Further Proof That Texans Are Some Trigger-Happy Crackers

Quote:

I think you are jumping the gun on labeling this man as a murder.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Arainach

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Gumby

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Gumby

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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:

Quote:

Texas Penal Code

§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

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

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Jury nullification is a motherfucker, though.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

"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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Maico

Frankly, I support Horn and don't condemn his actions.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Fresh Frank

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.

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?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Fresh Frank

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

Taking you off my friends list.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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

Quote:

Source

On the day of the shooting, police said, they thought one of the men was shot in the chest and the other in the lower left side.

Now, based on the preliminary autopsy, they believe that what they thought were entrance wounds, were actually exit wounds instead.

That report indicates that one of the men was clearly shot in the back.

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

Quote:

Another new detail to emerge Friday about the Nov. 14 shooting was that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the shootings, police said. The unnamed detective pulled up in an unmarked car moments before Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun, police said.

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Article

That report indicates that one of the men was clearly shot in the back.

Horn's attorney said the new information doesn't change his stance that Horn acted in self defense.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.