Further Proof That Texans Are Some Trigger-Happy Crackers
 

Texan Kills Thieves: Hero or Homicidal?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only good thing to have ever come out of Texas is Stevie Ray Vaughan.

THAT'S RIGHT, GECH. I SAID IT.

EDIT: Now with Audio Goodness (on YouTube).

Shock of shock, Mexican thieves in Houston. Pardon me while I shed a tear.

You heard me, beaner.

Whatever, they shouldn't have been breaking into some dude's house and stealing shit. Maybe the guy wasn't in the right in killing them, but I'm certainly not going to get bent out of shape about it. Assholes had it coming.

I don't think he was all that eager to kill. I think in his mind he gave law enforcement a chance, but faced with the choice of watching them get away or stopping them, he decided to stop them. Not saying it was right, but I don't think he was slavering over there at the chance of blowing away some mexican negroes.

I still don't understand why people accept death as a reasonable penalty for theft.

I don't see the problem here :3 A few less scum to be concerned about.

THAT'S RIGHT, PACO. I SAID IT TOO. <3

They were on his property and he decided to take matters in to his own hands. He acted well within the law to defend his own property however he sees fit. Regardless of what some may say, it isn't illegal =o But the victims probably were looool

Well the text was way better than the audio. I was expecting to hear John Wayne or something.

It will be hard to tell if it was really self defense or not, which is what really matters. I don't think he went out with the firm intention to kill them, but he was sure prepared to.

also I must admit you guy's reactions are kinda comforting with all the nonsense that's happening around here ;_;

I'll agree with you there. I can't listen to the youtube audio tape due to it being blocked, but I think you hit the nail on the head. He obviously didn't want to see these burglars get away so he felt like he had to take the law into his own hands since the police had not arrived yet. I would like to think that people don't want to take advantage of an opportunity to shoot someone.

He could of been in a paniced state and felt like these people were an immediate threat to his own life and made the choice to kill them. He did give them a warning and honestly if someone had a gun aimed at me I would certainly try my hardest not to get shot. He could of wounded them or I'm sure there could of been other options available that didn't have to result in this man taking two lives. I don't certainly endorse what he did, but its not as if he covered it up. He admitted to what he did, and its up to law to decide if he should get punished or not.

I still don't understand why people can't work an honest job if they want something instead of going out and stealing the fruits of another man's hard work. Especially when they have responsibilities to other people, like a wife a child. Now that he made choices that ended with his death he's not the only one who's fucked. Maybe he should have thought about that a bit, too.

I'm not even pro-gun ownership or anything. In fact, I've never fired a weapon in my life. I am, though, pro-not being a fucking asshole.

Seriously. I own two guns and, while I don't personally ever see myself aiming to put anyone down for good with them, I don't exactly see why I can't if I feel my safety or the safety of my family is threatened. If fuckers are breaking into my house to steal my shit, you better believe I'm at least going to put a slug in his/her leg just to show these fuckers I mean business. I've attempted to do it before... but I missed.

I'm not a very good shot. :(

Not to play devil's advocate, but there is one thing you all are forgetting to see. It's not his house being burglarized, it's his neighbor's. Now what i'm hoping he did was approach them with the shotgun and force them to stop, but perhaps they didn't do that and began to go and attack him, which forced him to shoot the shotgun. In THAT aspect, I see that as self-defense. However, if he fired that shotgun if those two were not getting ready to attack him, then I can't see that as justification for shooting them, despite them stealing from a neighbor's house. I don't see why if he had the control of the situation, just keep that shotgun on their heads as a fear tactic to make them stand still in fear of getting their heads blown off, I know I wouldn't fucking move if a boomstick was pointed at my poor head.

If anything, he should have went outside and tried to get a license plate and car description. I know it's not much, but the law could have easily taken care of those punks in that aspect.

I don't care whose house they were breaking in, the point remains they shouldn't have been doing that in the first place. They got shot, they died, who fucking cares? It's their reward for their actions.

Was he right for doing it that way? Fuck yes.

According to the videos his use of force was not lawful. The law, correct me if I am wrong, allows use of deadly force to defense your own property, not your neighboors.

If the suspects attacked Horn then he would be well within the law to fire upon the two victims, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that two guys who robbed an unoccupied house would charge a crazed man with a shotgun.

In addition, I believe that if he had actually been threatened we would have heard more than "Boom, you're dead." The crime was reported, officers were en route, and there is no evidence that the victims had used, or had any intent to use, any type of force. His actions, whether or not lawful, were excessive and unnecessary. Whoever said the law was always right is a god damn fool, and whoever thinks this man was justified in his actions is one too.

Just one more reason for me to stay the hell out of Texas.

Texas is a world apart man, something you'd do well not to forget. I believe Texas' penal code extends rights not only to your own property but that of your neighbors (worded as a "third party") as well.

I have actually heard this as well although I'm quite sure that the rights to protect your neighbor's land with deadly force are only extended through expressed permission although I'm not sure if it has to be down on paper or not. Mikey would probably know this better than I.

Well Christ, Paco that's because you're not fucking Robocop and should always aim for center mass, that guy could've killed you. =/

They weren't breaking in to his own house so he can't claim he was protecting his property, and there's no evidence to suggest that his person was in danger. I'm not sure how this doesn't qualify as murder, exactly.

Brady feeling worried for Paco, I'm bursting into tears!

Yeah well... I was only 16 at the time. I kinda didn't know any better.

YouTube Video

Such a snooty little bitch, aren't you Capo?


Even if the guys had obeyed the 911 operator's commands, this guys lives in a well off neighborhood. Places like this are target-areas for burglaries. Not to mention, most criminals that get away with a crime tend to repeat the offense. I know that even from stunts I've pulled myself.

This guys house was in some form of risk if those men weren't caught. I've been robbed by niggers before, and my neighbors called it in. I sure wish they would've come out with a shotgun. But instead, all my belongings disappeared.

If it was murder, it was good murder!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/hyudol/DWISH.jpg

Nowhere in the article does it say they had a car. As far as we know, they were trying to get away on foot. If they were illegal immigrants as several people have joked in this thread, even less likely they had a car.

As for some people who said they didn't believe people would rush an armed man. There are things you have to take into mind. People panic when they're in trouble, they don't want to get shot but they also don't want to go to prison when the cops arrive. The man was 61, maybe they thought he was a terrible shot at his age?

I know you guys are going to jump all over me for saying this.

But seriously. There's this thing called home owners insurance. If I were watching my neighbors getting robbed, I'd have a fucking camera and I'd not risk my own life by taking pictures of them through my window. I'd take a few pictures, make sure I got some pretty good shots, and then tell the neighbors about my pictures when I got home.

Really. It's only a bunch of STUFF. They were shot over material goods which would have been covered by home owner's insurance. It was an overreaction to KILL them. The least he could have done was shoot them in the KNEECAP or something.

Fuck that murder over robbery shit. It's not right. Self-defense my ass. The guy was considered a "loose cannon." And I believe it.

If the spics were next door raping and killing the neighbors, I'd say their deaths were justified. But robbing a house? Give me a fucking break. The Texan just wanted a chance to use the gun for something other than shooting deer.

I'd shoot anyone trespassing in my home. I'd think for one second less if I have a family. I wouldn't shoot to kill. I'd aim for the knees. Thighs if I'm feeling mellow. Feet if I need a laugh. I've been burglarized and it sucked, but it isn't worth a life. It's better to make a point a person can learn from.

oh lol this thread

Throw the book at the old man. He wasn't in danger, they weren't entering his home, they didn't even know he was there. There was no one in the home that would have been put in danger by these thieves.

Yeah I mean they're assholes but Grandpa Vigilante there is grade-a all the way. I mean, as long as 'being a dick' is sufficient grounds for punishment.

I've already professed to not being an expert on guns, so maybe it's easier than I would've thought to hit a moving target as small as a kneecap with a shotgun.

I wouldn't use a shotgun. But let's say I did. Aim at the mid to lower shins and all bases should be covered. I'm the pistol type, myself. The lower the caliber the better. Lodging a bullet in someone's flesh has got to be some rewarding shiot.

I think it's particularly telling that he told the 911 operator beforehand that he intended to kill them. KILL them, not just shoot to disable until the authorities showed up.

I couldn' agree more with Sassafrass. The nut took TWO LIVES. Those people had family, they had people who cared about them and he suddenly has the right to take their lives just because they were taking some other guys' stuff? Man, I know people can be materialistic, but this is really stretching it a bit. Even if they were thieves, they did NOT deserve this.

Also, according to the article posted by Encephalon, there are some cases where someone's allowed to defend a neighbours' property, but this doesn't seem to be valid here.

And you're a dumb little cunt, aren't you? Hey, look, I can call people names when I disagree with them too!

"Even if he had opeyed the 911 operators commands--" Allow me to finish that statement for you. The two victims would most likely have been apprehended, convicted, and sentenced for anything from Criminal Mischief to Robbery. You're ignoring the fact that before Mr. Horn decided to play hero he had provided the dispatcher with information regarding their build, clothing, and other details regarding their apperance.

As for the risk to the homeowner's house, well, as Sass has said, homeowner's insurance should have covered it. Not that I think there would be any reason as, again, I highly doubt the two victim's would have managed to escape.

I'm not sure which is more disgusting, your inability to support a controversial viewpoint, the obvious lack of respect for life, or your need to resort to name calling when confronted with someone who has enough sense to not kill someone over a bag of stuff.

Don't most homeowners insurance policies come with some sort of deductible? In which case it may not have actually covered any of the stolen goods?

I am pretty sure there is a deductible, but provided you have theft coverage, you should be fine on anything that is stolen from your property - including your vehicle, if parked on the premises at the time of theft. I don't know that there is a deductible for theft. I don't own a home, so I couldn't tell you. I will go research, though! It's useful to know!

Again, depends on your policy. The deductible is worth it, provided that the policy would certainly cover what was stolen. There are also little tidbits in there which you may need to prove. Like, you know, if someone stole your brand new 40 inch LCD TV, new sound system, shit like that - you'd need to prove it's worth if you intend to get a good amount back. Otherwise, you settle with shitty insurance decisions on actual cost of goods. (Shop smart, guys~)

As far as I know anyways. I'm not an expert - I only speak from the experiences I have had and experiences others I know have had.

At the same time, none of this actually warrants two deaths.

EDIT: Looks like in the state of Texas, home owner's insurance deductibles start at around $250. The higher you make the deductible, the more discount you get on the premium. THEFT is generally covered without deductibles, from what I can tell. Other things are not.

Also, some deductibles (including theft in most cases) are tax write-offs. =D

I guess I should beware of crazy people when I'm walking outside now.

Gech might mistake me for a robber and pop a cap in my ass >=(

Never gonna take the 30 minute drive to meet you now Gech

Even if this guy is put on trial, we have this wonderful thing called -- Jury nullification.

If I met the guy in person, I'd buy him a drink at the local bar.

He clearly said "Move....you're dead"

Obviously, one of them moved towards him in a way that scared him and he fucked them boys off.

This man deserves a medal.

I'm tellin y'all boys -- Texas boys don't fuck around.

No, he said, "Boom, you're dead." There was no pause, there was no attempt to halt the victims whatsoever. Don't worry my illustrious Neo-Conservative Rhyme-Master, this is not a 2ed Amendment issue, and nobody is going to try to take away your gats.

Go crawl back underneath your hole in PP, your particular brand of ignorance isn't needed here.

Look... All I'm saying is: Aim for the kneecaps, you fuckwits. It hurts a lot more than you think and you can avoid the "AWW HELL NAW! THEM NIGGAS AIN'T TAKIN' MY STRAP" argument.

That's right. Just keep on walkin'... =U Also, I'm in B/CS now =3 No more Hoo-stun for me~
... Says the self-proclaimed "bad shot"! :mad:

Anyhow, let's not forget the screwy frivolous lawsuits that result from letting criminals live. I remember a few years back someone putting a slug in to some fucker's knee-cap, and HE ended up getting sued by the criminal that invaded his home.

I think the fact that he told the operator his intentions sorta nulls this arugment a bit. If nothing else, he's stupid.

Use of deadly force is usually justified when it's your own home that's being invaded. When there's enough reason to believe that your person could be in danger.

I heard "Move you're dead" myself.

Also, didn't the article say something about how when he left the house, he found them in his yard, close to his house, facing him? No one's addressed that.

It's a little disheartening the way some people are mourning these thieves. They had families! So if if I'm stealing a bunch of shit, and I get blown away, but I've neglected to breed first, I'm less deserving of sympathy?

I can't really feel sorry for them. The idea that they'd violate someone's home like that. It's a little like rape to me.

Lethal force should always be the last resort. That clearly was not the case here.

Some have asserted that the criminals-turned-victims "deserved" what they got. Please explain to me how the loss of your life is fair punishment for breaking and entering. Personally, I don't feel the loss of one's life is fair punishment for anything, but I can at least understand it in a select few instances. A crime as petty as this, though, one that would hardly warrant extensive jail time, warranting death as retribution is beyond absurd. The value with which some of you put on all that we have, all that we ever will have, is saddening.

You're just hating on the breeders. :mad:

First, get the dick out of your ass. No one mourns gay people, instead we picket their funerals.

Second, you still have siblings and parents who depend on you in their old age. Unless you sprung fully-formed from the ground, in which case you're neither gay nor a thief, but a ficus plant.

It's not exactly all that clear what happened when the old man with a shotgun went face to face with the thieves. Some people are operating with the paradigm that he went out there expressly to kill. In which case, the deaths of the thieves are a direct result of their crime.

There is the possibility he went out there to stop the theft from happening. In that context, the thieves could have stopped when he said "move you're dead." There was a decision that could have been made that would have avoided death. They didn't make it.

Kind of like if I run at an air marshal waving a jet black water pistol. I'm aware that the consequence of that is that I run the risk of getting shot. Old guy with a shotgun facing you telling you if you move you're dead, and you choose to move? Yeah the guy shot them, and so he gets to deal with those consequences. Doesn't mean the thieves are blameless in this.

It occurred to me too that I remember some of the people in this thread lamenting the loss of life on the part of the thieves gathered around not too long ago to laugh at some poor sap who committed suicide on the internet.

I just listened/watched the YouTube video. I am even more astonished at some of the reactions here.

It seems that he is calling from his home. Horn says "I will go out there and shoot them." He mentions how he shouldn't have to risk his life - then why does he. YOU KNOW two people, possibly armed, are breaking in next door. And you go out there to confront them with a shotgun. He is INDOORS when he makes the call: "If I go out there..." The guy is INSIDE when he makes the call and DECIDED to go out and shoot these two guys.

He also thinks something bad happened on "September the first." What the fuck.

He took it upon himself to go outside and take "justice" into his own goddamn hands and SHOT the two men. Murdered them. Over theft.

That's so unheard of to me. You people think the appropriate penalty to two thieves is death by a shotgun.

It's even more startling when you hear it in the audio.

"They came in the front yard with me. I had no CHOICE!"

HE PROVOKED THEM. Fucking MORON. He went out with the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of confronting them. And the cops reacted pretty badly to what he did, too.

I can't believe some of you people. I really, really can't.

He said "Move, you're dead." Texas drawl man, texas drawl.

Additional Spam:
You sure you were listening clearly Sass? He said he had a right to defend him self prior to certain laws changing back on 9/11. For all the criticism you guys are giving those of us who felt he was in the wrong, you people certainly aren't paying any fucking attention.

I wasn't the only one who heard "September the first." But I wrote a lot more in that post. It was just an aside. You aren't really addressing those points, so

Yes, Devo. The Mexicans always provoke the whites in Texas! It is fact of life! (I'm joking. I am pretty sure you were too. I hope.)

Sass, you're all for battered women taking responsibility for shit and doing something about it. You're advocating this guy just sit there and watch a theft take place without doing something to stop it, when he's had no clear reassurance from the authorities they'll be able to do anything? All he's got after 8 minutes on the phone is "Officers are on the way just stay inside."

You look at how critical people have been about officials and their management of crises, and you honestly expect this particular person to be reassured by something as vague as that?

I can't believe some of you people. You're encouraging us to allow ourselves to be victimized.

Also, provoking. Dudes are robbing the house next door. Guy decides to go outside and stop it. How the fuck is going outside to stop something more provocative than the something one is going outside to stop? Further, he says "Move, you're dead."

Now, if a cop yells "Move and I'll shoot," and the perp moves, would you say the cop provoked him? Come on.

I'm criticizing the use of lethal force, and people contending that it was somehow justified. Nothing more.

Yes, "victimized." When the proper thing is to KILL! We all should know better. When someone steals your shit, you murder them.

I thought *I* had anger issues.

There are about a thousand and one ways of deterring thieves that don't involve any killing.

Makes you wonder why he chose to kill them then, don't it?

I imagine most of those ways involve some sort of specialized training. I'm pretty sure I could stop a thief with a shot gun though. Don't know how I'd do with hand to hand, or you know, a knife or any kind of target shooting, and running's out of the question, because I'm kind of out of shape, and I don't know how to throw a bolo, and even if they stood still, I probably couldn't tie the right kind of knot. I suppose lasso might work, if I had one, maybe I could throw shoes at them, but then, I'm kind of weak, and they'd probably just laugh. I guess I could dump water out the side window, and hope they slipped on the consequent mud. Or maybe I could have hid upstairs and dropped a brick on their heads as they walked underneath, if they did, but that might kill them via concussion, and if we're killing them anyway, a shotgun's more certain.

And Sass, we're running into differing paradigms again. I'm saying he didn't go out there expressly to kill. He went out there to stop a theft, and since they didn't stand still when he asked, and in fact may not have even run away but rather toward him, he didn't have many other options.

You're saying he went out there to kill them because they stole shit. Two different scenarios, with completely different ethical implications.

This discussion is pointless as long as we won't know exactly what happened when he step out. ~_~

He expressed to the operator that he had a shot gun and "would kill them."

He went out there with intent to kill. And he did.

He could have said "I am going to shoot them in the knee/arm/foot/other extremity to deter them until the police arrive." But he didn't. He said he'd kill them, and he did.

Look. I don't deny the guy was trying to do the right thing, and that the thieves were complete scumbags - you don't break and enter and steal peoples' shit. But you also don't die for it at the hands of some vigilante asshole with a shotgun. Both parties were wrong.

Actually there was a law passed in Texas on September first that extended the rights of people to protect their own and their neighbor's property.

So, umm, yeah, good job on giving this guy a civics lesson.



Edit: Also, do we know where he shot these guys? It seems like everyone's just assuming he walked outside and went BOOM HEADSHOT when he might have actually been intending to only stop them. Frankly, I don't think this guy really meant to kill them and his saying "Move and you're dead" and the stuff to the 911 operator is like when you're just standing there furious about something and say you're ready to kill someone. It was just his outrage at what was going on and not a real desire to kill him some mexicans. I don't think he'd have been half as frantic when he called 911 back after hanging up if he intended to kill them.

I don't live in Texas. How should I know.

(So he DID say September the FIRST. Thanks for that proof. =D)

But I thought the law worked only if the neighbor asked to have their property guarded. He said he didn't know those particular neighbors well. Not that I am making an argument of that. It's trivial.

This is the answer to all the shit that happens here.

It's Texas.

It doesn't have to sound like the correct way to handle something, or the correct legal thing to do, or even make a lick of sense.

It's Texas.

See, I agree with all that except for the KILLING part. You can still take a couple of hoodlums off the street if you blow one of his legs off instead of, you know, his HEAD.

That gets into that whole specialized training thing. If Horn isn't a fantastic marksman, and we're talking about a shotgun, then it's unreasonable to take it as far as shooting them, and then say that he should have shot them somewhere specific and non-lethal.

Well, if he went outside, as the original post said, to find himself head-to-head with them at about 10-12 feet of distance, he really didn't need to be any kind of a marksman to make a none lethal shot.

http://www.raborak.com/galerie/album...e_roy_bean.jpg

srsly great movie or greastest movie

There are just as many that do.

It's just like Home Alone. Lulz for everybody!

1) Probably when they intrude on the rights of others. The thieves have a right to life, but the homeowners and the man also have a right to security in their own living quarters.
2) It's a safe assumption to think the house was empty.
3) When it's apparent that the law has failed. If the burglars had gotten away, the police wouldn't have investigated. Anything other than murder rarely ever gets escalated. They'd have made some half-ass attempts to gather prints (which I'm sure the burglars were at least smart enough to not leave any), then go back to the donut shop.

Just curious, are you Pro-life, or Pro-choice?

And it's a shame that you can't grasp the concept that there are actually some people out there that deserve to die. Life is a dime a dozen. I could go and create a life right now if I wanted. So when somebody makes their life (arguably) worthless, I think it's reached the end of it's value.
If somebody disobeys an armed police officer severely, I believe he's allowed to pop a cap.

When I was robbed, I think the insurance was liberty mutual. I had nothing for 3 months. NOTHING. They left one TV. Which doesn't do any good when you don't have cable. When they did send the shit, they obviously couldn't replace my VGM or my Dreamcast or all the files I had on my computer, so you can't say you can replace anything.

You know, you really are a dumb little cunt, Zeph.

You're arguing a Judge Dredd mentality. You consider a life worthless when someone can make an argument for it? Well, you're a dumbass, and I think any contribution to the gene pool you could make would be detrimental to society as a whole, so I consider your life worthless.

Quick, come onto my lawn so I can blow your fucking head off. Please, I won't even be breaking any law if I yell, "Move you're dead!" first, will I? Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Did I mention Mr. Horn disobeyed a (assuming this) armed police officer? Dispatchers are sworn in after all. Am I allowed to pop a cap in Mr. Horn's ass? No. I'm not, because even though he acted with unnecessary and unreasonable force, he doesn't deserve a needle. He sure as hell doesn't deserve a medal either, though.

You're a bitter motherfucker who's celebrating the death of two men because you were robbed, and to top it off you have more holes in your argument than the US/Mexican border. Get the fuck over it and get some compassion. You know, the stuff I have for your parents.

And as for you Avalokiteshvara... well, I like you. But that's doesn't mean you're right.

Provoked deadly force? No. There's a long explanation of what, exactly, officers can and can't do, but I'm not going to get into it unless someone tries to call bullshit on me.

Nobody is advocating laying down and allowing thugs to walk all over you, what we're saying (what everyone should be saying) is that the force used was unreasonable and unnecessary. He killed two men for robbing a neighboor. That's the bottom line. He did something terrible with the intention of stopping something bad. Notice the choice of words, terrible versus bad.

The issue here is not the law, the issue is the morality of his actions. And, contrary to everything you grim reaper advocates seem to be forgetting is that the ends do not justify the means.

The end always justifies the means, because at the end of the day, your goal is to achieve the end.

Well, the man with the child was obviously stealing in an attempt to better the position of his wife and child. Feed them, clothe them, etc. I hope you rhyme better than you argue.

A right that wasn't being violated. He LEFT his house to confront them. You can't just walk on your lawn and shoot random tresspassers.Afraid you're mistaken there. We're a nation under the rule of law and we have systems for these things, not vigilante justice. That's anarchy.Completely irrelevant and there's no reason for Capo to answer that question.And it's a shame you can't grasp that you're just a bitter little bitch who doesn't care about anyone else.Your own damn fault for not having off-site backups. What if your apartment caught fire? Just burn a few damn DVDs and store them at a friend or relative's house.

Just because the ends justify the means doesn't mean that the means you use to get to that end do not have consequences.

And I'll rhyme circles around practically any emcee you can bring my way, kid.

So has anyone established yet where on their body this old dude shot the two guys?

Those two men were probably desperate and reckless, but it's terrible that they died. Definitely don't think any kind of theft warrants a death penalty. I wonder if these two particular thieves knew what they were getting into; did they even stop to think that they might've died?

In Colorado (and Oklahoma I think), there's this law called "Make My Day", no joke. Don't know if this is the law that Texas uses too, but it petty much states that someone can use deadly force if their home/property is in danger. (and it's named after a line Clint Eastwood said D': )

Anyway, the article says that it was a neighbor's house that was being burglarized but, when Horn saw the two men near his own home, thought that his property was in danger too? (kinda half-assed question, since he DID say that he was going to kill 'em)

Also, a lot of people are saying after Horn told the thieves "move, you're dead", they provoked him, but isn't it possible that he was just a little trigger happy/jumpy? (maybe one of them coughed a bit...)

I mean, he shot the shotgun THREE TIMES.

For two men, ten or twelve feet away from the shooter, seems a bit excessive, doesn't it?

Actually, it's not titled the "Make My Day" law, it's just earned that nickname, and it's not exactly new. That particular statute became effective in Colorado in 1986, and it's pretty much just the Castle Doctrine on crack. It "provides homeowners with immunity from prosecution for force used against a person making an unlawful entry into the home."

And, again, it has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

I think it'd be cute to get someone who actually studies law to come in here and explain what the hell happened. (cough, bluemikey, cough)

Of course my argument is full of holes. I can't argue for the hell of it and always be right.

All in all, I think Horn's actions were wrong and illegal. But the deaths of the two men were not justified, but certainly not wrong. Fuck them.

Kinda funny to hear you quote Lenin. =j

I agree with you that that are committing a crime and should be punished for it, but like the 911 guy said no property is worth shooting someone over, much less taking their lives. I mean this COULD have been a whole other story if he hadn't shot them. True it could mean that the burglers get away and his neighbors lose some heirlooms and what not, but it could also mean that they get caught. Since they're Mexican and they're in Texas there's a pretty good chance they'll get locked up for a real long time. I mean the man lives in a white neighborhood and any minority will know that the police will be there in like 5 minutes tops. There's a really good chance they would have been caught.

Awfully nice of you to pull a 180 turnaround regarding the legality and justification of Mr. Horn's actions.

So wait a second, I'm a bit confused on this subject.

Since when was it all kosher to allow criminals to break in, steal, and get away with it? Granted, dying in the end is extreme no matter which way you cut it, but the simple fact remains that if no one would have done anything, they would have went on to do it again, and again. Petty theft isn't important in society anymore...fuck homicide isn't, it's all about DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS. At least where I live.

I don't support the man killing the two assholes that were stealing shit, but I'd rather see that happen as opposed to live in fear that my house would be targeted next, or my family's safety as well.

One thing is for sure though, ain't no body going to try and steal from that neighborhood again.

Nobody. Certainly not me. I'm not about to get my brain splattered over an ipod. Not even a PS3. What good is shit if I can't use it or sell it. Amen.

You're confused because you're not bothering to read. The police had been notified and were on their way. If you listened to the phone call and paid attention you'd see that barely a minute after Mr. Horn shot and killed the two victims he himself was laying face down on the ground, as ordered by the officers that had arrived on the scene.

There's nothing that suggests the two victims would have gotten away with robbery, nothing at all. It's just a straw man being held up by those who would have you believe the death of the two victims is somehow justifiable.

And there is nothing to suggest that the cops wouldn't have arrived on the scene thirty minutes after the hoodlums made out with all the belongings that they planned on taking.

And also LOL at the two robbers being victims...that's priceless. I can see it on the news, the widower would be like "HE WAS JUST TRYING TO STEAL A TV! WHY DID HE HAVE TO GET SHOT BECAUSE HE WAS PERFORMING A CRIME?!"

Whether or not the cops could have caught them is immaterial to the issue at hand. The fact is that they didn't represent a threat to the shooter's property or person. Therefore he was putting himself in danger, and can't claim a legitimate cause for use of deadly force.

He confronted them and initiated force. He came out with a loaded weapon and escalated the situation. The responsibility for the deaths of the robbers rest squarely on the shooter, and I don't see how that's not murder.

People don't get away with manslaughter and that's accidental. The shooter intentionally made things more dangerous for everybody. Absolving him of any wrongdoing is mind boggling.

"Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Americas finest working for 911.

Your name and that sentence combined is worth a prop.

You do not shoot at someone’s knees or legs. Not only is that stupid from a practicality standpoint (smaller target) it shows that you were not fearful for your life. Never point a weapon at another human being unless you are willing to end their life. No one who is afraid someone is going to kill them aims and shoots for the foot, knee, or leg? Stop suggesting that is what people should do.

If the ranges stated in the article are true you would see almost no pellet dispersion from a 12 gauge shotgun. You’d basically hit the target with a large wad of pellets still likely to be in their plastic case. You can not just shoot in the general direction of the assailant and expect to scatter shot his legs at that close of range. If you actually managed to him in the leg it would still possibly be a fatal wound from such a large wound.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the police would have done in a situation similar to this one?

No. I've never heard of police officers being taught to shoot at the legs. It is my understanding they are taught to shoot center mass like the rest of us.

So they are taught to shoot to kill, no matter the situation, indirectly by-passing the justice system. (Not that shooting at a "center mass" would necessary equate to a lethal shot. But you see where I am going.) ESPECIALLY in the case of a home burglary.

That's why tazers, stun guns, and bean bag guns exist. To kill.

What country do you live in, exactly.

Well it makes sense though, Sass. Police officers - non-crooked ones anyway - are taught to only use their weapons if they or another person has their lives threatened. That's why they have tazers and pepper spray and police sticks, in case they gotta lay down some law without killing a man.

That's why I'm against this dude and other dudes practicing vigilante justice, because I trust in the legal system to punish people fairly and I trust in law enforcement's training and expertise to know when to blow the shit out of someone and when not to.

fuck you Grandpa Shoot'em'up.

HEY DUMBASS, TRY READING

I think he was rather suggesting that the shooter had no way of knowing they would arrive so promptly.

The point stands, as either way he's blatantly disregarding the audio tapes and all other evidence regarding the actions of the police.

Additional Spam:
Which seems to be the common thread of those who support Mr. Horn. Let's ignore everything else except for the fact the two dead men were robbing a house. NOTHING ELSE TO SEE HERE GO ON ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS HURR HURR

Not that it's any real connection, but the next time someone breaks in your home to rob you, holds you at gunpoint while your wife is raped with a gun in her mouth...we'll make sure that we give him the congressional medal of honor, since you'd be all for defending his acts against you and your home *thumbs up*

While that situation is quite extreme, it still yeilds the same results. The neighbors in the house would still feel victimized, they still wouldn't feel safe. They'd spend thousands on a shitty home security system, dogs, guns or whatnot to feel safe again. Wow, cops caught two bastards breaking in and stealing shit...good job...now more and more people will get the idea to come stealing in that neighborhood, but will be a lot more careful about it.

Though, now, knowing there is a gun totting maniac living nearby, chances are they won't fuck with em again. Neighborhood watch ftw!

* Considering it is Pasadena, the chances that they would have gotten away and continue to burglarize for a while is average at least, low at best. Quite a number of cases regarding theft and breaking & entering are reported but few rarely end with the thief being caught. Those sneaky thieves.

Furthermore, since this is Pasadena, the Police force is mostly volunteer. They may not be officially official cops but they aren't going to go vigilante and just blast some stupid Mexicans for stealing worthless crap. If they had to at the most "extreme" they would just disable the two in the event they will stupid enough to try to point a weapon at an officer; they aren't going to fire so many times until they die unless they're some nutso cop.

*None of this is really relevant to what you dudes are going on about, I'm just stating what would have most likely happened due to having uncles that are part of the police force, both in Houston and Pasadena. Also no, they aren't taught to aim at the "center mass", you aim for the arm carrying the weapon to disable if they are armed while not hitting any vital points. They train them to be precise shooters (even the volunteers! we don't want someone who can't aim to be toting a gun), not run-of-the-mill "hope I get you in the right ballpark" shooters. In the event that they decide to fire back then you may shoot to kill. Then again, most cops around here aren't just carrying some 9mm pistol. Some have to carry semi-automatics since most criminals are better armed than the police force themselves, so usually only the daring try to go against the cops. Again, that doesn't really relate to what is being discussed.

In any case, Grandpa Shoot 'Em Up disregarded the words of an officer and decided to take the law into his own hands. The only way I could see him not being charged with anything is if Dr. Phil decided to be his judge. Or if the "It's Texas" effect decides to occur. Even though the odds logically are stacked against him, in Texas the legal system can be just backwards retarded.

Sass you look at that entirely the wrong way. They are taught to shoot center mass because under life threating situations the average accuracy of a police officer is less than 30%. It is the easiest point to aim for and the place you are most likely to actually hit the target. The point of shooting someone is to stop their ability to harm others by means of deadly force. Tazers, stun guns, and bean bag rounds from a shotgun are designed to subdue a person but without deadly force. These methods are not always feasible (ie when the other guy has a gun too) or effective (I've seen people get maced and shocked with no effect). Sometimes a gun is the only reasonable tool to stop someone with.

Anytime anyone shoots at another person it is to kill regardless of their intent. That was my point earlier, you NEVER shoot to wound (ie the legs, knees, arms, etc) that defeats the entire purpose of pulling the trigger.


I'm calling Bull Shit. I want to see proof of this because it is completely opposite to everything I have ever been taught or known to be taught to the police (both civilian and military police).

There are other tools at the officers disposal if deadly force is not warranted or necessary.

Semi-automatic what? Semi-automatic just means that it reloads another round after you pull the trigger... most police pistols are semi-automatic.

This is like apologizing and then saying, "but." It negets everything else, completely. Just to humor you though, I'll go ahead and rip apart the rest of your post.

Nobody is defending the actions taken by the robbers. Indeed, they deserved to be punished for their actions. However, they did not deserve to die for them. You're comparing a situation where my use of deadly force would not only be applicable, but reccomended, to a situation that no force whatsoever by Mr. Horn was warranted.Also, the Congressional Medal of Honor is only for military, wheras the Presidential Medal of Freedom is for civilians.

What the fuck is that argument? You're really trying to argue that two people getting caught, tried, arrested and sentenced would somehow encourage people to commit the same crime in the neighboorhood? Not only that, if you are going to argue that, then how the fuck would people spending money on non-deadly forms of home defense be a bad thing? They'd get a deductable from their homeowner's insurance, peace of mind, and a leg up on any new robbery attempts. Go brush your teeth, your breath smells like bullshit.

"The ends justify the means." You're an idiot.

Additional Spam:
That may be the norm, but in this instance officers were on the scene within a minute of the shootings. I do not believe they would have allowed the suspects to escape given their proximity. Indeed, the evidence suggests just the opposite.

Rifles.

Most of the crime in Houston are from the various gangs with fully automatics.

Then again, the Mara Salvatrucha never did get along with the Norteños nor the Sureños.

Still not sure how they can sneak all that shit without someone noticing, then again the borders have a few holes that are never guarded. Then again, most of it is crap that hasn't seen use in quite some time. Maybe they thought it was broken. :rolleyes:

I like you too Frank. <3

My main hang up has been that it came down to a binary decision in that guy's head, pretty sure, that he stop them himself or let them get away. Ignore methods for a second. Also I don't think with the knowledge he had, it was all that clear that the suspects would have been apprehended.

In that case, I'm glad he acted. Not jumping for joy that he killed two guys, not feeling sorry for the two guys, but glad he did something to stop it.

However, talking with a buddy of mine about it, and he mentioned that he'd had to break into his own place a few times. Once he locked himself out of his mom's house, and had to crawl through a window. I've broken into my own house before also.

It's extremely unlikely, but I'm just thinking now that, you know, they could have been some incredibly stupid cousins of the neighbor who couldn't find the key under the mat, and they'd been asked to go pick up the guy's laundry or something. Ridiculous yes, but all of sudden that whole presumption of innocence thing pops up, which I kind of like, and it makes it difficult to support a guy who created a situation where the justice of the thing couldn't have been properly investigated.

edit: On the train home I'd tried to sketch out a kind of di-graph of points and ideas that illustrated the argument, but it was too hard, because there were these over-arching cultural paradigms that had to be included too, and I didn't know how to draw a three dimensional di-graph on a piece of paper. =(

Ok, my beef with the guy is he shot two men THREE times. I'm pretty sure there are only three reasons why someone would do that.

1. He shot a warning shot, given that he shot 3 rounds in rapid succession I'm pretty sure this isn't it. If it was a warning shot it would have been "Bang, Move you're dead", not Boom, click, boom, click, boom.

2. He missed. Yeah.... Standing 10-12 feet away from a target with a very big gun. Don't think so.

3. He shot to kill. Probably it. Shot a guy once, he fell on the ground and didn't move anymore. Shot the second guy, he yells many obscenities (I would supposed). By now, I would accept that he shot the two men based on self defense. I mean he probably accidently killed the first guy. But he fired that third shot and killed the third guy who's obviously not a threat seeing as how he just got shot with a shotgun.

He's a trigger happy murderer.

You don't know where they were shot. One could have taken a shot to the face and the other took two in the gut/leg/arm/choose random body part. We don't know.

As I stated before at that range there would be little to no dispersion of the buckshot. That means you have better be aiming correctly to hit the target. There is also no information on how he fired the shotgun (hip or shoulder) or whether he had to back up while making the second and third shot.


There is a lot of missing information regarding what happened those final few seconds. I think you are jumping the gun on labeling this man as a murder.

Basically there are two kinds of people in this world:

There are those that think that it was right to kill Saddam Husain for what he did, and his crimes against humanity, even though he was a dictator, and his word was law.

And then there are others who think that behind the mass murder, uptight prick, there was a big fluffy bunny that just needed a hug and not a noose around his neck.

Bottom line: If you are doing something you know is morally wrong, you better fully prepare for the worst if you are caught.

In before "What if the robbers were mentally handicap and didn't know better?!"

As long as you continue to compare rape, sexual extortion, genocide, mass murder, and "crimes against humanity" to a couple guys casing a house, you're not going to get anywhere. These men were no dictators. They were not mass murderers. They did not have any blood on their hands whatsoever. Give it up already.

Hell, you might as well compare me to Hitler, it's make about as much sense as the rest of your drivel.

mur·der The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Deliberation AND Premeditation were both present here, as he went outside to confront them. It wasn't in self-defense as he provoked them. Strikes me as meeting the definition of murder.

Still don't understand where people are getting "The guy with the gun provoked the other people into a situation where he had to kill them." Now, I'm no lawyer or anything, so I have no idea if there's a precedent here, but it seems to me that you can separate, in this instance, the deliberate and premeditated act of going outside to stop them, and the actual act of killing them.

This provoke thing is really giving me issues. I mean, it's a transitive verb right? So it takes an object. One provokes something else. That something else is then being acted upon by the subject.

There's also this idea that a person in the stronger position doesn't need to provoke anyone in order to act.

The only way I can see the guy with the shotgun provoking the poor "victims" is if you want to say he created a situation where they had to act a certain way, which would necessitate the use of force. That's taking all responsibility away from the thieves. I think that's stupid.

Guy stabbed his ex-girlfriend up at the mall near my apartment. There was a conversation after the fact with a bunch of friends, consensus being that we'd like to think we would have stepped in to help the lady if we had been there. Of course, we might have injured the guy doing the stabbing. And that means we provoked the assailant?

The logic seems all twisty and wrong.

Also, Devo, it occurred to me this morning that this isn't a useless discussion. It's a nice ethical question, and it's always good to hash out tough ethical questions with yourself, you know, if you're open-minded about it. Builds character.

At the very least, I'll know exactly who to rob if it ever became necessary, because you know, they'll think I have rights. <3

You've already condemned the man before he has even set foot in a court room. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Obviously my point earlier was missed upon you. He has neither been charged with nor convicted of any crime yet but quite a few of you are so eager to label this man a murder when you have incomplete information on the situation.

By that logic he was still wrong in shooting on the men, because as they hadn't been proven guilty in a court of law they were innocent of robbing that house.

Pu-leez. If I shoot someone I'm guilty of the applicable crime, whether or not it's proven in a court of law is immaterial. It's like arguing OJ didn't kill his wife because 12 people were too thick to understand the evidence.

Convicted and Guilty are seperate things. Just look at the fucking transcript:

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered."I'm going to kill them."

And that was before he even left the house.

This really isn't about what anyone's personal idea of right and wrong is or how the dictionary/common law defines murder. What matters here is how Texas law applies in this case. Here's the law that Horn is relying on:

In order to be justified under this law, Horn has to not only meet the elements of 9.43, but also the elements of 9.41 or 9.42. However, 9.41 only covers force; 9.42 covers deadly force which clearly is what was used here. Therefore, in order to be lawful, Horn needs to meet the elements of 9.43 AND 9.42.

Notice the section under 9.42 that I highlighted. While Horn certainly meets some of the elements under the statute, 9.42 requires that this have happened during the nighttime, and this case happened at 2 PM, which is about as far away from the nighttime as one can get. Granted, innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz, but the law that he justifies his actions by is clearly against him on a critical point. The fact that a Texas state senator says that the law does not apply in this case only further demonstrates the law's intent.

All this probably explains why in the original article posted, it mentions that "His attorney says Horn just feared for his life." The attorney probably already realizes the law won't apply here and is hoping that he can get Horn off on some sort of self-defense theory. But Horn's conversation with the dispatcher is pretty damning to that defense, so that probably won't work either.

The lesson: wait until a nighttime burglary.

Jury nullification is a motherfucker, though.

Well, the jury can disagree with the statute if they want, but that just means it's a dead letter law, in which case the case defaults to the common law--and I'm pretty certain the jury can't override the common law murder rule.

"Go Joe Horn! Go Joe Horn! Go Joe Horn!"

YouTube Video

Looks like the people don't care 'bout them nigras, well not the black community at least. At first I thought I was just watching some NAACP publicity move, but it looks to be the black community there in Pasadena. Anyway, maybe Joe Horn won't be charged with any murder seeing how the [white] people got his back. I bet if he was even charged with murder, there would be such a huge backlash from the [white] people that they would have to overturn the ruling. Frankly, I support Horn and don't condemn his actions.

God... Why does EVERYTHING have to be a race issue? I'm actually with one of the protesters: This is a CRIMINAL issue. While I personally don't condone his straight-up vigilante actions, even if he IS charged with a crime I would hate to see this turn into a bitter race rivalry when it clearly is nowhere near that territory.

On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with their protest either so I kind of have to wonder why these people are claiming ever-so-matter-of-factly "we don't wanna hear anything he has to say!"... Maybe you should, lady. Perhaps he's NOT there to play the race card this time.

Then you're an idiot who either has no understanding of the legal system in the United States, or just doesn't support it. Either way, you're an idiot. ^5

Totally diggin all the trolling you're doing here, Franky boy.

Wasn't aware that differing opinion = idiot these days. On the other hand, I really do love how personally you're taking those who are pro-horn here. Serious business much?

To quote an old history professor, "Son, everyone has opinions. Some opinions are wrong." But hey, I'm sorry; I didn't realize that a fundamental ignorance of the law which governs the land suddenly became trivial when you talked about it on the internet. My apologies for not putting in more content supporting my position when the previous four pages are filled with it.

As he didn't post any kind of reasoning behind his inane support of this killer (albeit one with a good heart!) I didn't feel compelled to respond with any of the information that had already been posted. But I'll bite. Toss me an infraction for trolling, Moderation, I earned it.

Ashame blatant stupidity and ignorance don't incure infractions, but then we'd be missing so many wonderful posters.

And it's spelled Frankie, dickwad.

More of less this would give way to the path of logic that "I have nothing new to add to the discussion, thus I will opt out of replying", instead you went for "I have nothing new to add, so I'll just call him stupid and bait him a little".

Am I on course here?

Fuck you! ;_; I try to give someone a hard time and you RUIN IT. RUIN IT.

Taking you off my friends list.

I heard this on the local news last night and thought y'all would like a small update on this case. Here's video of the news report: Video


That same article mentions in passing, and this one mentions in more detail, the following:


I'd be very interested in hearing what that officer saw. I can't wait until this case goes to court.

Somehow, even though the man was running away, he was putting Horn in immediate danger. Yeah. Right.