X seems to think they were shot in the back. Given that he's part of the New Black Panther Party I'll reserve judgment on this issue. I'll check for other sources about where they were shot.



[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]The people getting the press do so on a very regular basis, we see them in the news almost daily trying to make crime legal and a normal way of life. They are Farracan's (sp?0 stool pidgins and that makes them radical Black Muslims. The DA, the Grand Jury, and all six branches of the Texas Police Forces are in complete support of Joe.

I suppose we'll see who's on Joe's side. I certainly will not be surprised if you are 100% correct, even though I think he should be charged with something.



Look, I volunteered to go to war in Vietnam 3 times in four years so I expect you already know my answer. Just the same, what Joe did was foolish, he could easily been murdered right there in his front yard where the two illegal criminals died. Yes, he shot them in his yard unless more evidence is found that says otherwise. But in the end I went to Vietnam to help a group of people that I love to this very day find freedom and Joe went forward to protect his neighbor's and his own property.

Carried to it's logical conclusion, there is no reason to believe his house was not their next target.


I think Mr. Horn's own words about them "getting away" is pretty strong evidence that his house was not next.


EDIT: I found another source that says Mr. Horn said "Move, you're dead." I think that's more likely.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3880630

Matthew
Dec 5th 2007, 05:19 AM
Joe is a criminal.

That being said, good lord, who can blame him?

He called 911, and the police don't show up for almost 10 minutes. In the meantime these (possibly armed) robbers are just making off with his neighbor's property.

Had the police arrived in time and arrested these two punks, they would have been released from jail shortly thereafter, and they would have resumed their life of crime. They were illegals with a criminal history.


I can't say that what Joe Horn did was right. But I'm not sure I can say that what he did was wrong either. Homeowners have the right to protect ourselves and our property from criminals.

I think the police were there pretty quickly. I do hate to blame a guy that only wanted to help protect his neighbor's property. I wish he had listened to the operator though.

jeffreys
Dec 5th 2007, 05:24 AM
I think the police were there pretty quickly. I do hate to blame a guy that only wanted to help protect his neighbor's property. I wish he had listened to the operator though.

One thought... Over a phone the phrase, "Move & you're dead!" could probably sound like, "Boom, you're dead!" But I don't know if that's what was said.

Even so, I just have very mixed feelings about this one. I cannot condone what he did. But there is a deep-in-the-gut visceral part of me that almost can't help but say, "You know, if a whole lot more criminals got shot and killed as they were burglarizing homes, maybe would-be criminals would THINK before they did the deed."

I know, I know... It's just that sometimes I get pretty angry about some of this stupid criminal activity! :pray:

Sherrie
Dec 5th 2007, 05:25 AM
I heard the audio on CNN or Fox can't remember which. But you know, I could see this guy trying to protect his own stuff, and the people in his house, but they were next door, outside, and his neigbor was not home. The only thing at risk, were the material things.

He was told not to go over there. Repeatedly. But he really wanted to, so much, he ignored the warnings not to. He had it mind to do so from the beginning. He was very much gung-ho about it. And 2 lives are gone now. Yes they were thefts. But now, we will never know if they would have ever repented of it, and followed Jesus.

Sometimes it takes more than a few minutes to get from one side of a town to the other, as well. Perhaps what the man could have done, was get a description of the men, and watched which direction they were going in, and how they were leaving.

We can always buy a new TV, radio......I heard the audio, and the man wanted to use the gun. He desired to do so. He was blatant to the authority. In other words he disrespected the rules. He was no better than the thefts! Now dead men!

Matthew
Dec 5th 2007, 05:32 AM
Sorry, these other points didn't show up when I quoted your text.


And I repeat, they were Columbian gangsters and they were not black. People of color? Yes, but I'm half native American so just like the black man, the brown man and the white man, we are all colored. 99% of the racial strife in southeast Texas is generated by Yankee Unions trying to get enough strife generated to get a foothold in this 'right to work' state.

I'm sure there are black Columbians just like black Americans. Whether they were black, brown, green, or polka-dotted the result has been "protests" where blacks and whites are lined up on opposite sides. I hate to see that.



If you are a Texan, I find it very hard to brlieve that you have put a spin on this story and the investigation that is being so publicly transparent is not even finished at this point.

There's no "if" I'm a Texan. I was born here, have always lived here, and will probably die here. There's no spin in my post either. I supported my post with sources and will be glad to explain myself and correct anything that is incorrect.

New information could certainly come to light and I would be glad to change my position accordingly. I have no personal stake here. I just seemed to be in the minority and wanted other opinions.

Clavicula_Nox
Dec 5th 2007, 01:23 PM
My neighbors would have given the thieves a place to hide out after burglarizing my home, and I envy having a neighborhood were the residents look out for each other.

Truthfully, if people are prepared to do the wrong thing, they need to be prepared for consequences. Saying that Horn shouldn't have interferred because it was his neighbor's property is disgusting, especially when we pretend to have that whole neighborly love type deal going on, I guess it doesn't apply when there is rough work to be done, huh?

It might have been excessive, but I can't say for sure because I wasn't there, however, confronting criminals is a scary thing and if they're willing to break in to someone's home, I bet they're willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.

*edit*
For those who live a life of comfort cut off from any type of daily struggle, Horn's actions seem way excessive, for those who understand and have lived through struggle, his actions are justified.

macarnett
Dec 5th 2007, 01:23 PM
I can't get much sympathy together for the burglars. When you break into someone's house in Texas, you pretty much take your chances; it's likely the occupant has a gun and will shoot you.

On the other hand, when the operator told him to stay in his house, he was obligated to do that. The police (and the operator has the authority of a LEO) have the right and responsibility to give orders and we are obligated to obey them.

songladyjenn
Dec 5th 2007, 02:27 PM
I can't get much sympathy together for the burglars. When you break into someone's house in Texas, you pretty much take your chances; it's likely the occupant has a gun and will shoot you.

Living in Texas myself I agree with what you wrote above. A majority of us living here not only have firearms in the house you would be surprised to discover how many of us have the license to carry a concealed weapon. ;)

xSTEADFASTx
Dec 5th 2007, 06:48 PM
Living in a neighbor hood thats had seveal drivebys; and often still hearing shots fired; honest to God; I'd have to say that I would of done the same thing. I dont know what people have or dont have; what could or couldnt happen; my family; and my life is important; important enough to protect at all costs; even to the extent of someone elses lives.

Brother Mark
Dec 5th 2007, 06:57 PM
What does a man profit if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?

The guy did not have the authority of the government to protect his neighbor's property with deadly force. If Texas has a law on the books saying that he can do so, then he is clear. If the law says he was wrong, then he is a criminal and should be punished as such.

Still, is a man's material wealth worth another man's life?

If a man came in my house, I would run out of there as fast as I could. If he came in and I had a wife or children at home, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him. As the authority of the home, it is my responsibility to protect those within it. Both God and government agree on that principle. But if no one is at home, let them have the material stuff and let the police deal with them.

AlainaJ
Dec 5th 2007, 07:09 PM
Th1Bill makes some excellent points:)

To me he is a hero. He is what men used to be in this nation. Brave, honorable, wanting to do right...not afraid to react.

Now, let me say...I do not condone cold blooded murder...but when we as American Citizens allow criminals to think they can do anything they want, becuase we are to scared to stand up...we are in trouble as a nation.

I have heard how people have ignored screams or knew a rape was taking place.....but just didn't know what to do.

Well I say good for this guy...he was prepared and knew what to do.

As an older neighbors of mine says..we have become a nations of cowards.

I know that we watch our neigbors property and they keep an eye on ours.

The bottom line is by the time you call 911, the crooks are gone or your dead...

Maybe I have that 'country" mentalilty and always have.....all I know is things are getting better and easier for the criminals and more innocent people are becoming victims.

I know what I would do....:)

macarnett
Dec 5th 2007, 11:29 PM
Living in Texas myself I agree with what you wrote above. A majority of us living here not only have firearms in the house you would be surprised to discover how many of us have the license to carry a concealed weapon.

I wonder what the burglary rates are in Dallas, as opposed to Boston. Might be interesting to find out. Granted, criminals tend to be a rather dull-witted lot, but I doubt if they are that stupid.

Matthew
Dec 6th 2007, 12:35 AM
Good comments all. If you haven't already, I encourage you to listen to the full audio in the link in my first post. I think if I had just read the story I might be more inclined to support Mr. Horn. Listening to the full audio though you get to hear over and over the operator tell him to not go outside. You also hear Mr. Horn complain that they're going to get away, that he's got to go, and that he's going to kill them.

If he was just worried about people getting away with a bag of loot that's not enough to shoot someone. Would we want to give police the right to shoot anyone that flees? I don't.

Matthew
Dec 6th 2007, 12:36 AM
I wonder what the burglary rates are in Dallas, as opposed to Boston. Might be interesting to find out. Granted, criminals tend to be a rather dull-witted lot, but I doubt if they are that stupid.

I'd guess higher in Dallas.

macarnett
Dec 6th 2007, 01:25 AM
Turns out Dallas is slightly lower than Boston, but not significantly so. They are almost identical.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=lewyn

Not what I expected. I suppose criminals are even dumber than I realized. The chance of getting blown away by a homeowner in Boston is much less than in Texas, and yet the burglary rates are nearly identical.

Stupid criminals.

Matthew
Dec 6th 2007, 02:12 AM
They don't look identical to me.

Burglary plus robbery per 100,000 (1990) and city density
Burglary [FN32] Plus Robbery

Boston: 2831
Dallas: 4324

I pulled some more recent stats from the FBI website. I did the math myself so proceed with caution ;) and let me know if I messed something up. Keep in mind these are just burglaries too.

Here are some variables to keep in mind when comparing cities as well.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/about/variables_affecting_crime.html


Dallas had 21,653 burglaries in 2006 with a population of 1,248,223.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_08_tx.html

Boston had 4,121 burglaries with a population of 562,393.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_08_ma.html

That comes out to about 1,735 burglaries per 100,000 people in Dallas and 733 burglaries per 100,000 people in Boston. The burglary rate in Dallas is over twice as high.

In my first post I really was guessing, but it was an educated guess. I know nothing about Boston but I know some parts of Dallas are really, really bad.

macarnett
Dec 6th 2007, 04:41 AM
My data was from the link, which is from 1990, darn it.

But it was interesting that high-density cities actually had less crime than low-density ones.

I'm a bit disappointed that guns seem to have less deterrent than I thought.

ServantofTruth
Dec 6th 2007, 08:58 AM
I meet so many lovely American christians on this site, but every time guns are mentioned i'm horrified. These guys were stealing 'property.' The 'wants' of this world - not the 'needs.' Call the police/ authorities and then let them handle it.
Have any of you heard the story of the lady who was mugged on a dark night, she lovingly removed her chain and cross and gave it to the man. She was allowed to leave peacefully and always wondered what affect her act of kindness had on him.
If we are looking to the kingdom, and believe that is what is also best for our 'neighbour', material possessions will have less hold on us. Killing people won't bring them to faith, perhaps visiting them in prison with God's word might.

Clavicula_Nox
Dec 6th 2007, 02:25 PM
Have any of you heard the story of the lady who was mugged on a dark night, she lovingly removed her chain and cross and gave it to the man. She was allowed to leave peacefully and always wondered what affect her act of kindness had on him.


Without any intention to offend you, the only stories I've heard like that end up with a rape, beating, or murder at the end. Very rarely, in the town I live, does someone get robbed, cooperate, and come out okay minus materials at the end.

*edit*

Further, I believe that allowing someone to get away with a crime, like breaking and entering, will encourage them to do it more often, which will eventually put them in the situation where they will have to kill someone, cause serious bodily harm, or something.

Predators prey on weakness, and standing by and letting them do what they want to do is pure weakness.

ServantofTruth
Dec 6th 2007, 03:06 PM
You see christian strength differently to me. My strength is not my own, actually i'm quite weak, mine comes from our Lord.
If shoved in the street or anywhere i would walk away. If it was worse i'd report the matter to the police and have a few times over the years. How can i love my neighbour by hitting him or shooting him?
I once as a child felt the need to hit a boy who owed me money. He gave me the money, a mere £1, and from then on showed me resoect. Perhaps that would have made you happy? Every time he showed me respect, i felt awful for what i had done and for comfirming his up bringing of violence gets you what you want. I still tell this story to my children as an example of how NOT to act. God has certainly taught me a lesson through that day.

Clavicula_Nox
Dec 6th 2007, 03:40 PM
Where I live, the police might respond just under 60 minutes average. Are you telling me that if someone comes at me while I'm out running or walking that I should hurridly dial 9-11 and wait for someone to save me? I don't think you understood what I was saying. I wasn't advocating vigillante work, I was advocating self defense. Mr Horn defended his neighbor's property, and by de facto, his own by discouraging the behavior and cutting it off while it was still in progress. I don't think the man is a "hero," but I don't think there should be any charges whatsoever against him and this whole racism issue needs to be dropped.

Your anecdote, hitting someone who owed you money, is completely off-topic from what we're discussing.

People who would attack someone on the street in daylight are not going to stop with a shove and then leave you alone when you walk away. Walking away, infact, would trigger a more aggressive approach. How many people do you know are from, or live in a violent environment? There is a different mind-set, a different standard of behavior, and a different set of rules. I don't want to make any assumptions about your situation, but not every place is the same and many people are cut off from the reality of what is happening around them.

*edit*

Mr Horn loved his neighbor who's property was being stolen, who's home was violated, and he loved all of his surrounding neighbors who were in danger of the same thing. Mr Horn did not love the individuals who put everyone in danger by violating them, their homes, their property, or anything. I can't type anymore, I need to go to work.

th1bill
Dec 6th 2007, 04:12 PM
.. Let me establish some facts for everyone to deal with about this incident. I moved out of Houston into the Piny Woods Area of East Texas because of the crime rate increase when so many Yankees from Detroit moved down here. Many years before that I moved away from the East End and Pasadena area because of the rampant and uncontrollable crime rate. Joe lives in a nice house but the area is infested with thieves and rapists. As we approach the last day here on earth, just as the Bible has foretold, things are not getting better and men are becoming lovers of self. In fact they have become lovers of self to the point that it is acceptable to stand by and watch your neighbor be devastated.
.. There is a saying that rings so loudly and with so much truth that I have never been able to ignore it. It comes right out of the Holocaust in Germany. My quote will be somewhat inaccurate because I'm getting old now but. When thsy ame for the Furriers, I said nothing. When they came for the Rabbis, I said nothing. When they came for the grocers, I said nothing. When they came for my neighbor, I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one to say anything.
.. This state was once a safe place to raise your children. I used to park my car at the cirb downtown, leave the windows down for the heat and leave the key in it because someone might have an emergency and need to move it. The car was never stolen. We left our doors unlocked and went on vacation and nothing was missing when we returned two weeks later. Our neighbors protected what was ours and we protected theirs. Houston is no longer like that because no one protects anyone any more.
.. The police compose less than one tenth of one percent of the people here and no one is willing to pay more taxes to hire more officers. If you see your neighbors trash catch fire because they tossed a paint thinner can into the trash and you do not get your hose and out it out, the house might burn down because the fire department might not get there in time. If your neighbors wife is attacked in her drive way and dragged into her house as you stand there and watch, she, likely, will be rapped before the police arrive.
.. Call me proactive if you will, I am. This country will continue to go straight to Hell as long as we are self centered. I'll get off my soap box now and pray that your neighbors are not like you folks but will act when they see you or your children in trouble. And yes, protecting your property is the beginning of a pattern that is for safety of persons.

Ayala
Dec 6th 2007, 04:24 PM
I agree 100%. I can say that I'm fortunate enough to have, at least, a couple neighbors that I know would step into the matter if someone was breaking into my house.

Matthew
Dec 6th 2007, 07:31 PM
Concerns over your own safety and the safety of your neighbors are certainly valid. But, the mere fact that someone is stealing from your neighbor's home doesn't make killing them self-defense.

Now, when Horn got back on the phone he did say that he had no choice but to shoot. Maybe some other evidence will come out that they came at him when he confronted it. I doubt that this was the case because when you're unarmed and someone with a shotgun confronts you your first move is going to be to flee or do whatever they tell you to do.



I have another question for everyone, but especially for those who think Mr. Horn was justified. Would the police have been justified in shooting the burglars? Let's say that they police confront them, yell "Move, your dead, " they both try to get away (making an assumption here) and the police shoot them. Justified?

I<3Jesus
Dec 6th 2007, 08:30 PM
Murderer, thou shalt not kill.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 6th 2007, 08:36 PM
Speaking as a legal gun owner, Mr. Horn was right to confront them. Whether or not he was within his right to shoot them none of us knows.

The way we train (we = gun owners that carry for protection, as I do - I don't check my mail without being armed) is called "the 21-foot rule." If I am forced to brandish my firearm, I have an invisible circle of 21 feet. If you come within that circle, my duty to retreat is done and it's two the chest and one to the head. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

The reason for this is simple: It takes the average person the exact same time to traverse 21 seconds and slash with a knife as it takes the average person to steady, remove safety, and squeeze off a round. It's a matter of reaction time.

I absolutely, positively would have ignored the police and confronted the burglars. Those of you saying you would not have should be ashamed of yourself. What is this country coming to? "It's just stuff..." Yes, and if we all took that attitude, crime would be even more rampant: "OK, dude, it's just stuff, take it, I don't want to have to hurt you." The whole argument that it can be replaced is preposterous - it shouldn't have to be! :B

However, with that said, there's a right way and a wrong way to intervene in a crime. I would have gone out there and held them until the police finally showed up. They would have been given the same warning: Move and you're dead. If they approached me and broached 21 feet, I would have killed them. If they ran away, however, all I can do is tell the cops which direction or, if on a cell, follow them and remain in contact with the police. The question we don't have an answer to is this: Did the criminals present themselves as an approaching threat? If yes, Texas has no duty to retreat and the man did the right thing ventilating them. If no, he's a murderer.

As Christians, we sometimes forget that loving our neighbors means we have a duty to protect them. The logic here about "how do we know they wouldn't have been saved eventually" is red herring fallacy: How do we know Saddam Hussein would have never been saved? Adolph Hitler? God gives us all free will, free choice, and every human being knows very well that tomorrow may be the last day alive. These two pieces of garbage knew that morning that they could die, they denied Christ anyway, and they made an informed, cognitive decision to ruin another's life. Justice was served.

Save your pity for those with dependency issues, the sick, the downtrodden, those who have given up. We should always love those who refuse Christ, as they are still His children, but we should not pity men who create their own destiny out of defiance to God, Who told us not to steal.


Originally posted by Matthew:

I have another question for everyone, but especially for those who think Mr. Horn was justified. Would the police have been justified in shooting the burglars? Let's say that they police confront them, yell "Move, your dead, " they both try to get away (making an assumption here) and the police shoot them. Justified?

As I stated, "trying to get away" obligates the police to give chase, not to shoot them. The police are bound by their responsibilities to follow their department's escalation of force scale, and no department out there gives an officer the right to fire on a fleeing suspect.

However, if that officer can articulate a clear threat to his or her life, or to the life of another, the officer is usually free to draw his or her weapon and secure the situation through deadly force.

But a sidebar of what duties an officer has versus what moral obligations a citizen has isn't going to go anywhere but downhill.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 6th 2007, 08:42 PM
Murderer, thou shalt not kill.

The actual commandment is "Thou shall not MURDER." Murder = unlawfully ending another's life out of malice. He wasn't being malicious, he was defending his neighbor's property. There was no premeditation at all, so it's not murder. At the absolute, very worse, it is manslaughter, which is a reckless ending of life through poor decisions or irresponsible behavior leading to the death of another.

Let's not judge someone by taking scripture out of context and not even giving proper definition to the wording just we're justified in our emotions.

Don't make me fetch my wedding dress. :D

I<3Jesus
Dec 6th 2007, 08:50 PM
The actual commandment is "Thou shall not MURDER."

Potato/Potatoe ;)


Murder = unlawfully ending another's life out of malice. He wasn't being malicious, he was defending his neighbor's property. There was no premeditation at all, so it's not murder. At the absolute, very worse, it is manslaughter, which is a reckless ending of life through poor decisions or irresponsible behavior leading to the death of another.

He ignored the operator who told him to stay put. There was absolutely no need for him to go out and gun down these men. Who does he think he is, Charlie Bronson?


Let's not judge someone by taking scripture out of context and not even giving proper definition to the wording just we're justified in our emotions.

I feel no emotion what so ever when it comes to the subject. The man gunned down two men who were on another person's property. He did so after 911 was called and police were en route. He is a murderer.


Don't make me fetch my wedding dress. :D

Oh noes!

VerticalReality
Dec 6th 2007, 09:00 PM
I don't think Jesus would have pulled out the 12 gauge Mossberg and blew the two guys away . . .

jeffreys
Dec 6th 2007, 09:06 PM
I don't think Jesus would have pulled out the 12 gauge Mossberg and blew the two guys away . . .

Perhaps a Remington? :D

ServantofTruth
Dec 6th 2007, 09:09 PM
I'm sorry but the rules of the bible are no different when you live in rough area. I admit i have not lived in areas of crime as bad as you have. But i have lived in the rougher 2 areas of my town. Joy riders, burning cars within 10 yards of my house, being threatened with violence and my property attacked. In ALL cases i rang the police and no they didn't come round once! But i did the right thing and started looking for a new place to live. I then paid well over the odds to live in a nice close with polite nice people.
We do chose where we live. If i knew there was a drug house next door, i'd contact the police. If they did nothing i'd move. Why would i live in a road / area where i know i'll need to fight or shoot to get through the day. If i can move 70 miles with just a carrier bag, so can anyone.
I come to the real test as i have posed on other topics. Are you telling me that with Jesus Christ standing beside you in the flesh, that you would shoot and kill someone? That he would think this was quite ok?

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 6th 2007, 09:11 PM
Potato/Potatoe ;)

So, anyone who kills an animal is guilty? We do lace certain words with a preponderance of understanding. Murder has a very clear precedent: Malice and premeditation. If we arbitrarily remove key components just to suit our needs, we're being visceral and arrogant.

I'm not trying to argue with you, but using God's word to position yourself out of an emotional response isn't good, especially when you knowingly incorrectly interpret it and use it anyway. And I am guilty of the same thing, so don't think I'm standing in judgment, hun.




He ignored the operator who told him to stay put. There was absolutely no need for him to go out and gun down these men. Who does he think he is, Charlie Bronson?

That's a matter of opinion.




I feel no emotion what so ever when it comes to the subject. The man gunned down two men who were on another person's property. He did so after 911 was called and police were en route. He is a murderer.



Oh noes!

I don't want to be confrontational, so I'll not directly address the rest of the points.

The fact is this simple: Some of us are given the gift of protectors, and protectors are what we are. You'll never understand it because you don't have it, anymore than I'll understand speaking in tongues. We're all a part of His master plan, which we'll never know or understand.

We all serve a purpose! God bless you, my sister. :hug:

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 6th 2007, 09:24 PM
I'm sorry but the rules of the bible are no different when you live in rough area. I admit i have not lived in areas of crime as bad as you have. But i have lived in the rougher 2 areas of my town. Joy riders, burning cars within 10 yards of my house, being threatened with violence and my property attacked. In ALL cases i rang the police and no they didn't come round once! But i did the right thing and started looking for a new place to live. I then paid well over the odds to live in a nice close with polite nice people.
We do chose where we live. If i knew there was a drug house next door, i'd contact the police. If they did nothing i'd move. Why would i live in a road / area where i know i'll need to fight or shoot to get through the day. If i can move 70 miles with just a carrier bag, so can anyone.
I come to the real test as i have posed on other topics. Are you telling me that with Jesus Christ standing beside you in the flesh, that you would shoot and kill someone? That he would think this was quite ok?


Not everyone can afford to move to a better neighborhood. And even if we all did, they'd just follow us.

The real test: If they broached my 21 foot line, I'd have killed them. My Jesus would not condemn me for defending my neighbors or myself.

But this is all a matter of personal conviction - people see things differently.

You run away and abandon others who don't have your blessings to do so likewise. I am not capable of running away because my moral compass points a different direction and I feel that protecting others is a big part of my walk with Him.

Please don't reply this, as I'll not be replying back. I'll hold you up in prayer. :pray:

Steve M
Dec 6th 2007, 09:27 PM
And if they struck you on your right cheek....?

th1bill
Dec 6th 2007, 10:09 PM
Concerns over your own safety and the safety of your neighbors are certainly valid. But, the mere fact that someone is stealing from your neighbor's home doesn't make killing them self-defense.

Now, when Horn got back on the phone he did say that he had no choice but to shoot. Maybe some other evidence will come out that they came at him when he confronted it. I doubt that this was the case because when you're unarmed and someone with a shotgun confronts you your first move is going to be to flee or do whatever they tell you to do.



I have another question for everyone, but especially for those who think Mr. Horn was justified. Would the police have been justified in shooting the burglars? Let's say that they police confront them, yell "Move, your dead, " they both try to get away (making an assumption here) and the police shoot them. Justified?
.. Let's begin with false accusations are never the Christian thing to do, ok? You do not have all the facts and neither do I. However, I still recieve the Houston News broadcasts and the men, according to that news, were in joe's yard when he killed them. When he confronted them, according to the news, they were in his neighbors drive way. You assuming far to much and that is not the Christian way at all. You assumptions will destroy Joe's reputation and like the news services, you will make a small, never noticed appoligy that will, in no way be of any benifit to the gentleman. As a Christian do you honestly think what you are engaged in here any better than what Joe was compelled to do to protect himself and his neighbor? Is this the sort of thing Jesus would have done in this situation?

Sherrie
Dec 6th 2007, 10:18 PM
Facts:

This man was not the law
No-one-was-home-next-door
He called the police
Only material things were taken...they CAN be replaced
Once Neighbor contacted the police....The Dispatcher told him to stay in the house
Burglar's were outside the neighbors house leaving the opposite way of the gung-ho shooter
The gung-ho shooter could have been shot and killed by the burglar's
The gung-ho shooter who was in his house was in no way in danger of the burglars next door to begin with
He/himself was in no danger of being attacked to begin with...He was not being harmed on his property or in his car

Michigan laws according to the The “Castle Doctrine says:

This all means that you must still act in a reasonable manner. Your firearm should still be your “tool of last resort” for self-defense. The emotional trauma and aftermath of shooting another human being will be absolutely devastating. It should be avoided if at all possible. This law mitigates the aftermath so that a decision made under the duress of defending oneself against a criminal does not destroy your life criminally or financially



Texas Legislations says:



A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against
a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense
of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.
SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action
that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by
the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is
continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007

I<3Jesus
Dec 6th 2007, 10:28 PM
So, anyone who kills an animal is guilty? We do lace certain words with a preponderance of understanding. Murder has a very clear precedent: Malice and premeditation. If we arbitrarily remove key components just to suit our needs, we're being visceral and arrogant.

When I think of the word 'kill' I associate it with killing another person. I was taught 'Thou shall not kill' when I was little, so that is how I always remember it. I see your point, I guess we are basically arguing semantics. That does not change my opinion that this person is a murderer though ;)


I'm not trying to argue with you, but using God's word to position yourself out of an emotional response isn't good, especially when you knowingly incorrectly interpret it and use it anyway.

I explained this above, but that is NOT what I was trying to do. I was taught 'Thou shall not kill.' It was not a blatant attempt to skew God's word. You are giving me too much credit for being clever.


The fact is this simple: Some of us are given the gift of protectors, and protectors are what we are. You'll never understand it because you don't have it, anymore than I'll understand speaking in tongues. We're all a part of His master plan, which we'll never know or understand.

I do not get this. Are you saying that God made some of us shot gun toting vigilantes and others the gift of tongues? ;) Please explain.

PS. I am not trying to argue with you either.

Sherrie
Dec 6th 2007, 10:33 PM
I do not get this. Are you saying that God made some of us shot gun toting vigilantes and others the gift of tongues? ;) Please explain.



:lol:..I am sorry, I know this was not meant to be funny or that the topic is funny, but for a few minutes here, I had to laugh.

AlainaJ
Dec 6th 2007, 10:38 PM
I do not get this. Are you saying that God made some of us shot gun toting vigilantes and others the gift of tongues? ;) Please explain.

PS. I am not trying to argue with you either.[/quote]

I<3Jesus

I don't want to speak for FMI, but I think he is saying that God makes everyone different.

For instance- some of us are quiet, some are very outgoing, some people God has given different abilites and convictions.

I think that two people on oppoistie sides of this issues can be right...as long as they are following what the Holy Spirit tells them.

God has made each of us individuals. I don't know if that makes sense..but if we all were pacifitst (spelling?:hmm:) or all ready to take up a fight....the world would be alike. But, God made each of us different.

God also can use people and their differnet skills for his purposes at different times and in different ways.

God Bless

I<3Jesus
Dec 6th 2007, 10:44 PM
:lol:..I am sorry, I know this was not meant to be funny or that the topic is funny, but for a few minutes here, I had to laugh.

I meant it to be funny hence the winkie emoticon :)

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 6th 2007, 11:19 PM
I do not get this. Are you saying that God made some of us shot gun toting vigilantes and others the gift of tongues? ;) Please explain.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: That's funny, I don't care who you are. Thanks for the laugh!

It was a poor choice, I admit. I'm trying to remain at least a bit on topic and grounded in a sense of God's examples, but that definitely left much to be desired.

What I was attempting to articulate is that we're all different. We all handle things differently. Just as it is incomprehensible for you to point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger, it is incomprehensible for me NOT to step in and do anything. We just come from different lifestyles, I guess.

It's social programming and has nothing to do with our faith.

Like the other lady said above, we could all just run away to our nicer neighborhoods. To me, this is a disgusting thing to do - we feed other Christians to the wolves out of a selfish need of caring about NOTHING but ourselves when we do this. To her, I'm sure the concept of me carrying a firearm with the training and resolve to use it to help others is, likewise, a disgusting concept.

Just because we are all born again does NOT mean we don't have differences. I'm never going to understand the idea of "let the police handle it," and y'all are never going to understand the role we play as protectors.

I'd really rather just drop it.

I've stated my opinion, y'all have stated yours, and there's no need for friction between us over a petty matter that we don't even have all the facts to.

Christ's love to you! :hug:

Matthew
Dec 6th 2007, 11:21 PM
.. Let's begin with false accusations are never the Christian thing to do, ok?

I agree. Are you accusing me of falsely accusing Mr. Horn?

I explicitly included a parenthetical to explain that I was making an assumption just so no one would think that I'm accusing Mr. Horn of shooting people who were fleeing. I don't know how much clearer I can make that.


You do not have all the facts and neither do I. However, I still recieve the Houston News broadcasts and the men, according to that news, were in joe's yard when he killed them. When he confronted them, according to the news, they were in his neighbors drive way. You assuming far to much and that is not the Christian way at all. You assumptions will destroy Joe's reputation and like the news services, you will make a small, never noticed appoligy that will, in no way be of any benifit to the gentleman. As a Christian do you honestly think what you are engaged in here any better than what Joe was compelled to do to protect himself and his neighbor? Is this the sort of thing Jesus would have done in this situation?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

You seem to be under the impression that I'm pushing an agenda here. I'm not. I have an opinion based on the information I have access to. If new info comes out or I'm wrong about something I'll change it. If someone else has an opinion and I disagree I'll challenge it. Post any sources you want and I'll take them into account and change my opinion accordingly.


As for your questions, I guess it depends on whether Mr. Horn did anything wrong. In my opinion, asking questions and having a civil discussion is much better than confronting criminals and killing them when the police have already been notified and the operator has told you repeatedly to not confront the criminals.

That's another point that needs to be made real clear here. No one is saying that Mr. Horn should've done nothing. He was doing a tremendous service by calling the police and informing them that a burglary was in progress. Where he erred IMO is that he shoud've listened to the operator who told him not to go outside and confront the people. The operator explained that property is not worth losing a life over and the police were on the way.

Seeker of truth
Dec 6th 2007, 11:28 PM
Facts:

This man was not the law
No-one-was-home-next-door
He called the police
Only material things were taken...they CAN be replaced
Once Neighbor contacted the police....The Dispatcher told him to stay in the house
Burglar's were outside the neighbors house leaving the opposite way of the gung-ho shooter
The gung-ho shooter could have been shot and killed by the burglar's
The gung-ho shooter who was in his house was in no way in danger of the burglars next door to begin with
He/himself was in no danger of being attacked to begin with...He was not being harmed on his property or in his car

Excellent post! I wish I could rep you!

I<3Jesus
Dec 6th 2007, 11:42 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl: That's funny, I don't care who you are. Thanks for the laugh!

See! Someone finally gets my humor!

Matthew
Dec 6th 2007, 11:49 PM
Speaking as a legal gun owner, Mr. Horn was right to confront them. Whether or not he was within his right to shoot them none of us knows.

The way we train (we = gun owners that carry for protection, as I do - I don't check my mail without being armed) is called "the 21-foot rule." If I am forced to brandish my firearm, I have an invisible circle of 21 feet. If you come within that circle, my duty to retreat is done and it's two the chest and one to the head. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I don't know about the 21 foot rule, but when I read this I thought of Chris Farley doing his impression of Norman Schwartzkopf talking about Iraq. "The Iraqis are lucky I had an army, because if I didn't, I would've been forced to go over there myself and personally beat the tar out of each and every individual that came within my parameter!":lol: Just thought I'd add a little humor to the thread. Clip here: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=2653


absolutely, positively would have ignored the police and confronted the burglars. Those of you saying you would not have should be ashamed of yourself. What is this country coming to? "It's just stuff..." Yes, and if we all took that attitude, crime would be even more rampant: "OK, dude, it's just stuff, take it, I don't want to have to hurt you." The whole argument that it can be replaced is preposterous - it shouldn't have to be! :B

No, if Mr. Horn had not confronted them they'd be in jail right now. The police arrived about 10 seconds after he confronted them. No one is saying do nothing. We have a police force to provide protection and if possible they should be the ones to handle all of these situations. Sometimes a citizen might have to do it on their own. I don't think this was one of those times.


However, with that said, there's a right way and a wrong way to intervene in a crime. I would have gone out there and held them until the police finally showed up. They would have been given the same warning: Move and you're dead. If they approached me and broached 21 feet, I would have killed them. If they ran away, however, all I can do is tell the cops which direction or, if on a cell, follow them and remain in contact with the police. The question we don't have an answer to is this: Did the criminals present themselves as an approaching threat? If yes, Texas has no duty to retreat and the man did the right thing ventilating them. If no, he's a murderer.

You hit the crux of the matter. Even though I think it was dumb for him to confront them, there is nothing illegal about him confronting them. If after he did so they charged him or committed some kind of threatening action then I understand the use of force. As I understand the facts though, the men were unarmed when confronted by Horn. I'd be surprised if their reaction was to attack. I don't know though. Maybe they thought this was some suburban softie who wouldn't really pull the trigger. They would've been wrong.



As Christians, we sometimes forget that loving our neighbors means we have a duty to protect them. The logic here about "how do we know they wouldn't have been saved eventually" is red herring fallacy: How do we know Saddam Hussein would have never been saved? Adolph Hitler? God gives us all free will, free choice, and every human being knows very well that tomorrow may be the last day alive. These two pieces of garbage knew that morning that they could die, they denied Christ anyway, and they made an informed, cognitive decision to ruin another's life. Justice was served.

Stealing property ruins another's life? I disagree. As far as justice goes, I think burglarizing a home does not deserve death.

Brother Mark
Dec 6th 2007, 11:59 PM
Authority helps clarify much of these kinds of issues. God gave government much authority that is not given to individuals. While Jesus told individuals to turn the other cheek, God taught in Romans that government bears the sword and should be feared.

Personally, should one enter my home and threaten my family, I would use physical force for they have been placed under my authority. Were I alone, they could have all of my material wealth.

Luke 6:27-33

27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. 30 "Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. 31 "And just as you want people to treat you, treat them in the same way. 32 "And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 "And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
NASB

Should we, as individuals, really protect our shirt and cloak with force?

th1bill
Dec 7th 2007, 02:59 AM
I agree. Are you accusing me of falsely accusing Mr. Horn?(1)

I explicitly included a parenthetical to explain that I was making an assumption just so no one would think that I'm accusing Mr. Horn of shooting people who were fleeing. I don't know how much clearer I can make that.



You seem to be under the impression that I'm pushing an agenda here. I'm not. I have an opinion based on the information I have access to. If new info comes out or I'm wrong about something I'll change it. If someone else has an opinion and I disagree I'll challenge it. Post any sources you want and I'll take them into account and change my opinion accordingly. (2)


As for your questions, I guess it depends on whether Mr. Horn did anything wrong. In my opinion, asking questions and having a civil discussion is much better than confronting criminals and killing them when the police have already been notified and the operator has told you repeatedly to not confront the criminals. (3)

That's another point that needs to be made real clear here. No one is saying that Mr. Horn should've done nothing. He was doing a tremendous service by calling the police and informing them that a burglary was in progress. Where he erred IMO (4) is that he shoud've listened to the operator who told him not to go outside and confront the people. (5) The operator explained that property is not worth losing a life over and the police were on the way.(6)
1) May I just ask who brought the subject into play and the comments were not, after all, well researched.
2) Every day there is more revelation on the news and I have not seen you present it here and it does point in exactly the opposite direction of your statements.
3) And the HPD and the Harris County have over and over stated that Joe did not break the law. And the 911 Operator has no legal standing except they be a police officer and then they must declare it. That lack of declaration left the operator in the status of being no more athoratative than Joe.
4) And your "opinion" is no more the law than mine is.
5) And the very reason the criminals rule the streets is because the common man has become such a lover of self that he is no longer willing to be pressed into servitude. Joe made the supreme sacrificial gesture, he left the safety of his home and served the entrests of his neighbors.
6) And as has been demonstrated here several times already the police were still quite far off. They would have arrived after the fact and there is not a police officer in Pasadena or Houston that does not appreciate the gppd neighbor action taken by Joe.
And this is not a racial incident. if they had been white he would have done the same thing. Actually joe saved the tax payers many hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least a million for the two trials and over 35 thoiusand a year to keep those men resting in an air conditioned cell during their stay with the penal system.

If your not pushing an agenda, why are you choosing to keep insisting that it must be your way or no way at all? Your action speaks much louder than your words.

Matthew
Dec 7th 2007, 04:16 AM
1) May I just ask who brought the subject into play and the comments were not, after all, well researched.

Is there anything that I posted as fact that I did not provide my source for? All you have to do is ask me where I got my info from and I'll provide my source. I already posted the entire audio for people to hear and two different news articles.



2) Every day there is more revelation on the news and I have not seen you present it here and it does point in exactly the opposite direction of your statements.

I haven't seen anything contradicting what I posted. If something is inaccurate let me know and I'll change it. I'm not saying I won't keep up with the story and update my posts on my own, but if you beat me to the punch then let me know so I can fix whatever I need to.


3) And the HPD and the Harris County have over and over stated that Joe did not break the law. And the 911 Operator has no legal standing except they be a police officer and then they must declare it. That lack of declaration left the operator in the status of being no more athoratative than Joe.

I never said Joe broke the law by disobeying the operator. I haven't seen anything where authorities said he broke no laws. As far as I know he may potentially be indicted by a grand jury.


4) And your "opinion" is no more the law than mine is.

Correct. I never claimed it was though.


5) And the very reason the criminals rule the streets is because the common man has become such a lover of self that he is no longer willing to be pressed into servitude. Joe made the supreme sacrificial gesture, he left the safety of his home and served the entrests of his neighbors.

He was right in responding. IMO he was wrong in how he responded. Have you listened to the audio tape that I provided? He says an awful lot about them getting away.


6) And as has been demonstrated here several times already the police were still quite far off. They would have arrived after the fact and there is not a police officer in Pasadena or Houston that does not appreciate the gppd neighbor action taken by Joe.

I've heard several people say on the news that they arrived about 10 seconds after the shots were fired. If you listen to the audio tape it is 100% clear that the police were not quite far off. On the audio a little over a minute passes between the first gun shot and when you can hear an officer telling him to lay down on the ground


And this is not a racial incident. if they had been white he would have done the same thing. Actually joe saved the tax payers many hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least a million for the two trials and over 35 thoiusand a year to keep those men resting in an air conditioned cell during their stay with the penal system.

It shouldn't be a racial issue. Whether the world is a better place with the two burglars dead isn't really the point. There's a lot of criminals who are really bad people who wouldn't be missed by society if they were dead. That doesn't mean if one is killed that it's justified though.


If your not pushing an agenda, why are you choosing to keep insisting that it must be your way or no way at all? Your action speaks much louder than your words.

Show me where I said anything remotely like everyone must agree with me. From my very first post: "I think he was wrong because he confronted the criminals after five minutes of the operator telling him to stay inside and don't do anything. Like I said, I seem to be in the minority so I certainly welcome other opinions."

I started a thread asking for other opinions. If I disagree with someone's opinion I'm going to respond. It's not personal and there's no need to respond back if the person doesn't want to. I like to debate though.

th1bill
Dec 7th 2007, 04:29 AM
And as I responded to your query about your agenda, your actions totally muffle you voice. i.e. Your agenda.

Matthew, I'm not pushing an agenda and some day, before it kills you I hope you'll get. Good-bye and God bless.

Clavicula_Nox
Dec 7th 2007, 01:23 PM
I come to the real test as i have posed on other topics. Are you telling me that with Jesus Christ standing beside you in the flesh, that you would shoot and kill someone? That he would think this was quite ok?

As someone who has killed in combat, the answer is yes I would. Without hesitation, and without remorse. Your question, however, is without context. "Woudl you shoot and kill someone," depends on the situation. If I had been Horn and there had been no threatening actions taken against me, I would not have fired. Had they been armed, or otherwise acting in a way that trigger my reflexes, I would have attempted to shoot with the intention of disabling. Had they opened fire on me, I would have killed them.

Like Follow Me Infantry, I couldn't imagine running away from a situation simply because it inconviences me and makes me uncomfortable, though I have noticed a pattern in this thread. Those of us who are "rough men," feel it was justified, and those of us who hide behind the rough men feel it was wrong. Hm.

I'm glad I'm getting out because I don't want to defend these people anymore.

Sherrie
Dec 7th 2007, 01:33 PM
Like Follow Me Infantry, I couldn't imagine running away from a situation simply because it inconviences me and makes me uncomfortable, though I have noticed a pattern in this thread. Those of us who are "rough men," feel it was justified, and those of us who hide behind the rough men feel it was wrong. Hm.

I'm glad I'm getting out because I don't want to defend these people anymore.


:rolleyes: hmmmm.....Yes, I have noticed this with all the "look at me" people too! ;)

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 01:43 PM
Like Follow Me Infantry, I couldn't imagine running away from a situation simply because it inconviences me and makes me uncomfortable, though I have noticed a pattern in this thread. Those of us who are "rough men," feel it was justified, and those of us who hide behind the rough men feel it was wrong. Hm.

Some may feel it is wrong in this circumstance but not all circumstances. It comes down to authority to me and the value of a soul compared with material belongings.

Sherrie
Dec 7th 2007, 01:49 PM
Very good post Bro. Mark! I am out of reps, But will rep you tomorrow when I can!

VerticalReality
Dec 7th 2007, 02:02 PM
Some may feel it is wrong in this circumstance but not all circumstances. It comes down to authority to me and the value of a soul compared with material belongings.

Agreed. I'm not sure what a "rough man" is, but my point of view comes from what it means to be a "saved man" who values God's view over the carnal world. I'm not going to kill a man for stealing from me because, quite frankly, it just ain't right. Since when are material possessions worth more than a soul, and when is it ever right to seek out vengeance?

Remember . . .



Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore

“ If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Sherrie
Dec 7th 2007, 02:04 PM
VerticalReality...that is so awsome you wrote that, because when I prayed about this, and asked guidance from the Lord about it, it was the first thing after my prayer, that came to my mind!

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 02:06 PM
Hey, Matt, I really wasn't going to return here, but you seem like a level headed person that truly wants a debate, rather than to lambaste me with your opinion, so I'll address your points.


I don't know about the 21 foot rule, but when I read this I thought of Chris Farley doing his impression of Norman Schwartzkopf talking about Iraq. "The Iraqis are lucky I had an army, because if I didn't, I would've been forced to go over there myself and personally beat the tar out of each and every individual that came within my parameter!":lol: Just thought I'd add a little humor to the thread. Clip here: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=2653



No, if Mr. Horn had not confronted them they'd be in jail right now. The police arrived about 10 seconds after he confronted them. No one is saying do nothing. We have a police force to provide protection and if possible they should be the ones to handle all of these situations. Sometimes a citizen might have to do it on their own. I don't think this was one of those times.

I'd like your opinion on this statement:

Who is more likely to be the victim: The one who wants someone else to handle a violation, or the one the criminal knows for a fact will handle it on their own?

And another:

You and I live on the same block. One my door is a sign: "Warning! I am trained and will shoot at any violation occurring on my property. I do not call the police." On your door is also a sign: "Warning, I am not armed, but I will call the police if I feel you're a threat."

Who is more likely to be a victim of a violent crime?




You hit the crux of the matter. Even though I think it was dumb for him to confront them, there is nothing illegal about him confronting them. If after he did so they charged him or committed some kind of threatening action then I understand the use of force. As I understand the facts though, the men were unarmed when confronted by Horn. I'd be surprised if their reaction was to attack. I don't know though. Maybe they thought this was some suburban softie who wouldn't really pull the trigger. They would've been wrong.

I may be misunderstanding you, here.

Being armed or not is not an issue in a state with a "no duty to retreat" addendum. Essentially, "duty to retreat" means that if you have any way out at all, including running away, you cannot employ deadly force. A NO duty law, conversely, means that you are free to protect the space you occupy at any and all costs.

That is the only issue, here: Did this man face a duty to retreat? If not, what are his justifications for feeling an imminent threat to his safety? And remember, bro, he was armed - this goes FOR him, not against him: "I was in fear for my life as they are 2 and I am 1, I have a respiratory condition, if they had gotten within reach of my weapon, they'd have taken it from me, killed me, and then used my legal gun to illegally kill others. I could not allow that to happen."

He does not have to prove a threat of death - only incapacitation. It was 2 against 1, and he was armed. In almost any court, under the scrutiny of almost any jury, the chance that he'd have been overpowered and disarmed trumps the chance that he'd have been able to win a toe to toe fight without losing control of his weapon. Hence, he's innocent (no duty to retreat, remember).

Oh, and to anyone stating the dispatcher's side: Dispatchers have no legal authority at all to control any situation; most are not police officers, and those that are POST certified as a law enforcement officer still have no authority, as a crime has to be established and witnessed by the controlling officer before it becomes a legal command under probably cause. An officer not on the scene cannot effect an arrest, nor do they have any authority - which is why some counties require a sergeant be on site to arrest: An officer cannot achieve legal right to arrest under questionable circumstances by radioing in.

So please, for the love of Mike, STOP talking about what the dispatcher said. He or she makes $8 an hour to answer a phone, calm a situation, and route calls to the real authorities. This is America: Those not in authority don't have legal precedence over those with rights just because they work somewhere that is involved with the police.



Stealing property ruins another's life? I disagree. As far as justice goes, I think burglarizing a home does not deserve death.

And I agree with you, my brother. If I didn't think I'd get my fool face caved in, I'd witness to thieves, not hold them at gunpoint. Do some of us really seem to be such animals to you all?

Taking a life isn't a good thing, it isn't a movie, there's no glory, no heroism, just self-conviction and PTSD, whether you're a believer or not.

I've seen some of the most grounded, nicest people come home from world "conflicts" and NEVER get over the fact they pulled a trigger. The strongest become meek - head low, face in dirt, never to forgive oneself.

I think many here in this thread think--let me reiterate, think: I'm making no accusations--that some of us cannot wait to get out there and play hero. Trust me on this, my brothers and sisters: No one wants to be a hero. Once you realize it's real, you just want to run away - far and fast. Those who regale you with stories of grandeur are liars. There is no bragging, no arrogance - there is shame, hurt, and so many other things I don't even want to dive into.

Who knows what was on this guy's heart? Maybe he did think he'd be a hero. If that's the case, you can drop the persecution, as he'll do enough of that himself (60% of those that take a life in combat commit suicide over it, did you know that?) and it'll be God's to judge.

If we're to discuss this, we need a true debate. Opinions and emotions are fine, but neither are "right," especially from a biblical standpoint... you know, the whole "judge not, God knows the heart, vengeance is Mine" thing.

BTW: I am a vet, I was married to (errr, living with) a cop, I've been in jail, I carry a firearm daily.

I think I have at least a BIT of qualification to speak on this matter.

Sherrie
Dec 7th 2007, 02:21 PM
He does not have to prove a threat of death - only incapacitation. It was 2 against 1, and he was armed. In almost any court, under the scrutiny of almost any jury, the chance that he'd have been overpowered and disarmed trumps the chance that he'd have been able to win a toe to toe fight without losing control of his weapon. Hence, he's innocent (no duty to retreat, remember).

Oh, and to anyone stating the dispatcher's side: Dispatchers have no legal authority at all to control any situation; most are not police officers, and those that are POST certified as a law enforcement officer still have no authority, as a crime has to be established and witnessed by the controlling officer before it becomes a legal command under probably cause. An officer not on the scene cannot effect an arrest, nor do they have any authority - which is why some counties require a sergeant be on site to arrest: An officer cannot achieve legal right to arrest under questionable circumstances by radioing in.


The thought here is he was not in any danger. The law applies to His property, His car, His job. It does not apply to him going outside and going over to his neighbors yard, with intent to use his gun no matter what the situatuion was. No one was in any danger, until he went over and shot those men.

I do not beleive the Dispatcher was commanding a law out to the man, but was telling him to stay in, because he would and was creating more problems, than what needed to be.

The Dispatcher in our community is a legal officer of the courts here. Just like a Baliff would be. We must acknowledge them as authority, because they are appointed to do a job. They are not just a relay messenger. They are trained to say and do paticular things in a paticular situation.

There are times when it would have been approperiate for protection, but this was not the time.

Clavicula_Nox
Dec 7th 2007, 02:26 PM
:rolleyes: hmmmm.....Yes, I have noticed this with all the "look at me" people too! ;)

What does that mean?

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 02:30 PM
SHERRI!

You type too fast! Give us two-fingers old men a chance to reply, will ya!

:lol::lol::lol:

I swear, I am buying voice recognition software to compete and debate with the likes of you, my dear sister!

:kiss:

(Be addressing you points in a min, hun)

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 02:39 PM
What does that mean?

I had to learn this as a civilian, bro. She didn't mean it disrespectful or mean.

To some here, the fact we feel a conviction to protect is misconstrued as a need to prove ourselves to others.

In Sherri's case, she probably feels that we feel the way we do because we're trained that way and "can't get around it," or something of the such. She can't understand, her right sleeve isn't the same as ours, it isn't her fault. It's every bit as incomprehensible to her as it would be for you or me to run away.

The only thing we REALLY need to concentrate on is that we're all going to be sitting at the same feet worshiping.

I highly doubt she meant it as it comes off to us.

(Sherri, you may not know this, but you just insulted him in a rather large way - you might as well have accused him of cheating on his wife. We take these things to heart when they are said, even innocently, from those we consider family. Please try and remember that you know NOTHING of combat, and he has been there more than most - myself included. The man is on his umpteenth tour, and that takes a LOT out of a man).

No need for this to turn into anything that hurts anyone. Let's keep it as a discussion, and let's apologize for any wrongs, and let's not perceive wrongs where none exist. MMmmmmk? :)

Now, I'm a bring everyone some coffee and we'll continue. Oh, and some breakfast.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 02:59 PM
The thought here is he was not in any danger. The law applies to His property, His car, His job. It does not apply to him going outside and going over to his neighbors yard, with intent to use his gun no matter what the situatuion was. No one was in any danger, until he went over and shot those men.

I do not beleive the Dispatcher was commanding a law out to the man, but was telling him to stay in, because he would and was creating more problems, than what needed to be.

The Dispatcher in our community is a legal officer of the courts here. Just like a Baliff would be. We must acknowledge them as authority, because they are appointed to do a job. They are not just a relay messenger. They are trained to say and do paticular things in a paticular situation.

There are times when it would have been approperiate for protection, but this was not the time.

First, I agree he handled it incorrectly. I can tell by the tone in his voice: His was not the nervous anxiety and fear I want to hear, his was an adrenaline excitement - that gets my soldiers killed, and he's no soldier.

However, he only confronted in the neighbor's yard (public view law, right to confront, mutual space, no duty to retreat). The thieves crossed on to his property, at which time he became all but indemnified under law as theirs was the act of physical aggression (posturing and approaching a possible volatile situation with intent to escalate).

Unless facts different than those contained in this thread are verified as credible and subject to scrutiny (no www.newsrus links), I call everyone here to stand to your words about being under the authority of the law: If he is not charged, arrested, and convicted and sentenced, he meets the literal criteria that has been purported in this thread as falling under God's commands to obey the government precedent of law. Hasn't he?

It can't be an argument of one side. Either it's God's law or it isn't. It was said that we have a duty to rely on the police because that is scripture. So if the police say he's innocent, he is now free and clear and you all MUST agree that he was used by God to enact justice.

(Not that I truly believe that, but waxing poetic and such).

:)

Sherrie
Dec 7th 2007, 03:01 PM
Neighbor who shot potential burglars 'petrified'
KHOU.com staff report

The Pasadena homeowner who gunned down two alleged burglars Wednesday told 11 News that he is "petrified."
Police released the 911 call from Wednesday’s fatal shooting of two suspected robbers who he claims were ripping off his neighbor.
In the recording the man, who we are only referring to as Joe, opened fire when he confronted two men who thought was breaking into a neighbor’s home.

The dramatic call to police has the unidentified shooter telling the Pasadena police dispatcher, “I won’t let them get away with this.”
Soon after you can hear the distinct sound of the cocking of a shotgun and repeated shots being fired.
The call started off calmly enough.
"(There are) burglars breaking into a house next door," the caller is heard on the 911 tape telling a police dispatcher.

"I've got a shotgun do you want me to stop 'em?" The dispatcher was quick to respond.

"Nope don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over OK?," the Pasadena dispatcher said as he called out officers to the scene.
But the caller, whose name 11 News is withholding because police said they fear for his safety, grows antsy and decides to take matters into his own hands.

"I'll be honest with you I'm not gonna let 'em go I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)," he tells the dispatcher.
Then a short time later: "I can’t take a chance on getting killed over this. I’m gonna shoot. I’m gonna shoot."
That's when the police dispatcher makes an urgent call to officers.
"This guy's got a shotgun if we don't get there he's gonna shoot their asses," the dispatcher radios to responding officers.
Too late.

On the 911 tape the distinct sound of a shotgun pumping and then a shot, then again and 10 seconds later one more shot. Three shots in all can be heard on the recording.

"The last thing Joe intended, knowing him the way I do, was to get in a violent confrontation with these people," said attorney Tom Lambright, who is representing the man who fired the fatal shots. Lambright said his client, a good friend, didn't want to kill anyone.
But the confrontation was violent. And it was fatal. Both of the unarmed men who were supposedly burglarizing the man's neighbor were shot dead.
The shooting may become a test of the state law that allows someone to use deadly force to protect one’s property. But does that right extend to protecting the property of your neighbors?

"They were bad guys, they were doing a bad thing. But the penalty for that is not to be shot," said 11 News legal expert Gerald Treece. "The penalty for that is not the death penalty. That's what I'm saying. If law enforcement officials had shown up and done exactly the same thing these law enforcement officials would also have trouble."


After the quick hummer commercial you can hear the video of the call:

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071115_tj_911call.7f804f1.html




(Sherri, you may not know this, but you just insulted him in a rather large way - you might as well have accused him of cheating on his wife. We take these things to heart when they are said, even innocently, from those we consider family. Please try and remember that you know NOTHING of combat, and he has been there more than most - myself included. The man is on his umpteenth tour, and that takes a LOT out of a man).


FMI...this was not my feeling on the above comment made to Clavicula. My feelings just because I am not agreeing on what this man did, does not mean I am hiding behind any "rough men". I also did not appreciate his comment.

You are so right, I have not been to war. But his comment was uncalled for, and had no baring on this topic! He is what..a 25 year old man who has been. I say thank you to him. My Childrens father (Green Berit....Special Forces) was over in Vietnam for 2 tours. MIA and POW for 18 months, before spending 2 more years in and out of hospitals at Pearl Harbor and Ft. Sam Houston Texas. My Son was over in Kuwait for that experience, and my other son is over in Iraq along with one of my Grandsons. But it has no bearing on this topic.

SethElijah
Dec 7th 2007, 03:03 PM
My father has always presented it to me as this: there are sheepdogs and sheep. We cannot all be sheepdogs, and we cannot all be sheep. There will be those that are protectors, and those that are protected, and it has to be this way. If we were all made the same, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. In the case of Mr. Horn, I will reserve judgement until I know all the facts, I was not there to witness what the two men did that may have provocated it. That said, I would also have confronted these men. I have watched some ice middle class neighborhoods start with a break in or two, then several, then home invasions, then someone was killed. I am not a gun owner, but I have small children and it makes me nervous. My sister is a single mother and is, my father and mother both are. My father never leaves home without it. I have no qualms helping someone who is down, but will not allow someone to come in and clean me out. I have worked very hard for the things I have, and there are many things I cannot replace, 3 of them are my husband and children. Criminals in this area have become a lot more brazen these days, and I would hate to give them the idea that we will all just lay down and let them have whatever they need. I am the biggest softy in the world, but my line becomes crossed when I feel that my family may be in danger. This would include someone breaking into my neighbors house, for what would be to stop them breaking in mine while me and my children are there. I would rather not wait until they have a gun in my childs face to react. I am not saying go out and shoot all criminals you see, however, if my family or myself are threatened, and this would include if I went outside to confront someone breaking the law, then yes, I would not hesitate. This is just my opinion, be it sheepdog of me. I really dont debate well, so I will just read from here on out, just voicing my opinion on the matter.

Clavicula_Nox
Dec 7th 2007, 03:12 PM
I'm not deployed right now. I'm sitting in my house about to go to ACAP and a job fair.

I don't think that wanting to protect people, or standing up for moral convictions is a need to prove myself, and if it were, I would only have to prove myself to myself, something that I have already done. When a veteran states his experience, it is to put something into a frame of context. You wouldn't consult a banker on matters of agriculture (usually), and a banker would state he's a banker before speaking on matters of economics or banking, yes? Would that be someone trying to prove them selves or saying "hey look at me I'm a banker, look at all the banking I do." No? Why is it different then if I state my occupation, or Bill states his Vietnam experience, or Follow Me Infantry puts a phrase that he probably heard 10,000x in his career for a user name?

If I say "As someone who has killed in combat..." when discussing the concept of killing another human being, it is done with the intention that I don't have to speculate on what I would or wouldn't do, because I already know speculation is no longer necessary.

After typing, I saw this:


FMI...this was not my feeling on the above comment made to Clavicula. My feelings just because I am not agreeing on what this man did, does not mean I am hiding behind any "rough men". I also did not appreciate his comment.

You are so right, I have not been to war. But his comment was uncalled for, and had no baring on this topic! He is what..a 25 year old man who has been. I say thank you to him. My Childrens father (Green Berit....Special Forces) was over in Vietnam for 2 tours. MIA and POW for 18 months, before spending 2 more years in and out of hospitals at Pearl Harbor and Ft. Sam Houston Texas. My Son was over in Kuwait for that experience, and my other son is over in Iraq along with one of my Grandsons. But it has no bearing on this topic.

I'm 22.


*edit*

The man is a murderer and should be tried if his actions were based on a want and desire to shoot someone. If he was excited and filled with adrenaline, then his actions would have been mired by an altered state-of-mind, but still wrong. Based on transcripts and listening to the audio, he sounds pretty excited and I'm leaning more to him being unjustified in intent not in action.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 03:21 PM
FMI...this was not my feeling on the above comment made to Clavicula. My feelings just because I am not agreeing on what this man did, does not mean I am hiding behind any "rough men". I also did not appreciate his comment.

You are so right, I have not been to war. But his comment was uncalled for, and had no baring on this topic! He is what..a 25 year old man who has been. I say thank you to him. My Childrens father (Green Berit....Special Forces) was over in Vietnam for 2 tours. MIA and POW for 18 months, before spending 2 more years in and out of hospitals at Pearl Harbor and Ft. Sam Houston Texas. My Son was over in Kuwait for that experience, and my other son is over in Iraq along with one of my Grandsons. But it has no bearing on this topic.

Sherri,

I was only telling you how WE perceive it. I make nor made any comment of his intent in saying what he did to you. Clav is a great guy, he just doesn't always have the... words? The tact? I dunno. I know he's a great guy, and he meant no offense, just the same as I assured him you meant no offense (and yes, he took offense). I'm just trying to keep this from getting too serious because we are called to love each other, to not argue amongst ourselves.

I meant to accuse you of nothing, my sister :hug:

I'll not speak for him, but I really don't think he meant "hid" as in "you need me." I think he means "hiding behind" only as an illustration that, at times, we feel like the only purpose we serve is to protect those who say the loudest things against us.

And right now, with well over 70% of Americans opposed to the war, Rosie O'Donnell, and every media outlet decrying an injustice, we do feel that way. This isn't WWII where we're appreciated. It's unfortunate, but it is exactly how we feel.

Sherrie
Dec 7th 2007, 03:30 PM
I appreciate that Clavicula; but I do not hid behind anyone, and did not want the assumption just because I disagreed that the man was justified. And I wanted you to know that.

I would most certainly protect myself and my family if the need be, but not in that paticular case would I have. I would have called the police, got a description, noticed the direction they were fleeing, and hounded the dispatcher for police assistance.

But I do not think that makes me a softy when coming to the thoughts of protection, or one who hids behind a rough man.

I want you to know I apologize for becoming short in my above post; but I also hold to my views as well.

Clavicula_Nox
Dec 7th 2007, 03:32 PM
I was alluding to a quote by George Orwell. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because roughmen stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Also, I wasn't insulted, I just wanted to know what she meant.

*edit*


I would most certainly protect myself and my family if the need be, but not in that paticular case would I have. I would have called the police, got a description, noticed the direction they were fleeing, and hounded the dispatcher for police assistance.


I think that is one of the right things to do in that situation. I just don't think it is the only right thing to do, and as more and more info keeps coming up, it's looking like Horn probably acted rashly and I can't defend that.

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 04:40 PM
"I've got a shotgun do you want me to stop 'em?" The dispatcher was quick to respond.

"Nope don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over OK?," the Pasadena dispatcher said as he called out officers to the scene.
But the caller, whose name 11 News is withholding because police said they fear for his safety, grows antsy and decides to take matters into his own hands.

"I'll be honest with you I'm not gonna let 'em go I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)," he tells the dispatcher.
Then a short time later: "I can’t take a chance on getting killed over this. I’m gonna shoot. I’m gonna shoot."
That's when the police dispatcher makes an urgent call to officers.
"This guy's got a shotgun if we don't get there he's gonna shoot their asses," the dispatcher radios to responding officers.

This man is a murderer and needs to be arrested and tried as such.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 04:44 PM
Yeah, we all know the extreme unbiased accuracy of the media. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 04:52 PM
Yeah, we all know the extreme unbiased accuracy of the media. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It was based on the 911 tape. The media has nothing to do with it.

Edit to add: The man is incredibly calm. His voice is not shaky, nothing. He told the 911 operator that he was not going to let them go or get away with this _ _ _ _. That is premeditation in my mind.

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 05:14 PM
Anyone who thinks this man is a hero needs to listen to the entire 911 tape. It ends with them subduing the man after he has gunned down the robbers. It is chilling.

AlainaJ
Dec 7th 2007, 05:46 PM
It think this is one of those topics...where people, even Christians will always be on opposite sides.:hug:

I have been reading along and hesitant to post again becuase I seriously doubt it will change anyones mind.

I am going to be honest..there are alot of people in this nation getting fed up, with the direction our country is taking. I am referring to open borders and NAFTA and the NAU.

Alot of people are getting tired of the prisons filling up with illegal immigrants..

All I am saying is that as the ecnomy tightens, gas prices rise, personal income declines...etc....there are people out there getting fed up.

I am not justifying murder..I really don't want to get into the specific case...but I will say there is alot of stuff the main stream media doesn't report.

I don't think we can turn America back into the wild west with gun battles..I am just trying to present a mind set of a large and growing number of Americans. Unfortunatley, that mind set can trigger incidents of violence.

Alaina

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 06:23 PM
I am all for deporting illegal aliens, but I do not see what that has to do with this topic. Unless you are Native American, you came from immigrants/aliens. There is no excuse for what this man did. He killed two men in cold blood when he was not in ANY danger what so ever. They were not even on his property, so that is not a valid excuse either. In my honest opinion I think that if you delve further into the shooter's life you will find that this might be an issue of racism. He gunned down two unarmed black men who robbed a neighbor's house whom he professed not to even know. He even made comments about how these things shouldn't happen in his neighborhood (which I am guessing is affluent). He did so even though the operator begged and pleaded with him not to go outside. This man needs to be tried for the murder of two individuals plain and simple. There are no shades of gray to this case. It is text book black and white. I am actually quite shocked that Christians are actually sticking up for this individual.

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 07:41 PM
This man is a murderer and needs to be arrested and tried as such.

Very few people will convict this man of murder. His actions do not seem to fit the legal definition of murder. Most likely, he will be tried of manslaughter or something similar.

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 07:43 PM
Mark is correct. Voluntary manslaughter is what I would guess they will bring against him.

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 07:46 PM
Very few people will convict this man of murder. His actions do not seem to fit the legal definition of murder. Most likely, he will be tried of manslaughter or something similar.

mur·der http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fmurder) (mûr'dər) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.I am pretty sure what he did was text book murder. He may not have woken up that morning thinking "I am going to kill two people," but he knew that is what he was going to do when he made that call to 911. Have you listened to the entire call? I think unless people have listened to the entire thing, they should refrain from posting in the thread. If after listening to the call you still feel the need to defend him, I would ask that you please pray about this. It cannot get any more clean cut. There is no fear in his voice. He is calm and cold and calculated.

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 07:50 PM
mur·der http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fmurder) (mûr'dər) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.I am pretty sure what he did was text book murder. He may not have woken up that morning thinking "I am going to kill two people," but he knew that is what he was going to do when he made that call to 911. Have you listened to the entire call? I think unless people have listened to the entire thing, they should refrain from posting in the thread. If after listening to the call you still feel the need to defend him, I would ask that you please pray about this. It cannot get any more clean cut. There is no fear in his voice. He is calm and cold and calculated.

Oh, from a believers perspective, I think he did wrong. Legally, I don't believe it fits the legal definition of murder. Of course, the definition we find in Websters will not be the complete legal definition. This was not premeditated and it occurred while protecting property from destruction by criminals. I will be shocked if he is tried for murder. It will be a complete surprise if he is convicted of murder.

Was he right before the Lord? Oh, I think my previous post show my thoughts on that. I think he should have let them go with the valuables.

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 07:54 PM
This was not premeditated and it occurred while protecting property from destruction by criminals.

Yes it was premeditated. He called 911 after he made the decision to stop them. He told the operator several times what he planned on doing and then argued with the operator and 'schooled' him in terms of what was within his rights. In my honest opinion he did it to cover his own butt, but that might be the key to convicting him because he was asked repeatedly not to go outside. He was in no danger and the criminals were not on his property.


I will be shocked if he is tried for murder. It will be a complete surprise if he is convicted of murder.And that is a great travesty.

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 07:56 PM
The Lord knows his heart and he will have to stand before God and give account to his actions.

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 08:00 PM
Yes it was premeditated. He called 911 after he made the decision to stop them. He told the operator several times what he planned on doing and then argued with the operator and 'schooled' him in terms of what was within his rights. In my honest opinion he did it to cover his own butt, but that might be the key to convicting him because he was asked repeatedly not to go outside. He was in no danger and the criminals were not on his property.

And that is a great travesty.

Legally, it would be a travesty to convict him of murder, IMO. On the other hand, as was posted above, the Lord will judge him and that is sufficient for me. Based on property law in this country, he may not, as has been posted above, broken the laws of Texas. In which case, he is not guilty of legal murder. (Notice how I keep putting the word "legal" in front of murder.) For years, this country has had laws on the books that allow landowners to kill thieves. We can argue over the validity of the laws but many are still on the books. Those are the laws we must use to determine if this man is guilty of murder according to the state of Texas or not.

But as for the Lord, he says that if someone takes our cloak, to not resist him.

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 08:03 PM
But as for the Lord, he says that if someone takes our cloak, to not resist him.

...but give him your shirt also. :D

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 08:04 PM
But as for the Lord, he says that if someone takes our cloak, to not resist him.

So Biblically speaking he is wrong then?

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 08:05 PM
...but give him your shirt also. :D

Yep. It does say that. I am glad you pointed it out. Ever see the movie Les Mis? Wow! I love what the Priest did when the guy was brought back by police and accused of stealing. "Here, you forgot to take your candles."

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 08:06 PM
So Biblically speaking he is wrong then?

Unless the robbers where coming to attack him in addition, then yes.

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 08:07 PM
Yep. It does say that. I am glad you pointed it out. Ever see the movie Les Mis? Wow! I love what the Priest did when the guy was brought back by police and accused of stealing. "Here, you forgot to take your candles."

Lol no, but I'll have to watch that now.

Sherrie
Dec 7th 2007, 08:09 PM
"Here, you forgot to take your candles."


Yeah; thats good! I can see it in my mind now......

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 08:14 PM
Lol no, but I'll have to watch that now.

Oh, it's a great movie. The full name is "Les Miserables". It's a French play and wonderful. Some may think it is a works based salvation. But it deals with greed, hunger, poverty, mercy, religion, pharisees, the whole bit. It is a wonderful play of how one act of kindness, radically changed a man.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 08:33 PM
mur·der http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fmurder) (mûr'dər) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.I am pretty sure what he did was text book murder. He may not have woken up that morning thinking "I am going to kill two people," but he knew that is what he was going to do when he made that call to 911. Have you listened to the entire call? I think unless people have listened to the entire thing, they should refrain from posting in the thread. If after listening to the call you still feel the need to defend him, I would ask that you please pray about this. It cannot get any more clean cut. There is no fear in his voice. He is calm and cold and calculated.

pre·med·i·ta·tion http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fpremeditation) (prē-měd'ĭ-tā'shən) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.
The act of speculating, arranging, or plotting in advance.
Law The contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.mal·ice http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fmalice) (māl'ĭs) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.
A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
Law The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

I <3 Jesus, you're a wonderful young lady. Please stop trying to re-write this country's laws over your emotional response.

The man is innocent.

Why is it that everyone argues God's word to include the authority of our government, but when that government purports a man's innocence, they suddenly drop that part and revert to a tangent to state a case not in existence in fact?

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 08:36 PM
Please stop talking down to me and assuming you know what my intentions are. I have no emotional response to this story other than the outright confusion I feel toward a group of Christians condoning a man slaughtering two other individuals. It was premeditated. He told the operator that he had already decided he was not going to let them get away.

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 08:37 PM
Why is it that everyone argues God's word to include the authority of our government, but when that government purports a man's innocence, they suddenly drop that part and revert to a tangent to state a case not in existence in fact?

Because the authority of the government often gives an individual liberty to do things that God does not. For instance, some governments have given people the right to kill babies and to offer them as sacrifices. Yet, we know God does not approve of that.

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 08:38 PM
Please stop talking down to me and assuming you know what my intentions are. I have no emotional response to this story other than the outright confusion I feel toward a group of Christians condoning a man slaughtering two other individuals. It was premeditated. He told the operator that he had already decided he was not going to let them get away.

True. But that does not fit the legal definition of murder. There are countless examples in US history where people have been killed for stealing and the government allowed it. Cattle rustlers were shot in the act and the government condoned it. That's why some won't call what this guy did legal murder. Our legal system may not say he committed murder according to US law.

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 08:42 PM
Again, it is MY opinion that this man is a murderer and should be tried and convicted of said murders. I do not understand why people on this site feel the need to try to beat those who do not agree with them into submission. I realize that he will probably get away with it. I think it is a travesty. We have kids who get put away for any number of years for selling a little pot, but a man who kills two people in cold blood not only gets away with it, but people (Christian people at that) call him a hero. Now that is completely messed up!

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 08:45 PM
I know things have moved on quickly - but to the person who suggested i was 'rich' enough to move to a better area - i repeat i once packed a sports bag, bought a train ticket and left my old life behind. I trusted and lived and moved alot. Money was awful.not good, i had the basics and nothing behind me.
Why do we have police? An army? A council/ government? You certainly see Jesus differently to me and thinking about this earlier today i think we need to return totally to scripture on this topic and just leave personal opinion behind. How i grew up/ was taught, where i live and have lived, my colour, sex, age and everything else are unimportant. Lets take this to the only worthwhile authority- the word of God.
There are so few verses you can produce to support your position, and i believe 99% of scripture backs mine. It will probably hinge on the interpretation of the 1% you want to produce. So lets have any, and all you have to support your position. I'll list my first obvious one...

Love your neighbour as yourself. I personally can't love him and hurt/ kill him at the same time. Please answer how this scripture doesn't contradict your position and i'll answer any scriptures and comments you give. Thank you.

Fair enough, SoT, I respect that. You are, however, many times over, likely my scriptural superior, so you have me at an extreme disadvantage.

Jesus allowed his disciples to carry swords. Have you considered that? Do you feel that maybe Jesus just forgot what that told everyone who saw them? Preaching the Good News, followers of this new and risen Christ, with a 28" Roman straight sword hung from their belts? Does that apply to this at all?

Steve M
Dec 7th 2007, 08:47 PM
Fair enough, SoT, I respect that. You are, however, many times over, likely my scriptural superior, so you have me at an extreme disadvantage.

Jesus allowed his disciples to carry swords. Have you considered that? Do you feel that maybe Jesus just forgot what that told everyone who saw them? Preaching the Good News, followers of this new and risen Christ, with a 28" Roman straight sword hung from their belts? Does that apply to this at all?
...of course, when they actually used those swords, that one time, he kinda went off on them, saying some pretty harsh stuff...

JenniferBerry
Dec 7th 2007, 08:47 PM
This it just a reminder when you post youtube links your taking a chance that the link will be edited because of the comment section.

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 08:48 PM
The bottom line is, if the men were going to attack or harm Joe, he has the right to defend himself. If they merely ran away, he did not have the right to shoot them. I would hope that all of us here, as Christians, would agree with that.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 08:51 PM
Please stop talking down to me and assuming you know what my intentions are. I have no emotional response to this story other than the outright confusion I feel toward a group of Christians condoning a man slaughtering two other individuals. It was premeditated. He told the operator that he had already decided he was not going to let them get away.

Oh, hun, I in NO WAY meant to talk down to you! :hug: I was enjoying the debate - there's no intent, and we all have an emotional response to this.

I also feel a sense of confusion, just at the opposite end of the spectrum as you.

By the way, they were killed in HIS yard, not the neighbor's, or the police would have had to arrest him on scene (shooting occurring on other than personal property = mandated arrest). That clearly shows they charged him. "Slaughter?" More like self defense.

No one is asking you to agree with me, but don't put facts in that don't exist. The media does enough of that. That's all I'm asking.

Steve M
Dec 7th 2007, 08:54 PM
By the way, they were killed in HIS yard, not the neighbor's, or the police would have had to arrest him on scene (shooting occurring on other than personal property = mandated arrest). That clearly shows they charged him. "Slaughter?" More like self defense.

...sorry, I'm confused. Didn't the police immediately arrest him once they got on scene? I was left under the impression they did from a previous post.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 08:59 PM
Because the authority of the government often gives an individual liberty to do things that God does not. For instance, some governments have given people the right to kill babies and to offer them as sacrifices. Yet, we know God does not approve of that.

OK, then we need to stop with the "we need to obey the law because God gave authority over our government" argument. Don't we? You can't use a source in one side of a debate and then denounce it for the other side, it ruins the credibility of your argument for biasing your sources towards your side.

Either God DID or he DIDN'T. The argument has been that the police are there to handle it because God told us to allow it to be handled that way. That to do it any other way is against His word. Now you're telling me that argument holds merit only in that one concept, but not when cross examined?

Would you like me to go grab all the quotes alluding to this and post them?

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 09:01 PM
...sorry, I'm confused. Didn't the police immediately arrest him once they got on scene? I was left under the impression they did from a previous post.

Yes

I am sorry Follow Me. I am sick today and I just realized how uber cranky I am. Ignore me today. When I am sick I am a miserable, grumpy, evil person - LOL.

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 09:02 PM
We are to submit to the authority of our government in all cases except for when it goes against God's standard. The Lord comes first in all things.

AlainaJ
Dec 7th 2007, 09:02 PM
Because the authority of the government often gives an individual liberty to do things that God does not. For instance, some governments have given people the right to kill babies and to offer them as sacrifices. Yet, we know God does not approve of that.


As a side note..legal doesn't equal right.

Murdering babies is legal in this nation. Over 50 million have been killed and they are innocent......how about their blood. Does it not cry out?

Yet, according to the law, it's not a baby.

Now we even can do a partial birth abortion..and yep it is sanctioned and legal by the government.

But, you kill a woman who is just 12 weeks pregnant you will be tried for double murder.

Steve M
Dec 7th 2007, 09:06 PM
OK, then we need to stop with the "we need to obey the law because God gave authority over our government" argument. Don't we?

I dunno. You could take it up with the Apostle Paul, or the Apostle Peter.

Paul: "There is no authority except from God, and the powers that be are put in place by God. He who resists them..." Well, you know the rest.

Peter: "We must obey God rather than man."

How do you reconcile those statements?

AlainaJ
Dec 7th 2007, 09:09 PM
I dunno. You could take it up with the Apostle Paul, or the Apostle Peter.

Paul: "There is no authority except from God, and the powers that be are put in place by God. He who resists them..." Well, you know the rest.

Peter: "We must obey God rather than man."

How do you reconcile those statements?
What about Nazi germany....

We are to obey the government as long as we are not sinning against God. What if the govenment becomes unlawful starts killing people becuase they are of a certain religion? A doctor should not have to perform an abortion...

Alaina

ServantofTruth
Dec 7th 2007, 09:11 PM
May i offer my appologies to Follow Me Infantry for the tone of my previous post, reproduced above. There was not enought love or thought, before i began typing. I hope you will accept that i acted in haste and am truely sorry.
I also agree with another poster who said they thought we would never agree on this topic. I feel we have voiced our positions fully and i for one would like to say that although we don't agree, i acknowledge you in love as my brothers/ sisters and believe you sincerity in your views. Have a good weekend, God bless.:hug:

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 09:13 PM
Acts 5:40-42 The others accepted his advice. They called in the apostles and had them flogged. Then they ordered them never again to speak in the name of Jesus, and they let them go. The apostles left the high council rejoicing that God had counted them worthy to suffer disgrace for the name of Jesus. And every day, in the Temple and from house to house, they continued to teach and preach this message: "Jesus is the Messiah."

The moment that government commands that which goes against the Father is the moment where you must go against it.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 09:15 PM
...sorry, I'm confused. Didn't the police immediately arrest him once they got on scene? I was left under the impression they did from a previous post.

No. He was detained.

The media often confuses these two definitions (my ex was constantly accused of one when the other was true).

Being "arrested" means that the officer has reason to believe a law has been broken. You are then placed in "custody," in which your position now falls under the care and responsibility of the convening authority (city, county, state, etc). You are now a ward of that authority and, while you may not be specifically charged yet, you MUST be charged or the officer faces charges of falsifying the articulation behind the arrest procedure.

Being "detained" is officer discretion: Any officer can put you in handcuffs to give you a traffic warning (he twitched, shaky movements, nervousness, suspected desire to flee, not yet searched for officer safety, etc). Every department has different guidelines on when an officer is prudent in detaining, but they all essentially fall under officer discretion. Like being arrested, once you are detained, you are in the care of the state (city, county, etc) - the authority that holds office over the board that oversees the officer effecting the detainment.

The major differences:

Arrested = officer has reason to believe you were involved with a crime that you will be charged with.

Detained = officer has reason to articulate that you are needed in the investigation of a crime (including witnesses).

Mr. Horn was not arrested. He was DETAINED, questioned, and released. Had he been arrested, he would have had to have been released by a judge or a magistrate, under bond, bail, or own recognizance, as he would have been charged with a crime. He was released by the detectives, hence, he was never arrested.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

Steve M
Dec 7th 2007, 09:21 PM
Mr. Horn was not arrested. He was DETAINED, questioned, and released. Had he been arrested, he would have had to have been released by a judge or a magistrate, under bond, bail, or own recognizance, as he would have been charged with a crime. He was released by the detectives, hence, he was never arrested.

Yeah... doesn't clear it up at all. I was under the impression he was released by the judge after the fact.

Hmph. Either the lot of you are conspiring to make me go look up my own details, or it's way too late on a Friday to be trying to make sense of these things and I should go buy some parts for my car and work hard.

...

Yeah, I'm leaning for the latter.

Ayala
Dec 7th 2007, 09:26 PM
or it's way too late on a Friday to be trying to make sense of these things and I should go buy some parts for my car.

Buying car parts is always a good way to solve any problem, IMHO.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 09:27 PM
Yes

I am sorry Follow Me. I am sick today and I just realized how uber cranky I am. Ignore me today. When I am sick I am a miserable, grumpy, evil person - LOL.

You owe me no apologies, my dear sister >>>>>>>> :hug: (That's a hug from far away, as I don't want your cooties :lol:)

I am extremely exhausted myself today. I have a ton of stuff to do, but the weather has left me with no use of my right leg at all, and I'm cramming 3 days into 1 lately. I am just miserable when it's cold and wet and damp, and when it gets this way, I get a bit upset that all I can do is sit here like an invalid and wonder if I'll ever be a whole man again. I'd like to beat the snot out of the VA docs... I mean, I'll pray for them! :D

Let's face it, we're all always going to be different. It's ok to discuss these things, I just don't want anyone to be at odds because of it. I adore your posts, I hope to learn from you. I'm sorry that you and so many see me and my kind as animals. We're not. We're just prodigies of how we were raised, our experiences. All I want to do is get along with everyone without everyone asking me to pretend to change so I conform or fit in. I never claimed to be the most holy and righteous Christian, I only claimed that I was here to learn to improve and walk closer with Him.

:hug::hug::hug: <<<< Keep yer distance, yer bugged. :lol:

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 09:30 PM
OK, then we need to stop with the "we need to obey the law because God gave authority over our government" argument. Don't we? You can't use a source in one side of a debate and then denounce it for the other side, it ruins the credibility of your argument for biasing your sources towards your side.

Either God DID or he DIDN'T. The argument has been that the police are there to handle it because God told us to allow it to be handled that way. That to do it any other way is against His word. Now you're telling me that argument holds merit only in that one concept, but not when cross examined?

Would you like me to go grab all the quotes alluding to this and post them?

Actually, the authority quotes are still very valid. When the Babylonian king wanted Daniel to sin by eating things forbidden by God, Daniel appealed to the authority and was able to keep his diet. When the authority made him sin, he refused and was thrown in the lions Den. In all else, he did as he was told.

That's the key to authority. We obey it in all ways until it goes against God and wants us to sin. But government, though put in place by God, does not always line up with God. As an individual, I can't find a place where God tells me to protect my material wealth with deadly force. I see in scripture where we are told that if someone takes my cloak, to give him my shirt. But government was put into place to protect me from the one that takes my shirt.

Here's another example of how individuals are often commanded to do differently than governments. God tells us that we must forgive when we are sinned against. If someone kills my family, I have to forgive them. But government is not told to forgive by God. They bear the sword and are to bring justice. So I have to forgive. But government brings justice.

I see the same thing in this situation. On the level of believer, I let them take my material goods and I forgive him. But government is to bring full justice to the situation.

When government and God give me authority to act, I can act. When God says "even though this is legal, don't do it" I refrain.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 09:31 PM
We are to submit to the authority of our government in all cases except for when it goes against God's standard. The Lord comes first in all things.

Scripture, please, all in the same verse. I can take two verses and put them together, too.

Show me where God says "Do this, except when you disagree because these right here are the standards."

If you're going to tell me I am incorrect, provide your supporting evidence to properly correct me so I can learn.

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 09:33 PM
Scripture, please, all in the same verse. I can take two verses and put them together, too.

Show me where God says "Do this, except when you disagree because these right here are the standards."

If you're going to tell me I am incorrect, provide your supporting evidence to properly correct me so I can learn.

Very few verses complain complete doctrines. ;)

Keep in mind that verses themselves were added by men to make bible study easier.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 09:38 PM
I dunno. You could take it up with the Apostle Paul, or the Apostle Peter.

Paul: "There is no authority except from God, and the powers that be are put in place by God. He who resists them..." Well, you know the rest.

Peter: "We must obey God rather than man."

How do you reconcile those statements?

Reconcile? Reconcile? Ummm, I don't think that's the word you meant, my brother.

I obey God's law. Others here have said His law means obeying our laws. Now I'm being told that His law telling us to obey our laws only applies in certain cases, something I was certain was considered as manipulating the word.

Please make up your mind.

Does God tell us we are to follow the laws here? Yes or no? If yes, the man is innocent. If no, there have been a lot of less than truthful statements made. If sometimes, then please justify that, with scripture, when God tells us that His word to obey our laws is subject to our personal feelings on that law.

Thanks.

Steve M
Dec 7th 2007, 09:41 PM
YES, God says obey man.

BUT, God says obey Him rather than man.

John and Peter were told--do this! (stop teaching)

If I say, follow the laws of man, then they were to stop that.

They said... no!

Did they say... we never follow man's law! No, and if you hunt down what Peter said about obeying man's law, you might be surprised.

He said ... GOD FIRST.

Period.

If there is a conflict, God comes first, not man.

And that's as simple as anything else in life.

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 09:43 PM
I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it


S.B. 378

In 1973, the 63rd Texas Legislature imposed a duty to retreat in the face of a criminal attack, permitting the use of deadly force only if a reasonable person in the situation would not have retreated. This, in effect, placed the burden on the victim to retreat in the face of an impending lethal attack and reversed what had been the longstanding practice of recognizing the right of a person to stand his or her ground in the face of an attack. In 1995, the 74th Texas Legislature created an exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly force in response to an unlawful entry into the habitation of the actor, but the duty still applied in any other location where a lethal attack might occur.



Under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, a person is justified in using force and, in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor. In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the exercise of unlawful deadly force by the aggressor or to prevent the imminent commission of an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Current law provides an affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an attacker for damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force, but only in cases involving home invasions. As a result, a person who justifiably uses force or deadly force outside of the home and is not guilty of any crime may still be open to a civil action filed by the criminal or the criminal's family.



In addition, the Texas Penal Code contains no presumption of reasonableness in defending a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment against unlawful intruders. Instead, Texas juries must decide after the fact whether a victim's actions to protect the victim and his or her family were reasonable or necessary under the circumstances.



S.B. 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. In addition, the jury is instructed to presume that the victim's actions were reasonable if the victim brings forth evidence that he or she is entitled to the presumption, unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the bill expands the existing affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an injured criminal attacker or his family to apply to any force or deadly force conduct authorized by Subchapter C (Protection of Persons), Chapter 9, Penal Code.



RULEMAKING AUTHORITY



This bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.



SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS



SECTION 1. Amends Section 9.01, Penal Code, by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5), to define "habitation" and "vehicle."



SECTION 2. Amends Section 9.31, Penal Code, by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f), as follows:



(a) Provides that an actor's belief that the use of force was immediately necessary is considered reasonable if the actor did not provoke the person against whom the force was used, was not engaged in certain criminal activity, and knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used unlawfully and with force was committing or attempting to commit certain acts, did not provoke the person against whom force was used and was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than certain Class C misdemeanors. Makes nonsubstantive changes.



(e) Provides that a person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used is not required to retreat before using force, provided that the person has not provoked the person against whom the force is used and is not engaged in criminal activity.



(f) Prohibits a finder of fact from considering whether the actor failed to retreat when determining whether an actor reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, for purposes of Subsection (a).



SECTION 3. Amends Section 9.32, Penal Code, as follows:



Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. Deletes existing text relating to whether a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have not retreated in determining justified use of deadly force. Makes conforming and nonsubstantive changes.



SECTION 4. Amends Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as follows:



Sec. 83.001. New heading: CIVIL IMMUNITY. Provides that a person who uses force or deadly force justified under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable. Deletes existing text relating to an affirmative defense to civil action arising from the use of justifiable deadly force.
SECTION 5. Makes application of this Act prospective.
SECTION 6. Effective date: September 1, 2007.

Sounds like this guy saw an opportunity to take advantage of this new law, which makes him more diabolical in my opinion. I'm not an attorney, but after reading this law, I don't think it applies here.

I<3Jesus
Dec 7th 2007, 09:44 PM
For the record my last post was copied and pasted from elsewhere, but I agree with it.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 09:48 PM
S.B. 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. In addition, the jury is instructed to presume that the victim's actions were reasonable if the victim brings forth evidence that he or she is entitled to the presumption, unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks! Was looking for that.

The man is innocent, so says the law.

Whether or not he is innocent in GOD'S eyes remains to be seen and is none of our business.

Brother Mark
Dec 7th 2007, 09:55 PM
Thanks! Was looking for that.

The man is innocent, so says the law.

I think you are right on this one. I am not convinced he broke the law of Texas or the US.

As for the law of God, I will let that one rest for now.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 10:07 PM
I think you are right on this one. I am not convinced he broke the law of Texas or the US.

As for the law of God, I will let that one rest for now.

I believe he broke the law of God. I believe the law of God > man's law.

I just don't believe we should try and convict the man OR his spirit. Who knows if this was God's intervention or His allowance of what the world has been given to?

Discussion = OK. Calling him a murderer? That remains to be seen.

Matthew
Dec 7th 2007, 10:49 PM
And as I responded to your query about your agenda, your actions totally muffle you voice. i.e. Your agenda.

Matthew, I'm not pushing an agenda and some day, before it kills you I hope you'll get. Good-bye and God bless.


My only actions on this board are the words that I type. Although I don't understand why you feel I have an agenda, it is not worth debating any longer. God bless.



Hey, Matt, I really wasn't going to return here, but you seem like a level headed person that truly wants a debate, rather than to lambaste me with your opinion, so I'll address your points.

Same to you my friend.


I'd like your opinion on this statement:

Who is more likely to be the victim: The one who wants someone else to handle a violation, or the one the criminal knows for a fact will handle it on their own?

And another:

You and I live on the same block. One my door is a sign: "Warning! I am trained and will shoot at any violation occurring on my property. I do not call the police." On your door is also a sign: "Warning, I am not armed, but I will call the police if I feel you're a threat."

Who is more likely to be a victim of a violent crime?

Interesting points. It seems logical that to say that the one who the criminal knows is prepared to and will protect themself is less likely to be the target of a crime.

Taking that a step forward, one might say if all of society were willing and able to protect themselves there would be less criminals.

What is your point though? Does the fact that Mr. Horn's actions may be beneficial to society mean that he did nothing wrong?



I may be misunderstanding you, here.

Being armed or not is not an issue in a state with a "no duty to retreat" addendum. Essentially, "duty to retreat" means that if you have any way out at all, including running away, you cannot employ deadly force. A NO duty law, conversely, means that you are free to protect the space you occupy at any and all costs.


That is the only issue, here: Did this man face a duty to retreat? If not, what are his justifications for feeling an imminent threat to his safety? And remember, bro, he was armed - this goes FOR him, not against him: "I was in fear for my life as they are 2 and I am 1, I have a respiratory condition, if they had gotten within reach of my weapon, they'd have taken it from me, killed me, and then used my legal gun to illegally kill others. I could not allow that to happen."

He does not have to prove a threat of death - only incapacitation. It was 2 against 1, and he was armed. In almost any court, under the scrutiny of almost any jury, the chance that he'd have been overpowered and disarmed trumps the chance that he'd have been able to win a toe to toe fight without losing control of his weapon. Hence, he's innocent (no duty to retreat, remember).

I disagree. The only issue is most certainly is NOT whether there is only a duty to retreat. I'm going to quote a lot but I'll bold the stuff I'm focusing on.


§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person



(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:


(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and


(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:


(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or


(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.


(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:


(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:


(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;


(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or


(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);


(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and


(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.


(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


There must be a REASONABLE BELIEF that DEADLY FORCE is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to protect against the other's unlawful use of deadly force.

For Mr. Horn to be justified IMO there needs to be a showing that the men attacked him. At the very LEAST I would like to see some evidence that the men did something that communicated to Mr. Horn that they were not backing down and were going to fight him. Even then you have to be able to show that Mr. Horn was protecting against their unlawful use of deadly force. I seriously doubt that without possessing firearms themselves they were about to take on a guy with a shotgun.

Maybe they're stupid though. Maybe you can argue that they were going to attempt to take his weapon. We'll see when all of the facts come out.

But, the point remains that there has to a belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to respond to the other's use or attemtped use of unlawful deadly force. As you can see the statute provides other times deadly force is appropriate, but they are not relevant here IMO.

Here's 9.31 for reference.


(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:


(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:


(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;


(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or


(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;


(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and


(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.


(b) The use of force against another is not justified:


(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;


(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);


(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;


(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:


(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and


(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or


(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:


(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or


(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.


(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:


(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and


(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.


(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.





Oh, and to anyone stating the dispatcher's side: Dispatchers have no legal authority at all to control any situation; most are not police officers, and those that are POST certified as a law enforcement officer still have no authority, as a crime has to be established and witnessed by the controlling officer before it becomes a legal command under probably cause. An officer not on the scene cannot effect an arrest, nor do they have any authority - which is why some counties require a sergeant be on site to arrest: An officer cannot achieve legal right to arrest under questionable circumstances by radioing in.

So please, for the love of Mike, STOP talking about what the dispatcher said. He or she makes $8 an hour to answer a phone, calm a situation, and route calls to the real authorities. This is America: Those not in authority don't have legal precedence over those with rights just because they work somewhere that is involved with the police.

I think you're missing the point here. No one is saying he was obligated to obey the dispatcher. BUT, it is significant that there was someone trying to persuade Mr. Horn not to confront the people. It shows that Mr. Horn was set on confronting them and could not be talked out of it. This isn't a case where he had no other choice. He had a CLEAR choice and was being told not to go outside and he did. Mr. Horn wanted to go outside and confront them. He even said on the phone he was going to kill them before he went out there. When one person kills another the mens rea (intent element) is HUGE. There is a difference between putting a gun to another's head and pulling the trigger and having a gun go off in your hand and killing someone. The difference is the intent.



And I agree with you, my brother. If I didn't think I'd get my fool face caved in, I'd witness to thieves, not hold them at gunpoint. Do some of us really seem to be such animals to you all?

No. You seem like people who are fed up with crime and would gladly protect yourself from criminals. The problem is that so far there is no evidence that Mr. Horn was protecting himself other than the fact that once he went outside he said they came in his yard.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 7th 2007, 11:33 PM
HERE is the final authority (In man's law, not God's) that is what the court will rule on:


S.B. 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. In addition, the jury is instructed to presume that the victim's actions were reasonable if the victim brings forth evidence that he or she is entitled to the presumption, unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Please pay particular attention to the last sentence. What it says, via law, is that he had no duty retreat, and all he must do is stay quiet: The state must prove he was not in imminent fear of his life, he doesn't have to prove jack.

Once the duty to retreat doctrine is tossed, the whole case comes down to one thing: Premeditation (if they try him for murder) or recklessness (if they opt for manslaughter).

Premeditation is OUT, as the shooter has no links to the "victims" (presumably). There is no just cause to show either a length of time to plan, stage, and execute a murder or that he had motivation to murder them (goes to malice). Case is tossed.

Manslaughter? Ehhh, not likely. While they could argue that Mr. Horn exacerbated the situation by going outside with his weapon, his only crime is brandishing and terroristic threats - at MOST, that's intimidation. The rest is self defense unless the prosecution can prove, beyond the reasonable shadow of the doubt, that he was not in fear for his own safety (remember, no duty to retreat).

If you were on a jury and you slipped guilty in there to either of these charges, you're a liar and a hypocrite. Not YOU as in you, bro, but I mean anyone who looks at this from emotion, rather than from law.

FACT: He was defending his neighbor's legal property (legal in TX);

FACT: He confronted the offenders with a citizen's arrest (legal in TX);

FACT: He ignored the 911 UNTRAINED OPERATOR and proceeded to invoke his rights.

Not in evidence: He feared for his life in conducting said legal citizen's arrest and reacted with deadly force that was visible to the victims at the time (goes to motive).

He's innocent.

I'll get the rest of your points in a sec, I want to eat before my burritos get cold.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 12:08 AM
The bottom line is he killed two men who did him no harm. Were they in the wrong? Without a doubt. Did they deserve to die? No. They deserved jail time, not death.

AlainaJ
Dec 8th 2007, 12:13 AM
The bottom line is people are never going to agree over politcs ...the supreme ct can't even agree.:)

The second amendment and the right to defend life, liberty or property is going to be interpetid differrent by different people depending on many, many factors.

It comes down to how you view the second amendment and then everything goes out from there. I happen to beleive this issue goes back to the constitution of the United States. But hey, that's me...:)

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 12:18 AM
It amazes me that anyone can justify killing two men who had not even threatened this man with physical violence. Yes, stealing is wrong. They were not stealing from his house. Material posessions can be replaced. A life can not.

These two men were 100% in the wrong. Stealing doesn't give someone the right to kill. He called 911. He did his part to protect his neighbors home. Killing these two men was murder in my eyes.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 12:21 AM
IThese two men were 100% in the wrong. Stealing doesn't give someone the right to kill.

Well, that depends on who you ask. States have given people the right to kill to protect property for many years.

My post above show I think the believer should let the property go and not use violence to protect it. But when it comes to state law, it is not uncommon for deadly force to be allowed for the protection of property.

Oh, one more thing...

It appears he confronted them and told them to stop. They then came into his yard. That means they may have threatened him. Who knows? If it goes to trial (and it may not) a jury will decide.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 12:25 AM
Well, that depends on who you ask. States have given people the right to kill to protect property for many years.

My post above show I think the believer should let the property go and not use violence to protect it. But when it comes to state law, it is not uncommon for deadly force to be allowed for the protection of property.

Oh, one more thing...

It appears he confronted them and told them to stop. They then came into his yard. That means they may have threatened him. Who knows? If it goes to trial (and it may not) a jury will decide.

I understand that Brother Mark but why kill another human being over something that can be replaced? That is what I am saying. Material posessions are stuff. They are not alive. Yes, they can mean a lot to us but are they worth killing over?

Self defense is self defense. If we are threatened by all means defend ourselves. This man was not threatened.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 12:26 AM
WHOA! I put way, way, way too much hot sauce on those bad boy burritos. it's going to be a long night :D



Interesting points. It seems logical that to say that the one who the criminal knows is prepared to and will protect themself is less likely to be the target of a crime.

Taking that a step forward, one might say if all of society were willing and able to protect themselves there would be less criminals.

What is your point though? Does the fact that Mr. Horn's actions may be beneficial to society mean that he did nothing wrong?

You just made my point. Cowering to criminals provides more crime. More crime means more innocents hurt. If a couple of scumbag thieves die to instigate a precedent of law that sends a message to criminals to find a more honest line of work, this country will be better off.

If these two raped a 12-year old next week, everyone here would scream, "too bad he didn't shoot them!" Their emotion trumps their logic. But because they refuse to accept recidivism, the criminals are the innocents and the justice server is the guilty - all for want of a fake star on their chest.

And trust me, cops get fake stars. I know all about cops.





I disagree. The only issue is most certainly is NOT whether there is only a duty to retreat. I'm going to quote a lot but I'll bold the stuff I'm focusing on.




There must be a REASONABLE BELIEF that DEADLY FORCE is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to protect against the other's unlawful use of deadly force.

For Mr. Horn to be justified IMO there needs to be a showing that the men attacked him. At the very LEAST I would like to see some evidence that the men did something that communicated to Mr. Horn that they were not backing down and were going to fight him. Even then you have to be able to show that Mr. Horn was protecting against their unlawful use of deadly force. I seriously doubt that without possessing firearms themselves they were about to take on a guy with a shotgun.

Maybe they're stupid though. Maybe you can argue that they were going to attempt to take his weapon. We'll see when all of the facts come out.

But, the point remains that there has to a belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to respond to the other's use or attemtped use of unlawful deadly force. As you can see the statute provides other times deadly force is appropriate, but they are not relevant here IMO.

Here's 9.31 for reference.

Negative, sir. See my post above this one. To invoke 9.31, you must charge him with something. What would you charge him with?







I think you're missing the point here. No one is saying he was obligated to obey the dispatcher.

The why did everyone keep emphasizing the fact he "disobeyed" the dispatcher? Ya'lls words, not mine - I know dispatchers are HS dropouts too lazy to work construction and too stupid to handle college. Any dispatcher told me anything, I'd ignore them, too.



BUT, it is significant that there was someone trying to persuade Mr. Horn not to confront the people. It shows that Mr. Horn was set on confronting them and could not be talked out of it. This isn't a case where he had no other choice. He had a CLEAR choice and was being told not to go outside and he did. Mr. Horn wanted to go outside and confront them. He even said on the phone he was going to kill them before he went out there. When one person kills another the mens rea (intent element) is HUGE. There is a difference between putting a gun to another's head and pulling the trigger and having a gun go off in your hand and killing someone. The difference is the intent.

So, let me get a handle on your stance: Mr. Horn should have given up his constitutionally protected rights, his sense of right and wrong, his oath of protection to his neighbor, and his belief in justice and outrage at criminals because someone on the phone used "ain't" in a sentence improperly to tell him not to? Someone with no formal training and no formal education? Someone who does NOT represent any authority?

Why is he guilty of not listening? I don't listen to non-authority figures, either.




No. You seem like people who are fed up with crime and would gladly protect yourself from criminals. The problem is that so far there is no evidence that Mr. Horn was protecting himself other than the fact that once he went outside he said they came in his yard.

I'd protect your property the same as mine. Once a criminal begins his act, he loses his rights. I'll not sacrifice yours, as my neighbor's, just because I'm skeered to go tell them that their world just ended and to wait for the cops.

I see it as my Christian duty to watch over my neighbors and not cower in my home waiting for the police to solve my problems. That's why there's no crime in my neighborhood, here in the middle of Phoenix, while 3 blocks away the cops are there 3 times a week.

The willing versus the weak.

Just my .02.

And I am REALLY regretting all that hot sauce, bro. I mean, seriously, my goodness... Sometimes you can like spicy food TOO much, lol!

Have a blessed night, my friend!

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 12:28 AM
Rape is a violent crime, stealing isn't. Rape still does not justify murder.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 12:32 AM
Rape is a violent crime, stealing isn't. Rape still does not justify murder.

If someone was trying to rape my child, I would shoot them without thinking. I would rather stand before God having protected those he placed under my authority as to allow harm to come to them and answer for that.

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 12:33 AM
HERE is the final authority (In man's law, not God's) that is what the court will rule on:

What I've posted is the law as it stands today. You're skipping ahead to the retreating part. What was he retreating from? If he goes out and says "Move, your dead" and the guys take off the other direction and he shoots them he's in the wrong.


Please pay particular attention to the last sentence. What it says, via law, is that he had no duty retreat, and all he must do is stay quiet: The state must prove he was not in imminent fear of his life, he doesn't have to prove jack.

Correct. It is not an affirmative defense.


Once the duty to retreat doctrine is tossed, the whole case comes down to one thing: Premeditation (if they try him for murder) or recklessness (if they opt for manslaughter).

You can have criminally negligent homicide in Texas.


Premeditation is OUT, as the shooter has no links to the "victims" (presumably). There is no just cause to show either a length of time to plan, stage, and execute a murder or that he had motivation to murder them (goes to malice). Case is tossed.

For murder in Texas you only have to prove that the actor intentionally or knowinlgy caused the death of another. It doesn't have to an elaborate scheme or plan. It can be "I don't like the way that guy looks, I'm going to kill him."


Manslaughter? Ehhh, not likely. While they could argue that Mr. Horn exacerbated the situation by going outside with his weapon, his only crime is brandishing and terroristic threats - at MOST, that's intimidation. The rest is self defense unless the prosecution can prove, beyond the reasonable shadow of the doubt, that he was not in fear for his own safety (remember, no duty to retreat).

It's not whether he was in fear of his life. It's whether he was reasonable in believing that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the use or attempted use of the other's use of deadly force.



FACT: He was defending his neighbor's legal property (legal in TX);

The statute we've been discussing is about defense of a person, not property. There are other laws that apply to defening a neighbor's property.


FACT: He confronted the offenders with a citizen's arrest (legal in TX);

Confronted and then blew them away. That's what he will be in trouble for if anything, not confronting them.


FACT: He ignored the 911 UNTRAINED OPERATOR and proceeded to invoke his rights.

How was the operator untrained? From what I've read he's been praised for his actions in handling the situation. Sounds like the guy, properly trained or not, was doing what he was supposed to do.


Not in evidence: He feared for his life in conducting said legal citizen's arrest and reacted with deadly force that was visible to the victims at the time (goes to motive).
He's innocent.

It can't just be that he feared for his life, but that he was reasonable in fearing for his life. He certainly was in fear of his life when he went outside. the operator told Mr. Horn he was going to get himself shot if he went outside. Mr. Horns response: "Wanna Bet?" He proceeded to go outside.


I'll get the rest of your points in a sec, I want to eat before my burritos get cold.

No rush. :D

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 12:33 AM
I understand that Brother Mark but why kill another human being over something that can be replaced? That is what I am saying. Material posessions are stuff. They are not alive. Yes, they can mean a lot to us but are they worth killing over?

Self defense is self defense. If we are threatened by all means defend ourselves. This man was not threatened.

He attempted to stop a crime.

They crossed FROM his neighbor's yard INTO his yard TOWARDS him, while he was holding a loaded firearm.

That is the quintessential definition of self defense. He was threatened. They went from point A to point B while he was occupying point B. What other evidence do you want? Had they reached him and grabbed his weapon, what then? The cops die when they show up because they have a shotgun? The 6-year old down the street?

Protection and retention of firearm is the number ONE obligation we gun owners have. He did the right thing.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 12:35 AM
He attempted to stop a crime.

They crossed FROM his neighbor's yard INTO his yard TOWARDS him, while he was holding a loaded firearm.

That is the quintessential definition of self defense. He was threatened. They went from point A to point B while he was occupying point B. What other evidence do you want? Had they reached him and grabbed his weapon, what then? The cops die when they show up because they have a shotgun? The 6-year old down the street?

Protection and retention of firearm is the number ONE obligation we gun owners have. He did the right thing.

Did they have firearms? If not they were murdered.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 12:36 AM
I understand that Brother Mark but why kill another human being over something that can be replaced? That is what I am saying. Material posessions are stuff. They are not alive. Yes, they can mean a lot to us but are they worth killing over?

Spiritually, I agree. I would let the thief have my stuff.


Self defense is self defense. If we are threatened by all means defend ourselves. This man was not threatened.

He may have been threatened when they came into his yard. If they did not intend on hurting him, they probably would have ran. Scripturally, I think he should have let the police deal with it. But government has laid out law in several states that protecting property with deadly force is acceptable.

No matter how strong we feel, this man may not have broken the law. If he did not, then he is innocent before the government.

For instance, we cannot say that abortionist commit murder in the eyes of the law. Perhaps in the eyes of God but not the law.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 12:42 AM
Spiritually, I agree. I would let the thief have my stuff.



He may have been threatened when they came into his yard. If they did not intend on hurting him, they probably would have ran. Scripturally, I think he should have let the police deal with it. But government has laid out law in several states that protecting property with deadly force is acceptable.

No matter how strong we feel, this man may not have broken the law. If he did not, then he is innocent before the government.

For instance, we cannot say that abortionist commit murder in the eyes of the law. Perhaps in the eyes of God but not the law.

Your post makes sense. I will say I cannot think of one material posession I would kill over. Now, if someone gets into my home and threatens one of my children with physical violence, that's another story. Thou shalt not kill. This is a commandment. Unless it's 100% unavoidable killing should not be an option.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 12:43 AM
Did they have firearms? If not they were murdered.

Actually, that may not be true. Many people can hurt you without a firearm. Who knows what kind of deadly force one can do with their hands. The men were told he had a gun and ordered to stop. They came forward anyway. That means they had reason to not fear the gun.

I still think he should have stayed out of the way.

I don't think the law will say this man is a murderer.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 12:45 AM
Your post makes sense. I will say I cannot think of one material posession I would kill over. Now, if someone gets into my home and threatens one of my children with physical violence, that's another story. Thou shalt not kill. This is a commandment. Unless it's 100% unavoidable killing should not be an option.

Well, the commandment is thou shalt not murder. Killing is not sin. Murder is.

I agree with you about possessions. I will not kill someone over a possession I own. If someone breaks into my house and I am alone, I will leave the house and call the police. If someone breaks into my house and I had family there, I would shoot them armed or not. I would not take the chance that the intruder was armed and dangerous. I would simply shoot him as a means of protecting those God has entrusted to me.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 12:47 AM
Actually, that may not be true. Many people can hurt you without a firearm. Who knows what kind of deadly force one can do with their hands. The men were told he had a gun and ordered to stop. They came forward anyway. That means they had reason to not fear the gun.

I still think he should have stayed out of the way.

I don't think the law will say this man is a murderer.

You are probably right. I was saying that since he had a loaded shotgun I have to wonder what they possibly could have been thinking. Perhaps they didn't even understand what he was saying if they were not from this country.

I really hate these situations. They always make me think "vigilante".

AlainaJ
Dec 8th 2007, 12:49 AM
Protection and retention of firearm is the number ONE obligation we gun owners have. He did the right thing.[/quote]
Very well put!

AlainaJ
Dec 8th 2007, 12:51 AM
The Lies Behind "Gun Contol"
by ScottbombOne of the greatest social debates rages on. As they have for centuries, the debates increase in intensity as we humans think we are smart enough to achieve Utopia. Yes sir, just the right laws and the right enforcement will bring every man to his knees in obedience.
Are there any fans of world history in the room? Is this ridiculous or what? Well, it's the battle cry of every true liberal, the means for Marxism, and at it's roots of Socialism. It's the precursor to that great enemy, dictatorship. Our fore-fathers knew that the only way the common man could prevent tyranny was for every man to be armed. Some would call this approach radical. When we examine the facts, we see that an armed society is indeed a polite society.
The idea is that if we only take away those damned guns, the criminals will surely have to leave us alone. Most of the time, it is not the job of a criminal to go out and just indiscriminately kill someone. His job could be selling contraband and protect his business from competition. He might make his entire living breaking in to homes and businesses, robbing banks, stealing cars, etc. You see, the common criminal is not out to kill someone, for that is only a means to the end. If he must kill someone in order to pull the job off without being caught, for some of these guys, it must be done. That becomes part of his job. And even if that what he was hired to do - to kill someone - then he will. Shall he use a gun? Well, it certainly is quick and convenient. Not as messy. Let's suppose he can't get a gun. It's the year 2030 and the "Democrats" made them illegal and confiscated all of the guns in America. (In reality, he still could get a gun. Look at Mexico, where all guns are illegal, and murder rates are (per capita) much higher than in the US. But for the sake of argument, let's just say he CAN'T even BUILD one). Our criminal still has several options. None as clean and convenient as a gun, but it will allow him to pull off "the job". He can blow up the building with a bomb built out of common household chemicals. This is exactly how the World Trade Center (in 1994, not 2001) and the Federal Building in OK City, OK were terrorized and hundred died. He can knock out the dude at 7-11 with a baseball bat. He can stab the cabbie and take his car and money. I was a cab driver and I've seen the barrel of a gun twice. My co-worker got shot in the head while on duty. This is indeed a scary world in which we all live.
The worst aspect in this whole dilemma is the criminals need not worry about you fighting back to defend yourself or your family if you don't own a gun. After all, you have no readily-available weapon with which to defend yourself. Does your spouse? If I were married, I'd fully support my wife if she were to decide to pack heat. After all, women are more vulnerable to violent crime. You never know what sicko accross town is about to rape the next jogger he sees.. If she had no gun or tae-kwon-do training (very useful, by the way), she may very well die. Yet if she did, she may have been able to stop him before he raped or killed her. Even if she carried a knife, she is probably not going to be strong enough to overcome him. People don't usually attack people that are bigger or stronger. Yet with a gun (and training), she at least has a fighting chance. The truth is, guns are used WAY MORE to PREVENT crime than anything else. More crimes are twarted by the use of a gun than those that utilized a gun in a crime. But you won't hear that on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN. There's no story unless someone is hurt or dead. What a sad thing to say about today's press.
This is why God gave us the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That's God, not the government who's in charge..The original American Government did not give us this right, they only recognized and enforced the idea that such a God-given right shall NOT be infringed. Yet the passing of ANY gun law is in defiance of The Constitutuion. And yet there are thousands of such laws on the books. Too bad they continue to fail in preventing crime. It's sooo simple: criminals, by the very definition of being criminal, do not obey the law. It's that simple. Diasarming people doesn't work where we've already tried it (Washington D.C., Mexico, Nazi Germany, U.S.S.R., etc...) The definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior while expecting different results. Thus we see why "gun control" laws don't work. Public hangings did work back in the 1800's...

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 12:55 AM
I really hate these situations.


Yea. I hate them too. We live behind enemy lines and that is why these things crop up. While this man should not have done what he did (in my opinion), it also troubles me that others were stealing. Then again, who knows why they were stealing?

What is so scary to me about deadly force is the person that is killed may spend eternity in hell. No other chances for salvation will occur. They are doomed. All my worldly goods are not worth taking from anyone another opportunity to repent.

Have you ever heard of Jim Elliot? He refused to defend himself and was killed by the natives. (He could have taken a gun and defended himself against the primitive weapons of the natives but chose not to.) However, because of his actions, other missionaries were able to witness to those that killed him and they became saved. Now, Jim and his killers will enjoy eternity together. One says that they saw a huge being over the body of Jim Elliot. I can't remember the story correctly. Maybe the being was over them while they were still alive. But my memory doesn't matter. The killers later came to know and understand that was an angel of God that came to escort Jim to heaven.

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 12:55 AM
You just made my point. Cowering to criminals provides more crime. More crime means more innocents hurt. If a couple of scumbag thieves die to instigate a precedent of law that sends a message to criminals to find a more honest line of work, this country will be better off.

You missed my point. The ends don't justify the means.


If these two raped a 12-year old next week, everyone here would scream, "too bad he didn't shoot them!" Their emotion trumps their logic. But because they refuse to accept recidivism, the criminals are the innocents and the justice server is the guilty - all for want of a fake star on their chest.

Well if we're going with "if's here," what if those two would've found the cure for cancer but won't now that there dead. Ridiculous, I know. It's also ridiculous to use hypothetical future events to justify this action. You can't make up some bad act that these guys never did to justify their killing. People could go around shooting lawyers saying "There's another scumbag out of the way."



Negative, sir. See my post above this one. To invoke 9.31, you must charge him with something. What would you charge him with?

We've been talking about duty to retreat this whole time and it's part of 9.31 as well.

I'd probably go with criminally negligent homicide probably. I'm not 100% sure on that though.



The why did everyone keep emphasizing the fact he "disobeyed" the dispatcher? Ya'lls words, not mine - I know dispatchers are HS dropouts too lazy to work construction and too stupid to handle college. Any dispatcher told me anything, I'd ignore them, too.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there. You know some dispatchers; you don't know all dispatchers. This one did a good job and was right with his advice.


[QUOTE]So, let me get a handle on your stance: Mr. Horn should have given up his constitutionally protected rights, his sense of right and wrong, his oath of protection to his neighbor, and his belief in justice and outrage at criminals because someone on the phone used "ain't" in a sentence improperly to tell him not to? Someone with no formal training and no formal education? Someone who does NOT represent any authority?

I don't know where you got any of this from. I'm not asking him to give up any of his rights. I'm saying he should've (not must've) listened to the operator. I'm saying that if he confronted them and they moved to run away that is not enough to kill them. Theres needs to be something else that made him reasonably fear for his life. There may have been.

Can we agree that shooting someone for stealing your neighbor's property in and of itself is wrong? Let's say Mr. Horn didn't fear for his life. He just wanted to make sure they didn't get away. They tried to get away and he shot. Can we agree that that is not justified?

This is a hypothetical. I'm not saying this is what actually occurred. But, if you think that shooting someone for stealing your neighbors property even when there is no threat to you or anyone else is justified then I'm guessing there is little we can agree on.


Why is he guilty of not listening? I don't listen to non-authority figures, either.

Sometimes it's good to listen to them. Someone doesn't have to be an authority figure to be right.



I'd protect your property the same as mine. Once a criminal begins his act, he loses his rights. I'll not sacrifice yours, as my neighbor's, just because I'm skeered to go tell them that their world just ended and to wait for the cops.

I see it as my Christian duty to watch over my neighbors and not cower in my home waiting for the police to solve my problems. That's why there's no crime in my neighborhood, here in the middle of Phoenix, while 3 blocks away the cops are there 3 times a week.

The willing versus the weak.

Just my .02.

That may have answered my question above, but let me know all the same.


And I am REALLY regretting all that hot sauce, bro. I mean, seriously, my goodness... Sometimes you can like spicy food TOO much, lol!

Have a blessed night, my friend!

:lol: Thanks. You too.

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 12:58 AM
Actually, that may not be true. Many people can hurt you without a firearm. Who knows what kind of deadly force one can do with their hands. The men were told he had a gun and ordered to stop. They came forward anyway. That means they had reason to not fear the gun.

I still think he should have stayed out of the way.

I don't think the law will say this man is a murderer.

Really? Do you have a source, because that's a big fact if they came at him after he made himself known.

Just FYI, saying that they came into his yard does not mean they were coming toward him.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 01:01 AM
Really? Do you have a source, because that's a big fact if they came at him after he made himself known.

Just FYI, saying that they came into his yard does not mean they were coming toward him.

But it doesn't exclude it either. At the very least, the insinuation is they came towards him. I suppose a layout would be necessary.

But we do know that law in some states has given people the right in the past to protect property with deadly force. I think it is wrong to do so and have stated over and over again in this thread. I will be surprised if a jury convicts this man of murder based on what little I know. But they might. They may convict him of manslaughter though. It will be an interesting case to follow.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 01:01 AM
Ya know, I fully believe we have the right to protect our homes and our families. My dad was an NRA member. Jim has two firearms and a bow. The thought of having to ever use one of them makes me feel sick to my stomach.

We definitly have the right to protect our own home and family. If we start shooting random burglers where does it stop? When we mistake the neighbor for a burglar?

If your neighbor isn't home and he is being robbed call 911. If he IS home by all means help him.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 01:03 AM
Yea. I hate them too. We live behind enemy lines and that is why these things crop up. While this man should not have done what he did (in my opinion), it also troubles me that others were stealing. Then again, who knows why they were stealing?

What is so scary to me about deadly force is the person that is killed may spend eternity in hell. No other chances for salvation will occur. They are doomed. All my worldly goods are not worth taking from anyone another opportunity to repent.

Have you ever heard of Jim Elliot? He refused to defend himself and was killed by the natives. (He could have taken a gun and defended himself against the primitive weapons of the natives but chose not to.) However, because of his actions, other missionaries were able to witness to those that killed him and they became saved. Now, Jim and his killers will enjoy eternity together. One says that they saw a huge being over the body of Jim Elliot. I can't remember the story correctly. Maybe the being was over them while they were still alive. But my memory doesn't matter. The killers later came to know and understand that was an angel of God that came to escort Jim to heaven.

Awsome post! I wish I could rep you!

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 01:05 AM
If someone was trying to rape my child, I would shoot them without thinking. I would rather stand before God having protected those he placed under my authority as to allow harm to come to them and answer for that.

Wait, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 01:07 AM
Wait, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Someone had posted above that rape did not justify deadly force. I was just giving an example of when I would use deadly force in the case of rape. ;)

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 01:08 AM
Awsome post! I wish I could rep you!


LOL! Yea, I tried to rep you too but I have given out too many in the last 24 hours. :hug:

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 01:09 AM
Wait, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

I think it has a lot to do with the subject.

Brother Mark, had I witnessed my daughter being molested it's quite probable I would have become violent doing whatever I had to in order to protect her. Had I killed the two adults involved would I have been justified? Possibly according to the law but what about in the eyes of God?

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 01:09 AM
But it doesn't exclude it either. At the very least, the insinuation is they came towards him. I suppose a layout would be necessary.

But we do know that law in some states has given people the right in the past to protect property with deadly force. I think it is wrong to do so and have stated over and over again in this thread. I will be surprised if a jury convicts this man of murder based on what little I know. But they might. They may convict him of manslaughter though. It will be an interesting case to follow.

You're right, it doesn't exclude it. The houses are side-by-side. It's entirely possible that they were crossing his yard as they got away. It's a critical issue so we'll have to wait and see.

I'd be surprised if he's convicted by a jury as well. Burglars are not sympathetic and people think this guy is some kind of hero. The first article I read on this said he was not likley to be indicted and that absolutely shocked me especially given the old saying "You can indict a ham sandwich."

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 01:10 AM
He attempted to stop a crime.

Actually if he was attempting to stop a crime he would have confronted them before they entered the house. When he shot them they were leaving after the crime had already occurred.


They crossed FROM his neighbor's yard INTO his yard TOWARDS him, while he was holding a loaded firearm.

Do you have a Google image map or something to prove that? What I mean is how do you know that it wasn't the only way out? I share a few feet of grass with my neighbor and I think that it was more likely that they HAD to cross his property (if that is what truly happened). I find it incredibly hard to believe that two unarmed men would confront a shot gun toting man.


That is the quintessential definition of self defense. He was threatened. They went from point A to point B while he was occupying point B.

This is all conjecture. None of us were there. We do not know the lay out of the property and you are taking the word of a blood thirsty man hell bent on killing these men.


What other evidence do you want? Had they reached him and grabbed his weapon, what then? The cops die when they show up because they have a shotgun? The 6-year old down the street?

This is all speculation.


He did the right thing.

I disagree whole heartedly.

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 01:11 AM
Someone had posted above that rape did not justify deadly force. I was just giving an example of when I would use deadly force in the case of rape. ;)

Oh OK, I must have skipped past it.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 01:12 AM
I think it has a lot to do with the subject.

Brother Mark, had I witnessed my daughter being molested it's quite probable I would have become violent doing whatever I had to in order to protect her. Had I killed the two adults involved would I have been justified? Possibly according to the law but what about in the eyes of God?

When I study scripture, I see that God tells the individual to turn the other cheek. But then I see where God gives people authority to act. He gives government the right to use deadly force (death penalty, stoning, etc.) So for me, it comes down to authority. God gave me the responsibility to protect my family so that they could turn the other cheek. God gave government the responsibility to protect me so I could turn the other cheek or give them my cloak when they take my shirt.

I think if we allow another under our authority to suffer such a thing, that God will judge us for our inaction and ask us why we did not protect the soul that he entrusted to us.

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 01:13 AM
Someone had posted above that rape did not justify deadly force. I was just giving an example of when I would use deadly force in the case of rape. ;)

You'd be perfectly fine legally (in TX at least) and morally.

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 01:16 AM
Note to self: Never go to Texas

Granted this news story isn't the ONLY reason. The other reason is George Bush - LOL!

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 01:18 AM
The first article I read on this said he was not likley to be indicted and that absolutely shocked me especially given the old saying "You can indict a ham sandwich."

Keep in mind two things... the culture of the area and that prosecutors are elected. I don't think this guy did anything that is not acceptable in his culture. What we are doing is talking about how does Christ see this and how does the local law see it. The local law and culture seems to think it is fine. That doesn't surprise me. Crime is high in the area and people are sick and tired of criminals getting away with things. All it takes is one story about injustice for people to get mad at all criminals.

Before the Lord, I think it likely that all three individuals will be held accountable. And as someone has pointed out above, it is possible that the thieves so grieved God, that he removed any kind of protection around them so that they would be killed. That doesn't mean he approved of how it happened or who did it. He did something similar when he raised up the Babylonians to conquer Israel. He didn't approve of it, but he was wanting to teach Israel some things.

There are always countless things that we will never see or know about. The facts will almost always escape us in this life. I think this is one reason God tells us not to judge. There is so much we don't know.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 01:19 AM
Note to self: Never go to Texas

Granted this news story isn't the ONLY reason. The other reason is George Bush - LOL!

Both reasons are an excellent reason to admire Texas. ;)

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 01:20 AM
Note to self: Never go to Texas

Granted this news story isn't the ONLY reason. The other reason is George Bush - LOL!

Well you're missing out if you never go to Texas. :D

If you don't like Bush you can head to Austin. They hate him there.

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 01:25 AM
Keep in mind two things... the culture of the area and that prosecutors are elected. I don't think this guy did anything that is not acceptable in his culture. What we are doing is talking about how does Christ see this and how does the local law see it. The local law and culture seems to think it is fine. That doesn't surprise me. Crime is high in the area and people are sick and tired of criminals getting away with things. All it takes is one story about injustice for people to get mad at all criminals.

Before the Lord, I think it likely that all three individuals will be held accountable. And as someone has pointed out above, it is possible that the thieves so grieved God, that he removed any kind of protection around them so that they would be killed. That doesn't mean he approved of how it happened or who did it. He did something similar when he raised up the Babylonians to conquer Israel. He didn't approve of it, but he was wanting to teach Israel some things.

There are always countless things that we will never see or know about. The facts will almost always escape us in this life. I think this is one reason God tells us not to judge. There is so much we don't know.

You're right. Given the tape I had just listened to it just seemed a bit early to say that indictment was unlikely. The guy is a hero to many though so who knows.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 01:28 AM
Actually if he was attempting to stop a crime he would have confronted them before they entered the house. When he shot them they were leaving after the crime had already occurred.

Cite and source where he saw them them entering and waited them out, please?




Do you have a Google image map or something to prove that? What I mean is how do you know that it wasn't the only way out? I share a few feet of grass with my neighbor and I think that it was more likely that they HAD to cross his property (if that is what truly happened). I find it incredibly hard to believe that two unarmed men would confront a shot gun toting man.

Don't need one. If they ran TOWARDS him, be it to flee, to hide, to attack, or to practice up for the Summer Olympics, they ran TOWARDS him. He was holding a shotgun. They ran towards him, towards his direction. Self defense.




This is all conjecture. None of us were there. We do not know the lay out of the property and you are taking the word of a blood thirsty man hell bent on killing these men.

I love the interjection of the emotional response: "Bloodthirsty... hell bent..." But like I stated above, the layout has NO bearing. At. ALL.

Lesson 101 in life: Never charge towards a man pointing a shotgun at you.



This is all speculation.



I disagree whole heartedly.[/quote]

I respect your right to disagree. Respect the "bloodthirsty killer" until he's at least CHARGED with a crime, which he hasn't been, and he won't be, because we have people in office to keep SOME people from making irrational judgments.

And now I'm a fetch my wedding dress. :monkeyd:

:D

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 01:37 AM
Cite and source where he saw them them entering and waited them out, please?

Did you even listen to the 911 call? That documents the entire ordeal from the time the perps entered the property until the shooter was detained by police.


Don't need one. If they ran TOWARDS him, be it to flee, to hide, to attack, or to practice up for the Summer Olympics, they ran TOWARDS him. He was holding a shotgun. They ran towards him, towards his direction. Self defense.

That is flimsy and you know it. C'mon now, just stop being a stubborn man (that was an oxymoron - LOL) and admit it. ;)

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 01:38 AM
Both reasons are an excellent reason to admire Texas. ;)

OMG, you like Bush? Ewww, we can no longer be internet best friends!

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 01:39 AM
OMG, you like Bush? Ewww, we can no longer be internet best friends!

Does that go for me as well? :D

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 01:48 AM
Does that go for me as well? :D

What a cruel, cruel world!

Guys, why do you like him? He scares the crap out of me.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 01:49 AM
What a cruel, cruel world!

Guys, why do you like him? He scares the crap out of me.

Well, that's another thread. ;)

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 01:51 AM
Well, that's another thread. ;)

What he said :P

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 02:02 AM
You missed my point. The ends don't justify the means.

I never said they did. Of course, I'm not stupid enough to charge a man with a shotgun pointed at my burrito bungalow. These two are just proof that Darwin was on to something with that whole selective process and survival of the fittest thing :D




Well if we're going with "if's here," what if those two would've found the cure for cancer but won't now that there dead. Ridiculous, I know. It's also ridiculous to use hypothetical future events to justify this action. You can't make up some bad act that these guys never did to justify their killing. People could go around shooting lawyers saying "There's another scumbag out of the way."

I never, ever said that was justification for him pulling the trigger. I have stated, time and time and time again, he was justified because he was lunged at, ran towards, attacked, threatened, etc.

Everyone else is arguing that he shot them for stealing. That's not true. If it was, he'd have been arrested. He was never arrested, never charged, not a suspect in a crime.

Why?

Because the police PRELIMINARY investigation found his story to be true and accurate. You know, that story about them running at him?

So are you saying the police investigators are liars, stupid, or incompetent?





We've been talking about duty to retreat this whole time and it's part of 9.31 as well.

I'd probably go with criminally negligent homicide probably. I'm not 100% sure on that though.

I thought negligent homicide has to occur in the commission of a crime to be weighted as the primary charge? Can you show me the provisions for making a sole or primary charge under TX State penal code for NH?





You're painting with a pretty broad brush there. You know some dispatchers; you don't know all dispatchers. This one did a good job and was right with his advice.


He didn't do too good a job, did he? In fact, he did nothing. He TRIED to do something, but I can try all day and never get anything actually done.

It's his job to say, "Let the police handle it." He did his job. No cookie from me.

He is, however, welcome to what's on my plate the next time I dump 1/2 a bottle of hot sauce on a pair of spicy burritos. My belly hurts. :D

But you're right. I'm sure there are some good ones out there. I stand admonished.




I don't know where you got any of this from. I'm not asking him to give up any of his rights. I'm saying he should've (not must've) listened to the operator. I'm saying that if he confronted them and they moved to run away that is not enough to kill them. Theres needs to be something else that made him reasonably fear for his life. There may have been.

We have been in agreement all along on this. If he shot them JUST for stealing or if they tried to run away, he's a murderer. I have never once said differently.




Can we agree that shooting someone for stealing your neighbor's property in and of itself is wrong? Let's say Mr. Horn didn't fear for his life. He just wanted to make sure they didn't get away. They tried to get away and he shot. Can we agree that that is not justified?

This is a hypothetical. I'm not saying this is what actually occurred. But, if you think that shooting someone for stealing your neighbors property even when there is no threat to you or anyone else is justified then I'm guessing there is little we can agree on.


It's murder. Period. End of discussion. But that's not what happened. I've been saying this all along. Do y'all read these posts? :D



Sometimes it's good to listen to them. Someone doesn't have to be an authority figure to be right.

Agreed. But not in the case of law enforcement. I learn from my apprentices every day. But my apprentices don't speak for my company. If they gave advice/information to one of my customers, I'd fire them so fast they'd JUMP off the pole, rather than strapping down.

When it comes to law enforcement, I'll do what I feel is best, not what some person sitting in a chair, sucking on a soda tells me to do as they type out some directions to a cop about 20 minutes away.





That may have answered my question above, but let me know all the same.



:lol: Thanks. You too.

If you read through, you'll see I pretty much agree with you, except on one thing:

I believe he had the right to kill them when they ran towards him.

All the, "he killed them for stuff!" posts are emotional and silly. They died because they charged a man with a shotgun. Duh. I don't care if he sat inside and drooled over shooting someone for 20 years.

If you charge a man with a shotgun pointed at you, you're going to die. They knew this. Anyone knows this. There's no English translation needed. There's no nothing needed. You know you're stealing, the neighbor levels a piece at you. You lie on your belly - anything else AT all happens, you're running away (read: NOT in the direction of the gun) or you're attacking to remove the threat (read: TOWARDS the gun, ala ambush break).

How can anyone here possible state that maybe they were running away by running towards him?

Let's use some common sense, folks. :kiss:

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 02:06 AM
Did you even listen to the 911 call? That documents the entire ordeal from the time the perps entered the property until the shooter was detained by police.



That is flimsy and you know it. C'mon now, just stop being a stubborn man (that was an oxymoron - LOL) and admit it. ;)

So, the POLICE didn't do their job. Gotcha.

And what's flimsy?

You stated they may have been running away. I want to know what adult on this planet runs AWAY TOWARDS a loaded gun pointed at them, especially if this was the savage, ravage, rabied Rambo you make him out to be.

The only logical conclusion is that he fired out of fear.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 02:07 AM
What a cruel, cruel world!

Guys, why do you like him? He scares the crap out of me.

You already don't like me, so I've got nothing to lose. :D

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 02:27 AM
So, the POLICE didn't do their job. Gotcha.

What? OK, I am done discussing this with you because you are completely illogical and irrational in terms of this matter.

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 02:43 AM
I never, ever said that was justification for him pulling the trigger. I have stated, time and time and time again, he was justified because he was lunged at, ran towards, attacked, threatened, etc.

Everyone else is arguing that he shot them for stealing. That's not true. If it was, he'd have been arrested. He was never arrested, never charged, not a suspect in a crime.

Why?

Because the police PRELIMINARY investigation found his story to be true and accurate. You know, that story about them running at him?

So are you saying the police investigators are liars, stupid, or incompetent?

No, I don't know of the story saying they ran at him. Where is it because that makes a world of difference to me.


I thought negligent homicide has to occur in the commission of a crime to be weighted as the primary charge? Can you show me the provisions for making a sole or primary charge under TX State penal code for NH?


§ 19.05. Criminally Negligent Homicide



(a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.


§ 6.03. Definitions of Culpable Mental States



(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Actually, now that I look at it more closely I don't know if I would charge him with this or not. Negligence may aptly describe his choice to leave his home, but not his act of actually pulling the trigger. It would be a tough decision but I may have to go with a more serious charge.



He didn't do too good a job, did he? In fact, he did nothing. He TRIED to do something, but I can try all day and never get anything actually done.

It's his job to say, "Let the police handle it." He did his job. No cookie from me.

He did what he could and what he was supposed to do. By listening to the tape it seemed like if he could've he would've gone through the phone is slapped some sense into Mr. Horn.


He is, however, welcome to what's on my plate the next time I dump 1/2 a bottle of hot sauce on a pair of spicy burritos. My belly hurts. :D

For some reason I could really go for a burrito right about now.


But you're right. I'm sure there are some good ones out there. I stand admonished.

1 point for me. Will an admin be sure to mark this down in the official book of records.


We have been in agreement all along on this. If he shot them JUST for stealing or if they tried to run away, he's a murderer. I have never once said differently.

Agreement!? I've been wasting all my time when we agree? :giveup:




It's murder. Period. End of discussion. But that's not what happened. I've been saying this all along. Do y'all read these posts? :D

I skim them.;) I have not seen anything saying that they came at him though, but if they tried to attack or were coming at him in such a way that Mr. Horn reasonably feared for his life then I have no problem with him pulling the trigger. He shouldn't of put himself in that position, but he has the right to protect himself.


When it comes to law enforcement, I'll do what I feel is best, not what some person sitting in a chair, sucking on a soda tells me to do as they type out some directions to a cop about 20 minutes away.

Haha, until I got to "to a cop about 20 minutes away" I thought "How does he know I'm sucking on a soda?"



If you read through, you'll see I pretty much agree with you, except on one thing:

I believe he had the right to kill them when they ran towards him.

All the, "he killed them for stuff!" posts are emotional and silly. They died because they charged a man with a shotgun. Duh. I don't care if he sat inside and drooled over shooting someone for 20 years.

If you charge a man with a shotgun pointed at you, you're going to die. They knew this. Anyone knows this. There's no English translation needed. There's no nothing needed. You know you're stealing, the neighbor levels a piece at you. You lie on your belly - anything else AT all happens, you're running away (read: NOT in the direction of the gun) or you're attacking to remove the threat (read: TOWARDS the gun, ala ambush break).

How can anyone here possible state that maybe they were running away by running towards him?

Let's use some common sense, folks. :kiss:

Progress is being made. I'm out for now. I need food.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 03:09 AM
What? OK, I am done discussing this with you because you are completely illogical and irrational in terms of this matter.

Sorry, I forgot the smiley. It was supposed to look like this:

Oh, so now the POLICE didn't do their job :D

As in, we need to lighten up.

Don't be such a sore debate loser. I'm very good. You will learn. :spin:

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 03:39 AM
OK, folks, let's see if we can get back on track here - without bickering this time.

I went by ONE link: The link posted in the original post.

My contention is simple: The man went out to secure his neighbor's property and, being in fear of his life, shot two men and was justified.

Y'all keep asking me how I know this, where they charged him, etc.

Using the original post here, the original link, this is my argument:

[Horn]:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

There's what you asked for, RE: When did he tell the police they charged him?

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

Again, that's Horn's story.

But look at this!

"Horn was not taken into custody after the shooting. A Harris County grand jury will decide if charges are to be filed."

Put those pieces together.

The initial investigation done by the officers and detectives identified this as a legal, justifiable shooting because they believed Horn's story about the men coming at him. Otherwise, he would have been arrested on-scene or after questioning.

When a case goes to the Grand Jury for indictment, it means that, according to the police, no crime was committed via the evidence on scene. The Grand Jury has to dig in and look at things like motive, malice, previous interaction, etc. They can then press charges via the State Attorney's Office if they feel compulsory evidence not available at the time of the incident has surfaced in light of their investigation into the facts.

This means that both men were shot in the front (not their backs) and found to have put Mr. Horn into a position of imminent fear for his safety or the safety of others.

I think that these facts show he is innocent of the accusations levied at him here.

1. He called the cops.

2. He intervened in the commission of a crime only after the police did not respond within a time that thwarted them from leaving the scene and absconding with the "loot."

3. Mr. Horn knows they have a crowbar. By Texas state definition, deadly force is warranted in the repulsion of an attack if that attack is carried out with a weapon capable of inflicting great bodily harm. I would say a crowbar is capable of inflicting great bodily harm.

[So those of you saying they weren't armed are wrong. A crowbar will kill you with one swing just as fast as a gun with one bullet. But you don't have to reload a crowbar]

4. According to Horn, and verified by detectives, the men came at him. He has no duty to retreat.

5. He was detained, questioned, and subsequently released without bond, without bail, and with no restrictions. In other words, the police called the matter closed, over with, done, shut. It was self defense.

6. The Grand Jury has thus far found no evidence against Mr. Horn, disagreed with the original findings of the responding department, denounced any of the detectives' conclusions, or filed any type of mandate at all to hold Mr. Horn in the suspicion of a crime currently under intense investigation and likely to be prosecuted.

I<3Jesus
Dec 8th 2007, 03:59 AM
I bite *shows teeth* Kidding :P

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 06:41 PM
OK, folks, let's see if we can get back on track here - without bickering this time.

I went by ONE link: The link posted in the original post.

My contention is simple: The man went out to secure his neighbor's property and, being in fear of his life, shot two men and was justified.

Y'all keep asking me how I know this, where they charged him, etc.

Using the original post here, the original link, this is my argument:

[Horn]:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

There's what you asked for, RE: When did he tell the police they charged him?

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

Again, that's Horn's story.

First, he says nothing about them coming at him. He said they came in his yard.

Second, he says he had no choice but to shoot. I wouldn't expect him to say anything else. He may truly believe he had no other choice but to shoot them. That doesn't mean he's right. This of course gets to the problem of ever being able to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.



But look at this!

"Horn was not taken into custody after the shooting. A Harris County grand jury will decide if charges are to be filed."

Put those pieces together.

The initial investigation done by the officers and detectives identified this as a legal, justifiable shooting because they believed Horn's story about the men coming at him. Otherwise, he would have been arrested on-scene or after questioning.

When a case goes to the Grand Jury for indictment, it means that, according to the police, no crime was committed via the evidence on scene. The Grand Jury has to dig in and look at things like motive, malice, previous interaction, etc. They can then press charges via the State Attorney's Office if they feel compulsory evidence not available at the time of the incident has surfaced in light of their investigation into the facts.

This means that both men were shot in the front (not their backs) and found to have put Mr. Horn into a position of imminent fear for his safety or the safety of others.

You're extrapolating way too much. Just because the police didn't take him into custody doesn't mean that they believed him or his story. For all we know they didn't believe his story but didn't think they had enough at that time to hold him. We just don't know.

The police probably did the right thing though. Mr. Horn isn't going anywhere and he's not going to be a danger to anyone (unless they're burglars), so let a grand jury sort through the evidence and see what they think.

According to this, one was shot in the chest and one was shot in the side.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4461633


I think that these facts show he is innocent of the accusations levied at him here.

1. He called the cops.

2. He intervened in the commission of a crime only after the police did not respond within a time that thwarted them from leaving the scene and absconding with the "loot."

3. Mr. Horn knows they have a crowbar. By Texas state definition, deadly force is warranted in the repulsion of an attack if that attack is carried out with a weapon capable of inflicting great bodily harm. I would say a crowbar is capable of inflicting great bodily harm.

[So those of you saying they weren't armed are wrong. A crowbar will kill you with one swing just as fast as a gun with one bullet. But you don't have to reload a crowbar]


I know they had a crowbar going in, but I don't think it's clear whether they had it when leaving. Even if they did have though that doesn't mean that they threatened him with it. An attorney on TV discussing the case said it they did not have it when leaving. I don't know why they would leave it behind though.

Anyway, you're assuming they attacked him with a crowbar and no has said that is what happened. Just carrying a crowbar isn't enough to warrant shooting someone.



4. According to Horn, and verified by detectives, the men came at him. He has no duty to retreat.

It's not verified by anything you've posted so far.


5. He was detained, questioned, and subsequently released without bond, without bail, and with no restrictions. In other words, the police called the matter closed, over with, done, shut. It was self defense.

Again, that doesn't mean case closed. That means we're letting you go and turning it over to a grand jury.


6. The Grand Jury has thus far found no evidence against Mr. Horn, disagreed with the original findings of the responding department, denounced any of the detectives' conclusions, or filed any type of mandate at all to hold Mr. Horn in the suspicion of a crime currently under intense investigation and likely to be prosecuted.

No one has heard anything so far from the grand jury as far as I know. I don't know how you draw all of those conclusions from that fact.


We have gotten to the source of our disagreement though. You seem to think that Mr. Horn's responses coupled with the subsequent actions of law enforcement show that this is a clear case of self-defense.

I think this is a guy who was way too eager to confront the burglars, was surprised by the proximity of the burglars when he went outside (about 15 feet), probably scared the daylights out of the burglars when he said "Move, you're dead," was startled by their reaction to him and pulled the trigger. I base most of this on what Horn's lawyer has said.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4462805

Here is one last link that makes some interesting points, including a story about a man involved in a clear-cut case of self-defense.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5349444.html

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 07:22 PM
First, he says nothing about them coming at him. He said they came in his yard.

Where do you think he exited his residence? A neighbor's yard? If he was on his property attempting to stop a crime, and they came on his property, that fits the legal definition of "trespass" and "charging," both of which are defendable in any investigation of a shooting.




Second, he says he had no choice but to shoot. I wouldn't expect him to say anything else. He may truly believe he had no other choice but to shoot them. That doesn't mean he's right. This of course gets to the problem of ever being able to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agreed. This is why it was forwarded to the grand jury. My only point was to illustrate a lack of evidence to the contrary under the preliminary investigation - proving anyone here that claimed he fired at them as they were "running away" as incorrect.





You're extrapolating way too much. Just because the police didn't take him into custody doesn't mean that they believed him or his story. For all we know they didn't believe his story but didn't think they had enough at that time to hold him. We just don't know.

No sir, you're liquefying the law. Whether the cops thought he was a standard of truth or a bald faced liar is irrelevant. They didn't charge him with any crime because the evidence matched with his story - plain and simple. His story was that they intruded towards him and he shot them. Police just said, "Yep, that's what the evidence shows."

Other than that, we are, once again, agreed: The law has limitations for holding and arresting people; when in doubt, the officers take it to a higher authority - as it should be.




The police probably did the right thing though. Mr. Horn isn't going anywhere and he's not going to be a danger to anyone (unless they're burglars), so let a grand jury sort through the evidence and see what they think.

Absolutely, 100% agreed again, bro.



According to this, one was shot in the chest and one was shot in the side.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4461633


The side the perp was showing as he turned to run the other direction, or the side the perp was showing as he turned to charge?

(OK, sorry, couldn't help it :lol:)




I know they had a crowbar going in, but I don't think it's clear whether they had it when leaving. Even if they did have though that doesn't mean that they threatened him with it. An attorney on TV discussing the case said it they did not have it when leaving. I don't know why they would leave it behind though.

Anyway, you're assuming they attacked him with a crowbar and no has said that is what happened. Just carrying a crowbar isn't enough to warrant shooting someone.

Ah, but it IS in the commission of a felony, my friend. If you commit a felony and you have a crowbar, I don't need to be threatened with it. I am legally within my rights to turn you into a sieve. Once again, I must prove two things: That I had a reasonable fear for my safety or the safety of another, and that I was under no duty to retreat.

The question is "did the victim have a weapon at the time of the incident" not whether or not the victim intended to use it. The latter can never be proven, and the defendant gets the doubt lesser than "beyond reasonable" as that is the prosecution's stance to state. In other words, if the perp had a weapon, the prosecution has to prove he intended NOT to use it, not the defendant proving he intended to.





It's not verified by anything you've posted so far.

I'd say that since he hasn't been charged, it's verified they have nothing to charge him with - at least in the eyes of the DA/PA... yes?




Again, that doesn't mean case closed. That means we're letting you go and turning it over to a grand jury.

No one has heard anything so far from the grand jury as far as I know. I don't know how you draw all of those conclusions from that fact.

No source, simple conjecture: If they had something that both the grand jury and the DA felt warranted charging him with, they'd arrest him and hold him. I would call that reasonable extrapolation given presented facts - you would not?



We have gotten to the source of our disagreement though. You seem to think that Mr. Horn's responses coupled with the subsequent actions of law enforcement show that this is a clear case of self-defense.

Yes sir. Exactly. Or, at the very least, he was in an irrational state of mind and presumed the actions of the victims to constitute a threat when, in fact, they were nothing more than a totality of the circumstance, IE: Mutual confusion/spacial distortion/panic.



I think this is a guy who was way too eager to confront the burglars, was surprised by the proximity of the burglars when he went outside (about 15 feet), probably scared the daylights out of the burglars when he said "Move, you're dead," was startled by their reaction to him and pulled the trigger. I base most of this on what Horn's lawyer has said.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4462805

Here is one last link that makes some interesting points, including a story about a man involved in a clear-cut case of self-defense.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5349444.html

I will view your links in a few. Thank you for an engaging, interesting, polite, mature and respectful debate! I am looking forward to your counter points and retort.

Sherrie
Dec 8th 2007, 07:39 PM
Well this morning on Fox news it was reported they will be filing charges against the man. and he will be charged on his own words on the 911 tape.."I am not going to let them get by with this".........

Also according to Texas Senator the bill was not passed so that everyone could go out and shoot guns on someone elses property. And live the wild wild west....





A grand jury will decide whether the man can be charged with a crime. He will probably be found to have acted legally if it is determined that the neighbor whose house was broken into had asked him to protect his property, but not otherwise.

The Texas state senator (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5303222.html) who wrote the law said it was not meant to apply to anyone's property but your own and "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action."


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Shocking_911_tape_Man_kills_next_1116.html

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 07:50 PM
Well this morning on Fox news it was reported they will be filing charges against the man. and he will be charged on his own words on the 911 tape.."I am not going to let them get by with this".........

Also according to Texas Senator the bill was not passed so that everyone could go out and shoot guns on someone elses property. And live the wild wild west....





http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Shocking_911_tape_Man_kills_next_1116.html

If they weren't on his property, he will regret pulling that trigger.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 07:57 PM
As I suspected. Vigilante justice. It may be justified in the eyes of some but it is not legal.

Brother Mark
Dec 8th 2007, 07:58 PM
As I suspected. Vigilante justice. It may be justified in the eyes of some but it is not legal.

That's yet to be determined. ;)

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 8th 2007, 08:03 PM
No charges have been filed. He hasn't been arrested. He is not wanted for arrest. He is not under indictment.

Do y'all read these links? That's a hype link that says he COULD be.

I watched 4 hours of Fox News this morning. They never said he was arrested, there is no link on their site, no news site says he's been charged.

Seeker of truth
Dec 8th 2007, 08:07 PM
That's yet to be determined. ;)

You're correct so I probably spoke out of turn. It's my gut feeling he was acting as a vigilante and it's my opinion that he has done so.

Better? ;) :D

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 08:53 PM
[QUOTE=Follow_Me_Infantry;1465364]Where do you think he exited his residence? A neighbor's yard? If he was on his property attempting to stop a crime, and they came on his property, that fits the legal definition of "trespass" and "charging," both of which are defendable in any investigation of a shooting.

The houses are side-by-side. The burglars came from the side of the house and came into his yard. Mr. Horn was on his front porch. Just because they came into his yard and were "trespassing" doesn't mean he can shoot them. I'll refer back to my earlier post about when deadly force can be used (9.32 of the TX penal code).



Agreed. This is why it was forwarded to the grand jury. My only point was to illustrate a lack of evidence to the contrary under the preliminary investigation - proving anyone here that claimed he fired at them as they were "running away" as incorrect.

Certainly there is a legitimate question of whether he was justified. But, it's illogical to say that because he hasn't been charged that law enforcement believe him. It certainly doesn't prove that they were not running away. When you listen to the tape it's pretty clear that they burglars didn't have much time to do anything because he fires pretty quickly after saying "Move, your dead."




No sir, you're liquefying the law. Whether the cops thought he was a standard of truth or a bald faced liar is irrelevant. They didn't charge him with any crime because the evidence matched with his story - plain and simple. His story was that they intruded towards him and he shot them. Police just said, "Yep, that's what the evidence shows."

You're basing all of this on the fact that the police didn't take him into custody. Neither of us know what the police are thinking. Obviously there is a need for further investigation because that is exactly what they're doing.


The side the perp was showing as he turned to run the other direction, or the side the perp was showing as he turned to charge?

(OK, sorry, couldn't help it :lol:)

If they were originally coming toward Mr. Horn then I'm guessing the side he showed as he turned to retreat.


Ah, but it IS in the commission of a felony, my friend. If you commit a felony and you have a crowbar, I don't need to be threatened with it. I am legally within my rights to turn you into a sieve. Once again, I must prove two things: That I had a reasonable fear for my safety or the safety of another, and that I was under no duty to retreat.

Ummm, not really. I'll refer again to 9.32 that I've already posted. Just because someone commits a felony with a crowbar does not give you the right to kill them.



The question is "did the victim have a weapon at the time of the incident" not whether or not the victim intended to use it. The latter can never be proven, and the defendant gets the doubt lesser than "beyond reasonable" as that is the prosecution's stance to state. In other words, if the perp had a weapon, the prosecution has to prove he intended NOT to use it, not the defendant proving he intended to.

Nope. If one of them had a knife in his back pocket when shot that doesn't make the killing justifiable. You have to satisfy the elements of 9.32. The law can't be condensed into statements like if the victim had a weapon at the time of the incident killing them was justified.



I'd say that since he hasn't been charged, it's verified they have nothing to charge him with - at least in the eyes of the DA/PA... yes?

It hasn't been verified that they have nothing to charge him with. The only thing that we can say so far is that they haven't charged him YET and they are considering doing so. The whole purpose of the grand jury is whether or not there is probable cause to bring charges.



No source, simple conjecture: If they had something that both the grand jury and the DA felt warranted charging him with, they'd arrest him and hold him. I would call that reasonable extrapolation given presented facts - you would not?

No, I think that goes too far. Obviously if there is a grand jury they are determing whether charges should be brought. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that they won't at some point in the future. When the grand jury comes back and says there's no probable cause to charge him then we can say that they didn't feel there was anything that warranted charging him. Until then such a conclusion is premature.



I will view your links in a few. Thank you for an engaging, interesting, polite, mature and respectful debate! I am looking forward to your counter points and retort.

Same to you my friend. :)

Matthew
Dec 8th 2007, 09:01 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html

I just read this and it's interesting how a lot of the arguments being made here are being made by others close to the situation.

According to the article the two men were shot in the back. There is a plain-clothes officer witness.

I let everyone read it, but there are factors that work for both sides.

Sherrie
Dec 9th 2007, 01:44 AM
Yeah They said this morning this would go before the Grand jury to see if he could be, not that he was. But they are saying what is going to hurt him, is his words on the 911 tape.

Autopsy says it cannot be determined if they were shot in the back or not.

pnewton
Dec 9th 2007, 02:09 AM
Unlike Quannel and others, I think the best course is to allow the legal system to take over and quit second-guessing the evidence. If he was in fear of his life, he may have been justified. He does not have to remain in his house and be a prisoner of low-life criminals.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 9th 2007, 07:36 AM
Yeah They said this morning this would go before the Grand jury to see if he could be, not that he was. But they are saying what is going to hurt him, is his words on the 911 tape.

Autopsy says it cannot be determined if they were shot in the back or not.

I am 100% agreed that his words will come into play - unfavorably. Even if he's innocent, he isn't very smart.

Isn't he like 60-something?

Sherrie
Dec 9th 2007, 12:29 PM
Well they reported (This is so funny to me) he was an elderly man...61 years old! I am not 61 and wont be for a whole lot of sometime...but 61 does not seem elderly to me. When I was in my teens, 40 seemed really old, and 50 was really ancient! :lol:

Where do I sign up for my Senior Citizen Discount? :lol: :o

Duane Morse
Dec 9th 2007, 12:45 PM
Unlike Quannel and others, I think the best course is to allow the legal system to take over and quit second-guessing the evidence. If he was in fear of his life, he may have been justified. He does not have to remain in his house and be a prisoner of low-life criminals.
Oh please!

If he was in fear of his life he would have remained in his house.

He went out of his house to confront them.

If he was in fear of his life, it was because he put his own life in danger by his own actions.


He was not "a prisoner of low-life criminals", since they were not at his own residence and attacking him personally.
He went out to confront them, by his own initiative.

If he had remained in his own house, there would have been no confrontation.

He wanted to play 'the hero', in his own vanity.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 9th 2007, 12:56 PM
Oh please!

If he was in fear of his life he would have remained in his house.

He went out of his house to confront them.

If he was in fear of his life, it was because he put his own life in danger by his own actions.


He was not "a prisoner of low-life criminals", since they were not at his own residence and attacking him personally.
He went out to confront them, by his own initiative.

If he had remained in his own house, there would have been no confrontation.

He wanted to play 'the hero', in his own vanity.

Possibly. None of us knows for sure.

What I do know for sure is that many of us are tired of being told a criminal has rights not afforded to us. Why SHOULDN'T we be able to walk anywhere we please, at any time, under any circumstance? The fact they were committing a crime should not scare us into being afraid to leave our homes.

pnewton
Dec 9th 2007, 03:23 PM
Oh please!

If he was in fear of his life he would have remained in his house.

He went out of his house to confront them.

If he was in fear of his life, it was because he put his own life in danger by his own actions.
It is the state of mind that he had when he fired that matters. That is when a man is justified for being in fear of his life. His state of mind or purpose for leaving his house will not be the question a jury examines. Also, he can not claim self defense if he had a reasonable chance of retreat. However, if the retreat meant he had to leave his own property, then he was not legal obligated to retreat.

It does not logically follow that if he was in fear of his life he would have stayed inside. People sometimes act despite fear.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 9th 2007, 04:46 PM
It is the state of mind that he had when he fired that matters. That is when a man is justified for being in fear of his life. His state of mind or purpose for leaving his house will not be the question a jury examines. Also, he can not claim self defense if he had a reasonable chance of retreat. However, if the retreat meant he had to leave his own property, then he was not legal obligated to retreat.

It does not logically follow that if he was in fear of his life he would have stayed inside. People sometimes act despite fear.

Slight correction, bro:

Texas has no duty to retreat in the interference of a crime. Doesn't matter where he was or what he was doing or why he was/doing, he need not retreat.

Seeker of truth
Dec 9th 2007, 04:53 PM
Slight correction, bro:

Texas has no duty to retreat in the interference of a crime. Doesn't matter where he was or what he was doing or why he was/doing, he need not retreat.

So that gives him the right to kill two men who may or may not have been armed...becasue Texas has no duty to retreat?

I agree that if he was that fearful of his life he would have called 911 and remained in his house.

We don't have the right to kill someone to protect material posessions.

Seeker of truth
Dec 9th 2007, 04:59 PM
With this I am going to remove my self from this debate. I pray none of my neighbors decide to shoot my son as he leaves with the television I have given him if I happen not to be home when he leaves or my mom as she enters my mouse and I don't happen to be here.

I'm sure some would say it was justified as they could be burglers.

We can't kill people for robbing our neighbors, especially when they aren't even home to be physically harmed!

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 9th 2007, 05:08 PM
So that gives him the right to kill two men who may or may not have been armed...becasue Texas has no duty to retreat?

I agree that if he was that fearful of his life he would have called 911 and remained in his house.

We don't have the right to kill someone to protect material posessions.

Is that what I said? Or did I offer a slight correction on a legal technicality? Putting words in my mouth isn't helping your argument.

Seeker of truth
Dec 9th 2007, 06:10 PM
Is that what I said? Or did I offer a slight correction on a legal technicality? Putting words in my mouth isn't helping your argument.

You're right. I put words in your mouth and I apologize for that.

pnewton
Dec 9th 2007, 06:52 PM
We don't have the right to kill someone to protect material posessions.I totally agree that it is morally wrong to take a life in order to protect property or possessions. However, one does have the legal right to do so. That is why I would never say a man like this is a hero. I just do not know if he was a criminal.

dan
Dec 10th 2007, 01:09 AM
...The jury decide. They will get to hear all the evidence.

Morally wrong to kill over possessions? I don't think God says that:

EX 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.
EX 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, [there shall be] blood [shed] for him; [for] he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man ARMED keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

Matthew
Dec 10th 2007, 02:44 AM
Let ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...The jury decide. They will get to hear all the evidence.

Morally wrong to kill over possessions? I don't think God says that:

EX 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.
EX 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, [there shall be] blood [shed] for him; [for] he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man ARMED keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

People should be allowed to protect their belongings. The audio and articles make it pretty clear that this is a guy that went out of his way to confront criminals that were taking someone else's belongings. He did an excellent job by calling the police but he didn't listen to them and ended up shooting two burglars in the back. Mr. Horn has caused a lot of unnecessary problems for himself and took two lives when it wasn't even necessary to get the property back.



Slight correction, bro:

Texas has no duty to retreat in the interference of a crime. Doesn't matter where he was or what he was doing or why he was/doing, he need not retreat.

When using deadly force there is sometimes a duty to retreat. I don't think it applies here though. Just because you don't have to retreat doesn't mean you can kill someone though.

Brother Mark
Dec 10th 2007, 02:53 AM
He did an excellent job by calling the police but he didn't listen to them and ended up shooting two burglars in the back.

I didn't think it had been confirmed he shot them in the back.


Mr. Horn has caused a lot of unnecessary problems for himself and took two lives when it wasn't even necessary to get the property back.

Are you sure? Were they carrying anything? I thought it was possible they were running at him? Lots of unknowns in the case still.


When using deadly force there is sometimes a duty to retreat. I don't think it applies here though. Just because you don't have to retreat doesn't mean you can kill someone though.

Scripturally, I think the guy was wrong and I have a hard time finding any wiggle room to defend him from the bible. I agree, he should have retreated and let them go with the material.

Matthew
Dec 10th 2007, 03:34 AM
I didn't think it had been confirmed he shot them in the back.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html

Story just came out yesterday. Apparently there was a plainclothers detective on the scene too.


Are you sure? Were they carrying anything? I thought it was possible they were running at him? Lots of unknowns in the case still.

I just meant it wasn't necessary because at least one officer was there when he shot the guys and others were close by. One of the burglars had a 6 inch center punch in his pocket.

Here's what the article says about the first guy that was shot:

Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

On one hand I think this helps Horn because it says he came toward Horn. On the other hand it says he angled away and was shot just before reaching the curb. I can see him fashioning a defense based on this, although it doesn't help that he still shot the guy in the back.

The article says this about the second guy:

The wounded man crossed the street, collapsed and died, authorities said. At the same time, the other man had turned and ran away from Horn.
Horn swung his shotgun around after shooting the first man and fired at the second one after he entered the neighbor's yard, investigators said.

He was hit in the back but continued running until collapsing a few hundred yards down the street, Corbett said.

This one's pretty bad. The guy was running away and he shot him.



Scripturally, I think the guy was wrong and I have a hard time finding any wiggle room to defend him from the bible. I agree, he should have retreated and let them go with the material.

It's a bad situation all around. Unfortunately there are no winners. I'm sure Mr. Horn didn't wake up that morning looking for trouble. He made some dumb choices that might come back to bite him hard though. I agree that scripturally what he did was wrong, based on what we know so far of course.

macarnett
Dec 10th 2007, 04:34 AM
Once this man had been ordered to stay inside, he should have done it; by refusing to do so, he committed a misdemeanor in Texas, possibly a felony. Police have the right and responsibility to control a crime scene.

My guess is, if the man goes to trial, few Texas juries would find him guilty unless it was clearly the case that he had lied and there was no reason to fear for his life.

On the other hand, they probably would find him guilty of refusing to obey the instructions to stay inside.

th1bill
Dec 10th 2007, 05:07 AM
.. I do not wish to reenter this conversation but there are facts that shold be known to every Christian. Many have made a theoretical Biblicl case that is just not true. God, a.k.a. Jesus, is the author of the Old Testament, just as He is the New. When God sent the children of Israel into Cannon, being God had the power to sreak and the land would have been emptied for the children to take possession of. God did not do that for a very large number of reasons, some of which I am still learning some sixteen years after I began to study God's word to His children. It is, I feel, important for all mankind to realize that a gifted horse is not nearly as special to the average person as the one they labopred fopr many hours to earn the cost of.
.. The land was special and is special to the Jewish people because they fought all those years to earn the purchase of it.Joe, his neighbors and many of us, so called "look at me people" have a very deep regard for their property and many of us never lost sight of the fact that the crime rate spirals out of control because folks have made themselves readily available targets because it is known that they are an easy mark. Folks, if you choose to hate your veterans, that is your prerogative and it is your doom. Those of us that stepped forward, the police, the firemen and the vets teach from our life experiences. We pray that our experiance will be to your benifit even though we are daily made aware of your hate for us.
.. There is not a police officer that writes a ticket without knowing you dispise the very ground he walks on and there is not a fireman that will fail to go in and get you out of a burning building and he knows that as soon as the shock of your recovery wears off that you will vote to cut his budget and refuse to approve the Bonds to update his equipment. And believe me, I am so disabled, 70% of it combat related, that living on the $1400 dollars a month that you swell folks give my wife and I to purchase our groceries, pay the light bill, purchase the fifty dollar a tank gasoline and buy our medicines with, really does fall well below the poverty level, but (out of your love for the vets?) you give it to me.
.. People, freedom costs! A law abiding society is not free, someone must make the sacrifice for you to own it.
And just for the record, a modification to the Texas, Use of Deadly Force statute went into effect on Sept. 1, 2007 that permitted Joe to kill those men. You can beat this around the bush for the next fifty years but the "fact" is that Joe committed a legal act of force, the end.

Sherrie
Dec 10th 2007, 12:34 PM
And just for the record, a modification to the Texas, Use of Deadly Force statute went into effect on Sept. 1, 2007 that permitted Joe to kill those men. You can beat this around the bush for the next fifty years but the "fact" is that Joe committed a legal act of force, the end.


Only on his property, his car, his job. not on his neighbors.

But I did read, that they said, if he can have his neighbor say that he asked him to watch and protect his property while he was gone, then it will be legal.

pnewton
Dec 10th 2007, 12:42 PM
Once this man had been ordered to stay inside, he should have done it; by refusing to do so, he committed a misdemeanor in Texas, possibly a felony. Police have the right and responsibility to control a crime scene.

I don't think so. I know of no felony or misdemeanor that would fit. Also, police were not on the scene. No police would try to "control the scene" without being present. Additionally, it was a dispatcher, not a police officer that told him to stay inside. There is no crime in this.

pnewton
Dec 10th 2007, 12:50 PM
Only on his property, his car, his job. not on his neighbors.

But I did read, that they said, if he can have his neighbor say that he asked him to watch and protect his property while he was gone, then it will be legal.Link to the updated law:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/LegisChangesCHLStatute07.pdf

It basically expands the right to carry from one's residence to one's property and vehicle.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 10th 2007, 02:30 PM
th1Bill

Out of all the people I pray I will one day have the PRIVILEGE to shake hands with, you, sir, are pret near at the top of the list (in spite of the fact you're Texan :lol:).

Everything you post here seems to start a tear in my eye, if not outright turning to God and just thanking Him over and over again that He brought us together, here in this place. Of all the church choices in this world, yours would be the pulpit I'd sit in front of to learn what it truly means to follow Him and to learn Him on an ever deepening level.

I was going to send you a PM, but I decided to put it here, first. I know you don't do what you do and say what you say for any recognition, but I want it public at any rate.

You have a very special place in Heaven, sir, but you are serving an oh, so special place here - at least for many of us.

If I could afford it, I'd move to Texas just to hear your sermons.

Everyone else, I am sorry about the derailment. I felt it in my heart to post this here and now, and I hope no one takes offense.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 10th 2007, 02:35 PM
I don't think so. I know of no felony or misdemeanor that would fit. Also, police were not on the scene. No police would try to "control the scene" without being present. Additionally, it was a dispatcher, not a police officer that told him to stay inside. There is no crime in this.

This is correct.

A 9-1-1 operator is NOT an officer with any authority to order any citizen to do anything, even when they are acting in a mediator capacity. Most are not even POST certified.

Only an on-scene officer may order a citizen to do or do not. If a judge calls you on the phone, he or she has no authority and you are not compelled to accept their words as authority over your right to have evidence examined by an on-scene officer.

This is a fact.

pnewton
Dec 10th 2007, 03:02 PM
and I hope no one takes offense.
I do, at least about the following:"in spite of the fact you're Texan :lol:". There is that and the fact that I think it is against the rules to interupt our bickering to say something nice. :spin:

Steve M
Dec 10th 2007, 03:19 PM
...there is not a fireman that will fail to go in and get you out of a burning building and he knows that as soon as the shock of your recovery wears off that you will vote to cut his budget and refuse to approve the Bonds to update his equipment.

That's certainly been true in my experience.

Warrior4God
Dec 11th 2007, 01:13 AM
To be honest, I can understand the frustration with crime that probably drove the guy to shoot the burglars. However, from what I understand about the situation, self-defense is not what occurred. You can't morally shoot somebody that is running away from you and is not wielding a weapon. You can't morally say you had to shoot because you were in danger. Maybe it's legal in some places, but it's not moral. In fact, it's also cowardice in my opinion. Sorry to say this to any supporters this guy may have, but it sounds like vigilante justice gone wrong. The racial issue is so ridiculous to be added to the mix unless it can be shown that the shooter has a bigoted point of view and/or was heard calling the thieves the ever so lovely "N-Word" before he blew them away. Barring that, leave the "he is white and they are black" factor out of the equation, ok? It's very possible he would have blown them away had they been white crooks, isn't it? :rolleyes:

HisLeast
Dec 11th 2007, 07:56 PM
Only in the land of plenty is theft considered unworthy of lethal force. It wasn't too long ago that horse thieves were hung, because stealing someone's horse was about the same as killing them outright.

If we didn't have so much material wealth to begin with, theft of ANYTHING could mean theft of tools essential to your trade, theft of a wedding dowry, or theft of your family's food.

To me, its unfortunate that the man in question overstepped his legal obligations, but that overstepping is nullified by the burglar's own crime.

Joyfilled
Dec 13th 2007, 01:18 PM
This happened in Pasadena, Texas. Joe Horn called 911 and told the operator that two men were burglarizing his neighbor's house. Horn informed the operator that he had a shotgun. The operator repeatedly told him not to go outside. As the men came back out of the neighbor's house and began to leave Horn told the operator that he was going outside to confront the men. He goes outside, says "Boom. You're dead," and three shots are fired.

The end result is that the two burglars are dead. Now, there is an uproar in Houston over whether this guy is a murderer or a hero. The two men who were shot were black and Horn is white so this has become a racial issue. Predictably whites have lined up to support Horn, blacks have lined up to support the burglars, and Texas ends up looking like a state filled with morons running around stealing things and shooting people. Being a Texan myself I hate to say that.

For more details you can read about the story here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

and listen to the entire audio of the 911 call here: Edited out link

I first heard the audio and then read a story on it. When I read the story there was one sentence toward the end that said Horn was unlikely to be charged. My jaw just about hit the floor. But, I seem to be in the minority in thinking that charges should be brought.

So, what I want to know is, was Horn right or wrong in what he did?

I think he was wrong because he confronted the criminals after five minutes of the operator telling him to stay inside and don't do anything. Like I said, I seem to be in the minority so I certainly welcome other opinions.

Of course he was wrong. He deprived them men of the right to a trial by jury and played judge, jury and executioner himself. That makes him a murderer.

I<3Jesus
Dec 13th 2007, 04:49 PM
Only in the land of plenty is theft considered unworthy of lethal force. It wasn't too long ago that horse thieves were hung, because stealing someone's horse was about the same as killing them outright.

If we didn't have so much material wealth to begin with, theft of ANYTHING could mean theft of tools essential to your trade, theft of a wedding dowry, or theft of your family's food.

To me, its unfortunate that the man in question overstepped his legal obligations, but that overstepping is nullified by the burglar's own crime.

OK, you are asking us to abide by thinking that has not been relevant for over 150 years, right? Isn't that stretching things a bit?

th1bill
Dec 13th 2007, 05:34 PM
OK, you are asking us to abide by thinking that has not been relevant for over 150 years, right? Isn't that stretching things a bit?
It has not occurred in some time now but in Texas, where this occurred, the right to hang a horse thief upon being caught, without trial, is still on the books, it has never been recended.

I<3Jesus
Dec 13th 2007, 06:28 PM
It has not occurred in some time now but in Texas, where this occurred, the right to hang a horse thief upon being caught, without trial, is still on the books, it has never been recended.

Really? How weird!

HisLeast
Dec 13th 2007, 09:21 PM
OK, you are asking us to abide by thinking that has not been relevant for over 150 years, right? Isn't that stretching things a bit?


I'm not asking you to do a ***** thing. Just commenting that at no time or place in the history of mankind has theft carried such a benign slap on the wrist. No, I'm not stretching things a bit.

By the way... ever been the victim of a break in? My wife still has night terrors.

I<3Jesus
Dec 13th 2007, 09:34 PM
I'm not asking you to do a damned thing. Just commenting that at no time or place in the history of mankind has theft carried such a benign slap on the wrist. No, I'm not stretching things a bit.

By the way... ever been the victim of a break in? My wife still has night terrors.

Yes actually. I really do not appreciate the fact that you cursed at me and are being incredibly hostile. I also do not think getting blown away with a shot gun is a benign slap on the wrist.

Matthew
Dec 14th 2007, 12:09 AM
It has not occurred in some time now but in Texas, where this occurred, the right to hang a horse thief upon being caught, without trial, is still on the books, it has never been recended.

I've never seen that one. Mind pointing me in the right direction?

pnewton
Dec 14th 2007, 12:46 AM
I was in a LE class today and someone said the the prosecuter is declining to prosecute on the grounds that the evidnce so far points to no law being broken. I am sure everything will be sent to a grand jury anyway.

Also, Pasadena passed a city ordinance as a result prohibiting holding a demonstration in a residential area. I do not think such a law will withstand the courts, but it might buy time to make a reasonable public order ordinance to prevent a riot or another shooting.

Brother Mark
Dec 14th 2007, 12:54 AM
The Romans use to crucify thieves.

I<3Jesus
Dec 14th 2007, 01:53 AM
The Romans use to crucify thieves.

That doesn't make it right.

Brother Mark
Dec 14th 2007, 01:54 AM
That doesn't make it right.

Nor does it make it wrong.

I<3Jesus
Dec 14th 2007, 02:30 AM
Nor does it make it wrong.

So you think it is OK for us to kill people when they steal? How about when they molest a child? Because to me that is the worst thing a person can do. If we are killing people for stealing, then what else? Jay walking? Seriously, how can ANY Christian think it is OK to kill someone? I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus "Charlie Bronsoned" the sinners he came across. Also, what about all that stuff Jesus said about not tying yourself down to material possessions that people could steal? Someone hit me up with some scripture ;)

Brother Mark
Dec 14th 2007, 02:56 AM
So you think it is OK for us to kill people when they steal? How about when they molest a child? Because to me that is the worst thing a person can do. If we are killing people for stealing, then what else? Jay walking? Seriously, how can ANY Christian think it is OK to kill someone? I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus "Charlie Bronsoned" the sinners he came across. Also, what about all that stuff Jesus said about not tying yourself down to material possessions that people could steal? Someone hit me up with some scripture ;)

What Jesus said was applying to individuals and how we are to respond. Governments can set punishments for stealing to include death. I don't see where he condemned the Roman government for killing thieves.

I<3Jesus
Dec 14th 2007, 03:13 AM
What Jesus said was applying to individuals and how we are to respond. Governments can set punishments for stealing to include death. I don't see where he condemned the Roman government for killing thieves.

I do not see where he was gung ho in support of it either. Every day I post here I get a little more scared of the people who are supposed to be like minded.

th1bill
Dec 14th 2007, 07:47 AM
I've never seen that one. Mind pointing me in the right direction?
Having left the farm in 1961 I have become less interested in such and I do not recall the statute and bill numbers anymore. It is a very old law and a careful reading of my post would clue you to exactly what I said. It is one of those statutes that are in the same era of the automobile notification statute that has never been resended and that of course is not enforced either. Actually I'd like to tsee that one enforced today. Everyone must leave their automobile parked outside of town until they can notify the sheriff or local law enforcement agency of their intent to drive through town. There are some good laws that have never been recended and the reason that farmers know of the Horse Theft Law is because it is always a good way to break the ice when the ag officer is teaching about horse theft prevention.

th1bill
Dec 14th 2007, 07:56 AM
So you think it is OK for us to kill people when they steal? How about when they molest a child? Because to me that is the worst thing a person can do. If we are killing people for stealing, then what else? Jay walking? Seriously, how can ANY Christian think it is OK to kill someone? I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus "Charlie Bronsoned" the sinners he came across. Also, what about all that stuff Jesus said about not tying yourself down to material possessions that people could steal? Someone hit me up with some scripture ;)
Jesus was here to demonstrate the love and forgivness of God. He, Jesus, is also the sme person that wrote the 600 and some odd laws of the Old Testament and then He was quite emphatic about the fact that He had not come to do away with the law but that He had come to fulfill it.

As for child molesters and I always include rapests, yes, they should be given the death penalty. And keep in mind that the years I spent behind the walls leading men to their LORD never changed that biblical outlook. Even the average prison inmate agrees that child molestors need to be given the lethal injection.

Duane Morse
Dec 14th 2007, 10:14 AM
Jesus was here to demonstrate the love and forgivness of God. He, Jesus, is also the sme person that wrote the 600 and some odd laws of the Old Testament and then He was quite emphatic about the fact that He had not come to do away with the law but that He had come to fulfill it.



He did, however, modify a few things:

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mt 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Killing someone because they are stealing something, well, that is some tough love for sure.

If God's love and forgiveness were that tough - none of us would live to see tomorrow.



This whole business of defending and justifying the jerk that killed for no better reason than someone losing a tv set (or whatever) simply appalls me.




But I say unto you, ...

HEAR YE, HEAR YE!
WHAT HAS BEEN IS BEING AMENDED!

HEAR YE, HEAR YE!
DO IT IN THIS FASHION FROM HENCE FORTH!!!


That, is what He was telling us.



He was NOT indicating, in any way, that we should take the law - and the taking of the life of another - into our own hands.

th1bill
Dec 14th 2007, 09:20 PM
He did, however, modify a few things:

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mt 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


Killing someone because they are stealing something, well, that is some tough love for sure.

If God's love and forgiveness were that tough - none of us would live to see tomorrow.



This whole business of defending and justifying the jerk that killed for no better reason than someone losing a tv set (or whatever) simply appalls me.




But I say unto you, ...

HEAR YE, HEAR YE!
WHAT HAS BEEN IS BEING AMENDED!

HEAR YE, HEAR YE!
DO IT IN THIS FASHION FROM HENCE FORTH!!!


That, is what He was telling us.



He was NOT indicating, in any way, that we should take the law - and the taking of the life of another - into our own hands.
Duane, I'm very sorry that you are getting so emotional, at least he content and the structure are very emotional in appearance. And as for deciding that Joe is a jerk....well, he's no bigger a jerk than I am, is he a bigger jerk than you are? Emotions are exactly why a great number of my relatives in Germany hang their heads in shame over what was permitted to happen there before and during WWII. Emotional and irrational reaction is why the black and white divid exists in thid nation today. The DA has all of the evidence, evidence that you nor I have seen and he is quoted, last evening, as stating that there is no evidence of a crime, under the existing laws, in this shooting. I was not on site when this event took place and neither were any of the rest of us here. We are all of us, making judgments without the advantage of the full scope of the evidence and therefore must defere to the elected officials that we have placed in the office for this purpose. I just happen to believe that our system of innocent until proven guilty is a very good system and to convict someone on a story written in the paper or spoken on the TV by people in the business of sensationalism is exactly how lynch mobs are formed. In fact, that is what has occurred here and I am ashamed, we are Christians?

Jesusinmyheart
Dec 15th 2007, 07:26 PM
Out of one of the links provided:


"There's a reason we don't let people take the law into their own hands," he said. "We have a police force for that. As an established society, we believe we are better off with an authorized police force that has standards and training rather than untrained vigilantes."

Well, i don't want to say the police wasn't doing their job, and generally there's only so much they can do response time wise, depending on the amount of hired force available.

But this particular statement galls me more than anything, because i have had it happen where i reported a crime in progress, and nothing was done about it. Furthermore, i have witnessed cases of the Law being called out for burlgarizing/vandalizing, and they never showed up. Some areas are terribly understaffed or careless. So yes, i got a rant against that.

Another part that galls me was the part that said one cannot defend a property with a deadly weapon during day time, which works well for the criminals who fear nothing and have a good ole time ransacking houses and victimizing people in broad day light.

I can understand where that law comes from, as it is biblically based, but i also think there were a lot less people in biblical times that were so bold as to operate in broad daylight.

Now as for the thread itself, i will refrain from any comments and saying Horn was right, nor will i say he was wrong, as i think this is one of those things where the line can be crossed easily calling good evil, and calling evil good.
I simply will not take that risk.

Shalom,
Tanja

Duane Morse
Dec 17th 2007, 09:48 AM
Duane, I'm very sorry that you are getting so emotional, ...

Sorry, but emotions are a part of life.

The Lord gave us emotions, not to be lookwarm - but to be hot or cold.

threebigrocks
Dec 18th 2007, 06:19 PM
So you think it is OK for us to kill people when they steal? How about when they molest a child? Because to me that is the worst thing a person can do. If we are killing people for stealing, then what else? Jay walking? Seriously, how can ANY Christian think it is OK to kill someone? I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus "Charlie Bronsoned" the sinners he came across. Also, what about all that stuff Jesus said about not tying yourself down to material possessions that people could steal? Someone hit me up with some scripture ;)

What about the OT? When Israel was strong in the Lord, nobody could bring her down and her foes were wiped out.

Our God doesn't change. He is wrath and love. Judgement and mercy.

Jesus knows we need stuff. A roof over our head and enough food to keep on living. Clean water. Life necessities. Nowadays, least in our western culture, if we are going to totally lay aside every material possession it would mean living naked in the wilderness for the rest of our lives. Some cultures that's not far from the truth. Yet, they build themselves a hut with a roof, make weapons for hunting so they can and defend themselves. They make stuff to get by. No matter it bought with money or made with hands, it's still stuff and has value to it.

It's realizing that man is not to covet or steal, to do with enough and not be gluttons for anything. Those naked people in huts don't want the people in a tribe down the way stealing their things.

We cannot so far remove ourselves from the world and think that will remove us from sin or any one sin. ;) Ever seen the movie "The End of the Spear" ?

th1bill
Dec 18th 2007, 08:05 PM
Sorry, but emotions are a part of life.

The Lord gave us emotions, not to be lookwarm - but to be hot or cold.
I so dislike tit for tat and this will be the end of my personal comments to you. We are also instructed to be wise and it is never wise to string a person up before his trial.

pnewton
Dec 18th 2007, 08:42 PM
What about the OT? When Israel was strong in the Lord, nobody could bring her down and her foes were wiped out.

Our God doesn't change. He is wrath and love. Judgement and mercy.

God does not change, but people do, circumstances do. This is why we do not currently stone adulterers and hang horse thieves. If the stealing of livestock could ruin lives and bring people into destitution, then it is more serious than imposing a financial loss. If allowing an adulterer or idolator to live can lead the whole nation to rebellion against God and result in destuction, then it is more serious.

In the current context, there is room for judgement on either side. This is not just a matter of stealing, but of entry into the house of one person, into the neighborhood of others, by criminals. The loss of property is not nearly important as the safety issues. Homeowners have no way of knowing when criminals are emboldened enough to rob houses who is capable of murder and who is not. It is still a very serious action to take criminal activity into neighborhoods. I personally of the opinion that anyone who does so has crossed a line of being not just a criminal, but a dangerous criminal.

th1bill
Dec 19th 2007, 02:08 AM
God does not change, but people do, circumstances do. This is why we do not currently stone adulterers and hang horse thieves. If the stealing of livestock could ruin lives and bring people into destitution, then it is more serious than imposing a financial loss.
In Agricultural societies the theft of livestock does indeed destroy people's lives and forces them to not raise their children in the fashion to which they dedicated their lives. And can anyone ever imagine that the loss of property does not cause a similar disruption of life. All this must be replaced, placing an unusual burden on the lossing family.


If allowing an adulterer or idolator to live can lead the whole nation to rebellion against God and result in destuction, then it is more serious.
We do not even try them anymore and the Congress of the United States is about the business of drafting legeslation that will exactly reflect the one just reciently passed in Canada that puts people like myself in prison for preaching the Gospels. And there is indeed a sin gone crazy in this land, the very one you use to illustrate with. We have, the world around witnessed the destruction, slowly but surely, of the nations of the world as they continue to plummet into disarray.



In the current context, there is room for judgement on either side. This is not just a matter of stealing, but of entry into the house of one person, into the neighborhood of others, by criminals. The loss of property is not nearly important as the safety issues. Homeowners have no way of knowing when criminals are emboldened enough to rob houses who is capable of murder and who is not. It is still a very serious action to take criminal activity into neighborhoods. I personally of the opinion that anyone who does so has crossed a line of being not just a criminal, but a dangerous criminal.
And ditto. But I do not imagine for a moment that your remarks nor mine added to them will cause a sleepy dreamer to awaken. People like you, Joe and myself are doomed to be ever vigilant and always damned in their sight as we would keep them from the evil they seek to spawn.

pnewton
Dec 19th 2007, 03:35 AM
And ditto. But I do not imagine for a moment that your remarks nor mine added to them will cause a sleepy dreamer to awaken. People like you, Joe and myself are doomed to be ever vigilant and always damned in their sight as we would keep them from the evil they seek to spawn. I have a unique perspective. I have been a sheriff's deputy for the past 22 years. You get to know a lot about the criminal element (probably too much).

th1bill
Dec 19th 2007, 04:12 AM
I have a unique perspective. I have been a sheriff's deputy for the past 22 years. You get to know a lot about the criminal element (probably too much).
And being raised to be a criminal, coupled with the number of times I have gone behind the walls to minister to them, some would presume, and a few have, to tell me I'm hard hearted. But in the end I'd rather be wise than to be their victim.

Jesusinmyheart
Dec 21st 2007, 05:22 PM
We do not even try them anymore and the Congress of the United States is about the business of drafting legeslation that will exactly reflect the one just reciently passed in Canada that puts people like myself in prison for preaching the Gospels. And there is indeed a sin gone crazy in this land, the very one you use to illustrate with. We have, the world around witnessed the destruction, slowly but surely, of the nations of the world as they continue to plummet into disarray.

Could you provide sources for this please? I have a hunch what you are referring to, but am not sure, and rather know, instead of assume.

Shalom,
Tanja

th1bill
Dec 21st 2007, 09:16 PM
Could you provide sources for this please? I have a hunch what you are referring to, but am not sure, and rather know, instead of assume.

Shalom,
Tanja
I will need to apologize because I just blew it off and did not research it but I believe I heard James Dobson, a couple of days later commenting on the matter also and the Focus organization should have the source for it. I just made a mental note that many of us would soon be going to prison and dropped it.

Matthew
Jun 30th 2008, 10:30 PM
Here's a link to the story. A Harris County grand jury decided not to charge him.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5864151.html

They're mistaken IMO, but I can't say I'm surprised.

EarlyCall
Jun 30th 2008, 10:58 PM
Here's a link to the story. A Harris County grand jury decided not to charge him.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5864151.html

They're mistaken IMO, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Well, I noticed the date on the OP after reading a few posts. So I wondered how it turned out and see your post is from today.

Well, they say the death penalty is no deterrent to crime, but it was for those two guys doing the crime.

Was a time in this country when neighbors did protect each other and each other's property too.

What was the guys name? I don't remember from even a moment ago. Was it Joe? We'll call him Joe - the guy that shot the two burglars.

Did Joe know his neighbors weren't home? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know. But what if he thought they were? If he thought they were, then isn't it likely he also thought that maybe these two thugs had harmed them?

So maybe Joe wanted to make sure these two guys didn't get away. And once he confronted them and they moved toward him, well, he'd run out of options. No, running would not have been an option at that point.

So on the one hand, maybe Joe should have stayed in the house and done as told, on the other hand, the world is now a better place because those two guys are not in it and they are not harming anyone anymore in any way.

And for those that have never been violated by burglary, well, then you don't know. It is harming someone even when they only take your stuff.

Ecumaniac
Jul 3rd 2008, 01:12 AM
Based on the facts of the case, as presented in the first page, it's unavoidable that Horn murdered these men. It is also clear that murder is not a biblically justifiable reaction to theft. Jesus is quite clear on how we should respond to such evil:


"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. And if someone wants to sue you and to take your tunic, give him your coat also."—Matt 5:38–40If someone steals my possessions, I hope my neighbour will not presume to murder them on my behalf. That said, I have no idea how God will judge Mr Horn, and would not presume to venture a guess; hopefully he will be forgiven.


Edited to add: crumbs, I just noticed how old this thread was. Matthew, take note: it's disorienting when someone revisits a thread after months like this, especially for people like me who don't check the dates! :)

th1bill
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:03 AM
... Folks have a funny way of seeing things that they have never experienced. Being raised the way I was I have been the victim before and since there is no honor among thieves, when I was young I experienced a good bit of it. I'll just lay all my personal feelings aside just say that I'm amazed at you people.
... The only thing the press outside of Texas seems to be picking up on is that the Castle Law of the Sept. previous had no effect on the action of Joe and that the Grand Jury did nothing based on that law to No Bill him. On the local news the legal analyst said there are five separate laws in Texas that make Joe's actions legal.
... To be perfectly honest this particular shooting only became so widely known because the press saw a chance to spin the story into a racial incident so that they could sell their story for more money. It was reported, this evening, that there are no less than 65 of these shootings inside the Houston City limits every year. They involve black store and home owners shooting black thieves. They involve black store and home owners shooting white thieves. They involve white store and homeowners shooting white men. They involve white store and home owners shooting black men.
... Now we are being threatened with a race riot because of this one incident that happens among all the races at a rate of better than five times a month, on average? They want to flip my car and kill me and my wife? So when all is said and done and the next time, later this month, when a black man kills a white thief to protect his or his neighbor's property, I should sound the alarm and gather 2 or 3 hundred white men in boots and cowboy hats and go burn all of the honest black men's homes?
... What is truly neded is for our LORDS to return and to take command but until He does that, we need to become intelligent and stop being lead around by Satan because of our ability to tap into the mob mentality. If you truly dislike the world we live in, go share Jesus with someone, every day.

Ecumaniac
Jul 3rd 2008, 12:06 PM
A "race" riot, because a man murdered two men who happened to be of a different skin colour? For goodness' sake, that would be sheer idiocy!

As for this particular shooting, I agree that it's not so special. People are murdered all the time by individuals with "honourable" intentions. But regardless of what the law says, Jesus doesn't condone murder.

HisLeast
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:06 PM
As for this particular shooting, I agree that it's not so special. People are murdered all the time by individuals with "honourable" intentions. But regardless of what the law says, Jesus doesn't condone murder.

Neither does He assign guilt. Exodus 22: "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed".