 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 13 14 15 16 17 ...27  Previous Next
|
|
NRA - Monumental Victory |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
Urban Legends
US Gun Statistics
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric. These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise You do realize that my post was not serious right? Thus the smiley at the end  . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Joe Horn...not guilty.
Skip
No, of course not. He saw 2 burglars breaking into a property across the street. He shot them in the back, they died right away. Court finds him not guilty.
I hadn't heard about this case until now, but it seems the law is on his side. While I don't agree with the law, you can't charge a man with a crime when what he did wasn't against the law.
The law should be changed. Taking a life to save a life, that I can understand. Taking a life to prevent a burgary, that I can't. I hadn't heard about it either and I agree, the law should be changed. Here in California he would have been convicted of premeditated murder and rightly so. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 |  Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've read a fair amount on the Horn matter in the last few days (not having heard about it before a friend informed me about it) and I have a few thoughts - some of which come from my perspective as a former prosecutor. (1) He was not found not guilty by a jury but rather a grand jury declined to even charge him with a crime. Which is really even more of an exoneration since the burden of proof for a grand jury is quite a bit lower than that used at a full blown trial. For those of you not familiar a grand jury hears evidence (primarily from the prosecution) and then decides on charges (usually those recommended by the prosecutor). There's a famous expression about how a prosecutor boasted he could indict a ham sandwich using the grand jury process if he so desired. In any case the failure to even get him charged speaks volumes about how weak the case was as a whole. (2) The facts of the case are somewhat muddled based on the various articles and partial transcripts I've read. The reality is that there is no substitute for hearing all of the relevent testimony and evaluating all of the relevant evidence. The decision of the grand jury to essentially clear the guy of wrongdoing is a pretty strong statement that no crime was committed. I think our reviews here are rather incomplete by comparison so its hard to draw firm conclusions. (3) Based on what I read the comment about "I'm going to kill them" is best understood in context -- I believe the dispatcher told him he would likely be killed if he went out to stop these guys (who he watched break into a neighbors home with a crowbar) and he responded something like "No they're not - I'm going to kill them". Based on the rest of the conversation which (again based on my review) lasted as much as 5 minutes while he waited somewhat patiently for the police to arrive after immediately calling 911. These are not the actions of some guy just interested in killing the suspects (although to be fair the notion of doing so didn't seem to trouble him that much). He was clearly determined to prevent the crime as he waited until the suspects were leaving the scene until he left his home with the intent to stop them. (4) The apparent reasoning for the decline of charges seems to be based partly on the issue of defending property (the Texas "castle law") and partly on a more pure self-defense claim -- the guys entered his yard in a manner that has been described as threatening and then ran when he started shooting. It is my understanding a plainclothes cop had just arrived on scene and witnesed at least part of the incident and apparently was a somewhat favorable witness for Horn as he confirmed that the burglars were at least in part approaching Horn. (5) This was a somewhat muddled case and one you'd have a hard time selling to almost any jury in the country. Unsympathetic criminal victims (both with extensive records) with a old man law abiding perpetrator who had nothing to gain by killing these guys. He had no motive to do them wrong other than the fact they were criminals committing a serious crime. (6) I'm not saying that I think he was completely right in what he did -- personally I would have stayed inside and not risked my life to stop 2 potentially dangerous guys stealing some stuff (unless it was a fellow DVD Profilers collection of course  ) He might have crossed the line into criminal behavior on some level but given the overall circumstances and the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not defending himself it was a loser case -- best you could hope for would be a hung jury - no way 12 people convict an old man with no record of murder when he shot two robbers after calling 911 and waiting 5 minutes for the cops to show. Brian |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | | Registered: March 19, 2007 |  Posts: 259 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Daddy DVD: Quote:
OK, guns are safe. Now lets see if you can dodge a bullet.  18150, best reaction 0.159 | | | | Markku |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | I already had a thought on the "Castle Law" and the article linked above seems to prove it:
This new law (btw., how did legislature even come up with the idea to issue this kind of "Get out of Jail" card in the first place? Seems like Texas authorities are having a hard time doing their job properly on their own, so they're relying on giving a justification for excessive self defense) was intended to allow someone to protect himself, his property and his family, not play watchdog for the whole community and make yourself into judge, jury and executioner.
Which is exactly what Mr. Horn did.
The killings (and it's not self defense or defense of property, it was premeditated murder, plain and simple) stem from one reason and one reason only: Mr. Horn's misinterpretation (involuntarily if you want, but surely avoidable) of the extent of the law and the presumably justified actions he took afterwards.
If Mr. Horn had taken the time to understand the extent of the law (something you should definitely do if you want to act upon laws interfering gravely with other parties' rights, maybe even by seeking counsel before the fact), he wouldn't have gotten the idea that he was allowed to use force to stop the burglars entering his neighbor's home. He wouldn't have stepped outside. If he had stayed in his house, the burglars would probably just gone their way (as he supposedly told the operator: "They're getting away") and not posed a threat to his property or person.
If they had come to his house after being done with his neighbor's without him calling out to them, it would've been a different story.
IMO, Mr. Horn is responsible for fabricating the situation that led to the possibility of killing the two men on or close to his property, and he did this out of a misconception of a newly passed law. That still makes the shootings wrongful deaths. Especially since the "Castle Law" itself revokes the presumption of reasonable use of deadly force if the person acting provoked the victim. In this case, there's strong arguments for Mr. Horn provoking the burglars to come towrds his own property.
I think it tells a sad story about what people are actually willing to learn about the laws governing them, because all that Mr. Horn (and I'm sure several other citizens of Texas and the US) read from the press or heard on TV must've been along the lines of "There's a new law allowing the use of deadly force against criminals by regular citizens". Something like this might've been the headline, possible in depth information in articles or reports about such laws is ignored by the vast majority on a regular basis.
It was murder, and the Grand Jury erred in judgment and send a bad signal to the population. | | | | Lutz |
| | Registered: June 12, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | As the article notes, here in Texas, regardless of the law the bar was always quite high to indict/convict someone for shooting or killing an intruder. And the definition of intruder had some leeway. Just from observing the local news over the years it seems the homeowner was almost always given the benefit of any doubt.
I didn't realize until the new law was passed last year how much had been legally whittled away even though in fact the old customs still ruled...the new bill gave them the rule of law. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Texas also has another unusual law on the books. If you know you are innocent of a crime, you can return fire on law enforcement in Texas and its not a crime. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Now that should be entertaining, midnit, a bit bizarre.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yeah, I'm not sure what you could be doing that's perfectly legal that would get police to fire on you in the first place, but there it is. You just know there had to be some wacko incident that made that law seem necessary. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what you could be doing that's perfectly legal that would get police to fire on you in the first place, but there it is. You just know there had to be some wacko incident that made that law seem necessary. Probably stemmed from an incident of mistaken identity. Someone matches the description of a suspect, overzealous police officer uses force and the "suspect" returns fire. If the police mistook me for a suspect and opened fire on me, I sure as hell wouldn't sit idley by and let them kill me . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Darxon,
I think you go a bit far in concluding it was "murder plain and simple". As I noted before the grand jury (a group of everyday people just like you and me) heard all of the relevant evidence (testimony, 911 tapes, etc.) and decided not to charge Mr. Horn. We are all entitled to our opinions and I don't totally disagree with your opinion on this but I also think it's easy to use 20/20 hindsight to condemn Horn's actions in this case.
To me the issue is not so much the "Castle" doctrine (although news of the new law clearly influenced Horn) but rather the issue of self-defense more generally. The issue was did Mr. Horn reasonably believe he was in danger when he made the decision to shoot? It's muddy but I don't agree that Mr. Horn "provoked" the robbers by trying to stop them. Yes - he's not a police officer but that doesn't make it wrong to try to stop criminals from "getting away" as in this case. By the way does a cop who pulls a gun on a suspect provoke them?
He called the Police and waited for them to arrive and then when it seemed likely the guys would get away he decided to intervene to stop them. As I said I wouldn't have done what he did because of the risk to myself and the fact that it was a property crime only at that point. Also the police were on the way and I would have chosen to stay out of their way. However I have some appreciation for his frustration about these guys appearing to be to getting away -- his sense of outrage at that led him to try to stop them.
There are some questions that seem to be unresolved about his mental state and intent but there often are in this type of incident and we can only do the best we can to figure out the best course. He is entitled by law to what amounts to the benefit of the doubt and in this case that kept him from being put on trial.
Not knowing all the details the Grand Jury heard - including live testimony from the relevant parties which can't be replicated - I'm willing to give them some benefit of the doubt. I was on a jury once many years ago where we found a guy not guilty of rape (we deliberated 8 hours+ and started off split 6-6) and it was a hard decision - I still wonder whether the guy actually did it. The grand jury is asked to judge the one case on it specific merits and not concern itself with larger societal questions - Mr. Horn deserves that as a citizen.
Brian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
Darxon,
I think you go a bit far in concluding it was "murder plain and simple". As I noted before the grand jury (a group of everyday people just like you and me) heard all of the relevant evidence (testimony, 911 tapes, etc.) and decided not to charge Mr. Horn. We are all entitled to our opinions and I don't totally disagree with your opinion on this but I also think it's easy to use 20/20 hindsight to condemn Horn's actions in this case.
To me the issue is not so much the "Castle" doctrine (although news of the new law clearly influenced Horn) but rather the issue of self-defense more generally. The issue was did Mr. Horn reasonably believe he was in danger when he made the decision to shoot? It's muddy but I don't agree that Mr. Horn "provoked" the robbers by trying to stop them. Yes - he's not a police officer but that doesn't make it wrong to try to stop criminals from "getting away" as in this case. By the way does a cop who pulls a gun on a suspect provoke them?
He called the Police and waited for them to arrive and then when it seemed likely the guys would get away he decided to intervene to stop them. As I said I wouldn't have done what he did because of the risk to myself and the fact that it was a property crime only at that point. Also the police were on the way and I would have chosen to stay out of their way. However I have some appreciation for his frustration about these guys appearing to be to getting away -- his sense of outrage at that led him to try to stop them.
There are some questions that seem to be unresolved about his mental state and intent but there often are in this type of incident and we can only do the best we can to figure out the best course. He is entitled by law to what amounts to the benefit of the doubt and in this case that kept him from being put on trial.
Not knowing all the details the Grand Jury heard - including live testimony from the relevant parties which can't be replicated - I'm willing to give them some benefit of the doubt. I was on a jury once many years ago where we found a guy not guilty of rape (we deliberated 8 hours+ and started off split 6-6) and it was a hard decision - I still wonder whether the guy actually did it. The grand jury is asked to judge the one case on it specific merits and not concern itself with larger societal questions - Mr. Horn deserves that as a citizen.
Brian What concerns me from what has been said on this thread about this case is.. a) it's legal to carry concealed weapons b) if you see someone committing any offence then you can open fire and kill them? Now that burglary appears to be a capital offence (i.e. it has the death penalty) what other offences would become capital crimes? Suppose, whilst wandering past a shop, with your concealed weapon you saw someone pick up a coat and run towards the store entrance - where you are standing. Is this a capital offence punishable by death? (after all you could claim that you were frightened you would be attacked) the age of the vigilante appears to have arrived in America. | | | | Paul |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:
Quote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what you could be doing that's perfectly legal that would get police to fire on you in the first place, but there it is. You just know there had to be some wacko incident that made that law seem necessary.
Probably stemmed from an incident of mistaken identity. Someone matches the description of a suspect, overzealous police officer uses force and the "suspect" returns fire. If the police mistook me for a suspect and opened fire on me, I sure as hell wouldn't sit idley by and let them kill me . An example in the Uk of mistaken identity was the Menezes shooting "Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, according to the post-mortem examination. Three other bullets missed their target. " | | | | Paul |
| | Registered: March 17, 2007 | | Posts: 853 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote:
Quoting bbursiek:
Quote:
Darxon,
I think you go a bit far in concluding it was "murder plain and simple". As I noted before the grand jury (a group of everyday people just like you and me) heard all of the relevant evidence (testimony, 911 tapes, etc.) and decided not to charge Mr. Horn. We are all entitled to our opinions and I don't totally disagree with your opinion on this but I also think it's easy to use 20/20 hindsight to condemn Horn's actions in this case.
To me the issue is not so much the "Castle" doctrine (although news of the new law clearly influenced Horn) but rather the issue of self-defense more generally. The issue was did Mr. Horn reasonably believe he was in danger when he made the decision to shoot? It's muddy but I don't agree that Mr. Horn "provoked" the robbers by trying to stop them. Yes - he's not a police officer but that doesn't make it wrong to try to stop criminals from "getting away" as in this case. By the way does a cop who pulls a gun on a suspect provoke them?
He called the Police and waited for them to arrive and then when it seemed likely the guys would get away he decided to intervene to stop them. As I said I wouldn't have done what he did because of the risk to myself and the fact that it was a property crime only at that point. Also the police were on the way and I would have chosen to stay out of their way. However I have some appreciation for his frustration about these guys appearing to be to getting away -- his sense of outrage at that led him to try to stop them.
There are some questions that seem to be unresolved about his mental state and intent but there often are in this type of incident and we can only do the best we can to figure out the best course. He is entitled by law to what amounts to the benefit of the doubt and in this case that kept him from being put on trial.
Not knowing all the details the Grand Jury heard - including live testimony from the relevant parties which can't be replicated - I'm willing to give them some benefit of the doubt. I was on a jury once many years ago where we found a guy not guilty of rape (we deliberated 8 hours+ and started off split 6-6) and it was a hard decision - I still wonder whether the guy actually did it. The grand jury is asked to judge the one case on it specific merits and not concern itself with larger societal questions - Mr. Horn deserves that as a citizen.
Brian
What concerns me from what has been said on this thread about this case is..
a) it's legal to carry concealed weapons
b) if you see someone committing any offence then you can open fire and kill them?
Now that burglary appears to be a capital offence (i.e. it has the death penalty) what other offences would become capital crimes?
Suppose, whilst wandering past a shop, with your concealed weapon you saw someone pick up a coat and run towards the store entrance - where you are standing. Is this a capital offence punishable by death? (after all you could claim that you were frightened you would be attacked)
the age of the vigilante appears to have arrived in America. I am sorry pauls that is just stupid. Getting a CCW requires you to be a reasonable person. In AZ there are 16 hours of classes. No reasonable person is going to shoot a shoplifter. | | | | Last edited: by Lord Of The Sith |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | bbursiek,
the difference is that Mr. Horn is not a police officer, so he lacks the necessary authority for doing what he did.
While Texan law seemingly in the past provided its citizens with means deemed necessary to defend themselves, their next of kin and their property by use of deadly force, and because of a diminishing effect of recent legislature felt the need to reenforce these means by the castle doctrine, it still comes down to one simple truth: the law only grants you these rights to defend yourself. And clearly, Mr. Horn was in no danger from the criminal elements burlgarizing his neighbor's place. They probably didn't even know he was watching them up until he stepped out to confront them.
As I understand it, Mr. Horn was given the benefit of the doubt regarding being threatened himself by the two burglars after he stepped out and they in turn approached him (I already fail to see that if one or both were actually shot in the back, but maybe their backs were scary, too). Well, that possibility of threat wouldn't have happened had he stayed inside as instructed by the 911 operator, now would it? That's deliberatly provoking a self defense situation in my book, and with malicious intent as well, as is clear from the quotes in the above mentioned article: "You're going to get yourself shot." "You want to make a bet? I'll kill them."
What this looks like to me is Mr. Horn's someone who heard about a new law and wanted to put it to use so badly , he couldn't be reasoned with by authorities and either did what he did outside the law (that's what it looks like to me) or did everything he could to create a situation making this law applicable (that's what it looked like to the Grand Jury, who obvioulsy didn't care too much about the intent of Mr. Horn before stepping out and making the burglars approach him or the wrongful extension of the castle doctrine he already displayed early on in his conversation with the 911 operator).
Here we have someone who's taken the law into his own hands (benefit of doubt: out of error) and acted upon false assumptions. As a result, two people are dead. Not really nice members of society, yup, but nevertheless human beings that didn't commit a capital crime. And the person that overextended the law and killed two others intentionally is not charged by decision of his peers, in a state that has a long history of stretching the possibilities for homeowners to protect themselves, their families and their property. Well, now the Texans have taken it a step further: now, in Texas, you're allowed to watch over everything with lethal force.
The Grand Jury obviously followed the train of thought several rulings showed before and extended the liberties granted by law to let the "good guy" who clipped two "bad guys" get away, although the law does not allow somebody to act as the guardian of more than his own property and family.
As some of the reader's comments on articles covering this subject said: some people would actually feel safer if they lived near Mr. Horn, because he had their back. Well, he's not supposed to, and he isn't allowed to shoot people that burlgarize other people's homes. Were I to live in Texas, I probably would advise relatives from out of state not to approach my place when I'm not around, and I especially wouldn't give anyone I recently met a key to my house until I've informed every single neighbor of mine, preferrably by providing a picture of "allowed people". Especially, if I lived near Mr. Horn.
What I find even more disturbing, however, is the obvious tolerance by authorities towards this vigilante behavior, especially regarding the detective watching from the safety of his car. It must have been plain visible what was going on, yet he still chose not to interfere. He obviously didn't fear for Mr. Horn's life, as in that case he'd have been forced to take on two murderers on his own after they were done with Mr. Horn. I'd say it's pretty safe to say that he had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen to the two burglars once Mr. Horn stepped out, they'd definitely stay until the uniformed cops arrived, if on their feet or on their backs, well, he probably couldn't say and didn't care. | | | | Lutz |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 13 14 15 16 17 ...27 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |