American hero: Joe Horn

[Wow]

There are more under cover cops and US Marshalls in Pasadena, TX because of the Liberal filth from New Orleans.

 

[Care4all]

You and Jillian have absolutely no way to prove that. Yet you keep claiming it. And again for the slow the Prosecutor provides all the facts and details to the Grand Jury. Who told them they were illegal Mexicans?

Let me tell you something ret sgt.....

If I had a child that was shot in the back, (even after stealing), who was no threat what so ever to Mr Horn, YOU BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR, that this case would have gone to trial...I would have made certain of it (with every pressure possible) and the Grand Jury would have too....

And yes it is an opinion, but a pretty solid one.....

Killing someone for theft is MORALLY WRONG, in our own laws it is NOT permitted, and in God's laws it is NOT permitted....

So you can take your vigilantism and put it where the sun don't shine ret sgtr....vigilantes do not belong in our society, they should be imprisoned or put in a looney farm imho, especially if they kill someone outside of the law and not in self defense...

 

[Wow]

Let me tell you something ret sgt.....

If I had a child that was shot in the back, (even after stealing), who was no threat what so ever to Mr Horn, YOU BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR, that this case would have gone to trial...I would have made certain of it (with every pressure possible) and the Grand Jury would have too....

And yes it is an opinion, but a pretty solid one.....

Killing someone for theft is MORALLY WRONG, in our own laws it is NOT permitted, and in God's laws it is NOT permitted....

So you can take your vigilantism and put it where the sun don't shine ret sgtr....vigilantes do not belong in our society, they should be imprisoned or put in a looney farm imho, especially if they kill someone outside of the law and not in self defense...

Joe Horn saved countless lives by killing these gun runners.

If you do not want to be killed, do not break into someone's home!
How difficult is that to understand?

 

[Care4all]

Joe Horn saved countless lives by killing these gun runners.

If you do not want to be killed, do not break into someone's home!
How difficult is that to understand?

Wow,

I don't know if you are religious or not so this may not mean anything to you, but the reason "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....a LIFE FOR A LIFE", was put in to play in the Bible is BECAUSE they were OVER PUNISHING for actual crimes....they were taking the "life" of people for rape, or for adultery, or for stealing or for other things that did NOT merit or warrant killing the criminal....

We do NOT kill people via the Death Penalty in this country for breaking and entering, for burglary...this IS NOT THEIR SENTENCE for this crime....and JUSTFULLY SO.

we kill people via the death sentence once given a fair trial and appeals, for killing other people....

Care

 

[Care4all]

and WOW, your article DID NOT SAY that these men were part of the gun trafficking group from Columbia....it said NO SUCH THING.

 

[Shogun]

Let me tell you something ret sgt.....

If I had a child that was shot in the back, (even after stealing), who was no threat what so ever to Mr Horn, YOU BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR, that this case would have gone to trial...I would have made certain of it (with every pressure possible) and the Grand Jury would have too....

And yes it is an opinion, but a pretty solid one.....

Killing someone for theft is MORALLY WRONG, in our own laws it is NOT permitted, and in God's laws it is NOT permitted....

So you can take your vigilantism and put it where the sun don't shine ret sgtr....vigilantes do not belong in our society, they should be imprisoned or put in a looney farm imho, especially if they kill someone outside of the law and not in self defense...

BZZZT!


wrong answer. If your kid was shot in the process of robbing a house and threatening a neighbor you'd have to deal with it just like the families of both of these dead criminals. YOUR OPINION, strong or not, doesn't usurp texas law. Your opinon of morality means little. Again, go face the FACT of texas castle doctrine.

HERE IT IS
The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

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

80(R) SB 378 - Introduced version - Bill Text

 

[Wow]

Wow,

I don't know if you are religious or not so this may not mean anything to you, but the reason "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....a LIFE FOR A LIFE", was put in to play in the Bible is BECAUSE they were OVER PUNISHING for actual crimes....they were taking the "life" of people for rape, or for adultery, or for stealing or for other things that did NOT merit or warrant killing the criminal....

We do NOT kill people via the Death Penalty in this country for breaking and entering, for burglary...this IS NOT THEIR SENTENCE for this crime....and JUSTFULLY SO.

we kill people via the death sentence once given a fair trial and appeals, for killing other people....

Care

Correction: Criminals get killed for stealing in Texas.

Texas has the death penalty and uses it often.

That is the law of the land.

 

[AllieBaba]

mmmmm...we've discussed this topic ad nauseum, and none of the conservatives or liberals thought what this guy did was right.

But it's interesting to note that patriotism means shooting people in the back in your mind.

Liar. Many of us thought he was right.

 

[Ravi]

Liar. Many of us thought he was right.

None of the conservatives or liberals did, Allie. Please learn to read.

 

[AllieBaba]

Dumb ass. I'm a conservative.

 

[Ravi]

Dumb ass. I'm a conservative.

I don't think you are, really. Any more than I believe Shog is a liberal.

 

[Shogun]

clearly, your beliefs are both impressive and applicable to the real world.

 

[Care4all]

Correction: Criminals get killed for stealing in Texas.

Texas has the death penalty and uses it often.

That is the law of the land.

NO THEY DON'T get the death penalty for burglary, in Texas.

 

[Shogun]

Why don't you stop assuming that your opinoin is the law and offer a rebuttal for the LAWS from texas that i've posted?

 

[Care4all]

BZZZT!


wrong answer. If your kid was shot in the process of robbing a house and threatening a neighbor you'd have to deal with it just like the families of both of these dead criminals. YOUR OPINION, strong or not, doesn't usurp texas law. Your opinon of morality means little. Again, go face the FACT of texas castle doctrine.

HERE IT IS
The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

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

80(R) SB 378 - Introduced version - Bill Text

IDIOT!

1) There was no FORCE USED against mr Horn....there was no kidnapping, there was no aggravated assault, there was NO murder that took place, there was no aggravated robbery that took place, and there was no robbery that took place.....ONLY burglary which is a much lesser crime.

2) There are two separate laws covering when FORCE can be used and when DEADLY FORCE can be used.... you have absolutely NOTHING in what you posted that authorized Mr Horn to use FORCE or DEADLY FORCE specifically....

LEARN to read and comprehend what you are reading Shogun....and READ THE ENTIRE LAW regarding this section 9...

NOW PRINT THE LAW ON USING DEADLY FORCE....I'll be waiting....sheesh....

NO force was used against mr horn

 

[Shogun]

hey, you can go ahead and sit there spitting vile at your screen knowing that the state of Texas is about as impressed with your foot stomping as I am not. I've posted the evidence that kept Horn from being indicted. I've posted the actual LAW from Texas that protects his right to defend himself. Your interpretation, in lue of your own evidence, means two things: Jack and Shit. You are on no grounds to prompt me for anymore evidence until you offer something besides the emotional rants of a fucktard who seems to think the world revolves around their opinion on the issue.

Face it. Horn wont be charged. Two criminals won't rob any more houses. And you have been completely PWNED in this thread.


now have a nice day!

 

[Care4all]

hey, you can go ahead and sit there spitting vile at your screen knowing that the state of Texas is about as impressed with your foot stomping as I am not. I've posted the evidence that kept Horn from being indicted. I've posted the actual LAW from Texas that protects his right to defend himself. Your interpretation, in lue of your own evidence, means two things: Jack and Shit. You are on no grounds to prompt me for anymore evidence until you offer something besides the emotional rants of a fucktard who seems to think the world revolves around their opinion on the issue.

Face it. Horn wont be charged. Two criminals won't rob any more houses. And you have been completely PWNED in this thread.


now have a nice day!

It isn't MY interpretation of it....

There is SPECIFIC Texas Law that covers such....using FORCE and using DEADLY FORCE....

What you posted does NOT cover Mr Horn by the definitions of Texas law...

you posted the law, and it said that 1-they had to use FORCE against mr horn in order for him to use FORCE back.... And Force is defined by texas law as a force BACK that DOES NOT KILL.....you posted the reasons for being allowed to use force, NONE OF WHICH fit mr Horns scenario because the burglars DID NOT USE FORCE against Mr. Horn, or against Mr Horn's neighbor, or against any human being.....

THUS, your argument FALLS FLAT on THAT alone....

There was NO ROBBERY that took place....Robbery requires the use of force against another human being. This DID NOT take place....a Burglary did take place.

Robbery and Burglary are 2 separate crimes in TEXAS LAW....so stop being an ignoramous and acknowledge such....what you posted does not cover Mr horn's use of DEADLY FORCE....nor does it even cover him using FORCE, because no force was used against him....

THIS IS WHAT the law says and what you posted.

Care

 

[Shogun]

like I said... feel free to post YOUR EVIDENCE or just sit there and stomp your foot. Joe Horn remains unindicted. Your interpretation means very little to the reality of the matter.

 

[Care4all]

like I said... feel free to post YOUR EVIDENCE or just sit there and stomp your foot. Joe Horn remains unindicted. Your interpretation means very little to the reality of the matter.

you posted the evidence already shogun...

was mr horn robbed, or was he the recipient of agravated assault or aggravated robbery? Was he or anyone else kidnapped etc...?

Did the burglars use FORCE on HIM?

Was his life threatened through force by both men that he shot in the back?

NO

SOOOOOO, what you posted does not cover Mr Horn at all imo......try again.

==============================================

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 2, eff. September 1,
2007.


§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 3, eff. September 1,
2007.


§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY


§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 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.


Well, the loot could have been recovered by the cops who were on their way or there according to the 911 police dispatch...

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, Mr Horn was not exposed to a substantial risk of death where using "deadly force" vs. "force" was necessary....

I just don't see how the Grand Jury could come to their results, based on what we know about the case and what is writen in Texas Law....?

Care

 

[Shogun]

your opinion doesn't trump the facts, yo. Texas saw it differently than you do. they APPLIED THEIR LAWS differently than you would. I agree with their appraisal of the situation. Feel free to email everyone in Texas and let them know how you feel.