American hero: Joe Horn

[Shogun]

First off , I have seen no convincing proof they rushed at him.

Second, the 911 call is pretty clear. He was in his house, in no danger, and the Operator was pleading with him to stay there, and let the police handle it.

he chose instead to go outside, and put himself at risk, and then shoot 2 people in the back.

Believe me if I feel threatened I will shoot the mofos, but I would not go out seeking to feel threatened so I could then shoot the mofos. Which I think the 911 call makes pretty clear is what Horn did.

I;ve posted my evidence. Hve you bothered taking a gander?


But, let's analyze the physics involved. They came out of the neighbors house, and im assuming the neighbors yard surrounds his house... with me so far? Joe come out yelling to halt. How did they magically get from the neighbors yard to JOE"S yard? Do you think they can teleport? (could, rather) do you think that they were skipping along their merry way into Joe's yard just to shake his hand? the evidence, and reason Joe has not been indicted, is because they were in his yard. THE COPS TESTIFIED ON HIS BEHALF. They rushed him when they saw a witness and joe shot them. End of story. End of criminal. and end of arguement.

If you are not convinced then so be it. If you think this is the first travesty of the 21st century then fair enough. BUT, many would have done the exact same thing. Not because, as the usual halfwits would say, someone just wanted to kill a ****** or wetback or whatever nomenclature they have to use to get your emotional penis hard... But because he stood up and was not going to run like a little bitch when the CRIMINALS ARE NOT THE FUCKING VICTIMS HERE. If you try to rob a bank and you get shot then too fucking bad. You wont hear "well, we don't give the death penalty for stealing" then. And rightfully so. the law abiding citizenry should not be held hostage by your concept of acceptable criminal behaviour. The same people who are crying NOW were the same people who were crying about the castle doctrine in the first place. APPARENTLY, we the poeple are just supposed to HOPE we don't get killed while some criminal sonofabitch decides to flaunt the law to the detriment of others.


You make your own choice. Joe made his. I respect HIS choice to stand up to criminal activity more than I do your choice to hide behind a curtain until the bad guy goes away.

 

[Wow]

And yes, only cowards shoot people in the back that are of no threat to them or their life.....cowards and murderers that is....

Yep

Unless these criminals were fleeing to your home, right? Then, it's shoot them b*stards dead to protect my family.

Try to think about your fellow Americans, it will not kill ya!

 

[Shogun]

why are you intentionally lying or playing the idiot card? i answered you and showed you the law on numerous occasions and also showed you why i believe the law was not followed, BECAUSE he was not in any imminent danger and because the perps did not use FORCE on him or a neighbor, and because this was not justification for deadly force, NOR a reasonable action on his part....i can't help that you are intentionally being obtuse....

you act as if the grand jury's decision to not indict him is some kind of justification of your stance in being right or mr horn's actions being moral and justified while ignoring the fact that grand juries and juries have been wrong on many previous occaisions....OJ being just one and the 100 men in prison that have now been released from jail (thanks to the Innocent Project) because of their DNA proving the prosecutors and juries wrong.....

i am well aware of the grand jury's decision not to indict mr horn, and this is precisely why i have been debating this issue: i believe their decision to not at LEAST allow this controvertial case go to trial is a mistake, and was the wrong decision on their part BECAUSE it leaves holes bigger than the state of alaska in Texas law, with a the right of anyone to kill anyone, with NO REASON of self defence or imminent threat needed....

anyone can shoot anyone on their lawn in the back, and kill them, and get away with it....

IF YOU can provide something that says mr horn was in imminent danger, therefore he had to use deadly force to prevent himself from being killed by these perps FEEL FREE to do such....

the only thing i have found in the media is a detective that was there on the scene said that he THOUGHT he MIGHT have seen one of the perps move towards mr horn before turning and running away....

the Detective DID NOT SAY that one of the perps DID move slightly towards mr horn before running away but that he MIGHT HAVE....

Either way, mr horn did not shoot the perp when he SUPPOSEDLY thought he was threatened by him moving towards him, (of which btw, MR HORN NEVER said the perp moved towards him...NEVER....mr horn said they were on his property so he had to kill them....NOTHING about a perp moving towards him), BUT IF this perp moved towards him and mr horn felt threatened he would have shot him then, face to face....BUT HE DIDN'T, he shot both perps in the back as they were running away, off mr horn's property....

And yes, only cowards shoot people in the back that are of no threat to them or their life.....cowards and murderers that is....

no need to respond back....what you say means as much to me as what i say means to you...so we are even steven!

Care

Whose lying, bitch? Joe Horn is a free man. Cry on someones shoulder all you want. THAT is the fact for reasons that the legal minds of the state of Texas have decided. I realize this may shock the piss out of you since, apparently, the world revolves around your opinion but the FACTS are no lie.

I HAVE provided evidence FROM THE COPS ON THE SCENE that testified on his behalf. If you dont want to deal with this evidence then so be it. Again, your opinion means jack shit. They were in his yard. Physics trumps your goofy fucking crocodile tears.

Now, feel free to continue being brave behind the safety of a keyboard.

 

[Wow]

i am well aware of the grand jury's decision not to indict mr horn, and this is precisely why i have been debating this issue: i believe their decision to not at LEAST allow this controvertial case go to trial is a mistake, and was the wrong decision on their part BECAUSE it leaves holes bigger than the state of alaska in Texas law, with a the right of anyone to kill anyone, with NO REASON of self defence or imminent threat needed....
The Grand Jury will make those decisions, not you.

 

[Shogun]

And yes, only cowards shoot people in the back that are of no threat to them or their life.....cowards and murderers that is....

Yep

And, only stupid people who were not there seem to have an omnicient grasp on the entire birds eye scene. By all means, have your OPINIONS. We have our opinions of the likes of you, too.

 

[Care4all]

Once again for the slow. He ordered them to freeze. They not only ignored his order, one of them ran towards him. Unless you believe the Cop that saw and heard it is a liar.

ret sgt, where have you gotten this information from?

The article i read said that the detective said that he MIGHT have seen one of the suspects move towards mr horn before running away....

HE DID NOT SAY that he DID see one of the suspects charge mr.horn before mr horn shot them in the back....just that it is possible that one of the suspects took a slight move towards mr horn before they both ran away....

so, i have 2 questions for you...

1)If mr Horn was threatened by the robber because he was SUPPOSEDLY trying to harm mr Horn by charging him....Why didn't Mr Horn shoot the man when he was threatened and being charged? Why didn't mr horn shoot him then?

INSTEAD OF SHOOTING HIM IN THE BACK when he was fleeing and no threat of self defense existed?

2) If only one suspect moved towards him before fleeing, then why did mr horn shoot BOTH OF THE MEN IN THE BACK, including the suspect that DID NOT THREATHEN HIM, AND KILL HIM?

If you can supply a link where it says that one of the suspects DID CHARGE MR HORN TO TRY TO HARM HIM, i would greatly appreciate it because i have found NO SUCH THING.

And i might add, that on mr horn's recording:

1. he said MOVE you are dead and FIRED IMMEDIATELY, no moment to even allow the suspects to stop....check your watch, when listening to the recording...1 second passed at most and he killed them....because he thought he could according to the new law and he wanted his 15 minutes of fame, he wanted to kill them before he even went outside.

We do not kill burglars that are unarmed and are not a threat to you, we do not kill convicted burglars and put them on death row....

2. he came back on the phone and NEVER ONCE SAID TO THE DISPATCH THAT HE WAS CHARGED BY THE SUSPECT AND HE HAD TO KILL THEM....this is ON the recording....yes, mr horn NEVER SAID TO THE COPS that he was charged by the suspect and had to kill him for self defense....what he did say is that they were on my lawn....that was his reason for killing them, this is what he confessed to the dispatch....

NOTHING AT ALL regarding a suspect moving towards him, thus he had to shoot.

In addition to all of this, Mr Horn PLANNED ON KILLING THEM before he even went outside...he said so, on the recording.

anyway if you have some local link on the cop testifying with certainty that one of them positively charged mr horn and threatened his life, then maybe i would feel better about this......?

care

 

[Ravi]

Lots of people are considered a threat to society for some reason or other but that doesn't give anyone the right to go around shooting them.

You keep repeating they were rushing Horn, when there is no evidence to back that up. Apparently to reach the street they had to cut across Horn's yard.

But of course, Shog was there and saw the whole thing, that's why he's able to make things up about what actually happened.

 

[Shogun]

Ravi rote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's quite possible that this man and his supporters are such wusses that they reasonably believe men fleeing from them are somehow a threat to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


They certainly were a threat to society, and their actions were witnessed by someone who had the wherewithall, and the balls to eliminate this threat.

He warned them: "MOVE, YOU'RE DEAD"! If all he was capable of doing was to scare them off to go rob someone else, and maybe worse, then he was less of a man for it.

Those two will never victimize another soul.

THAT is exactly it. You bitches trying to read whatever you WANT into the 911 tape are fucking loons. You expect an old man who has been thrust into a dire situation to react like a fucking 40 year pilot right before take off. I say that you are all batshit crazy for assuming that they should have all hugged and traded myspace page addys. Call him whatever names you want; the REAL pussies would have hid behind a curtain while their neighbor gets robbed. Hopefully, the next time you are being victimized, anyone who is not a cop who may have been able to help you will walk on by in order to circumvent pissing off some keyboard commandos on a net forum.

 

[Shogun]

Lots of people are considered a threat to society for some reason or other but that doesn't give anyone the right to go around shooting them.

You keep repeating they were rushing Horn, when there is no evidence to back that up. Apparently to reach the street they had to cut across Horn's yard.

But of course, Shog was there and saw the whole thing, that's why he's able to make things up about what actually happened.

The fuck it doesn't. Dont come to a state with the Castle doctrine with such mindnumbing ignorance like that, rav. THAT is the exact purpose laws such at the CD and the right to carry firearms.

And, yes, there IS evidence. I've walked you through the physics and you cant disregard whatever police report you need to. Indeed, Ravi.. take a look at the fucking neighborhood layout. There is no closed off yards. Feel free to call him a ****** hater now since you have nothing else to offer.

No, I wasn't there and will freely admit that. I have relied on the evidence provided AND the testimony of the COPS WHO WERE THERE. It's ironic as fuck that you make that accusation though. Unfortunately, you are too damn dumb to understand why.

 

[Ravi]

The fuck it doesn't. Dont come to a state with the Castle doctrine with such mindnumbing ignorance like that, rav. THAT is the exact purpose laws such at the CD and the right to carry firearms.

And, yes, there IS evidence. I've walked you through the physics and you cant disregard whatever police report you need to. Indeed, Ravi.. take a look at the fucking neighborhood layout. There is no closed off yards. Feel free to call him a ****** hater now since you have nothing else to offer.

No, I wasn't there and will freely admit that. I have relied on the evidence provided AND the testimony of the COPS WHO WERE THERE. It's ironic as fuck that you make that accusation though. Unfortunately, you are too damn dumb to understand why.

What police report? All you've linked to is speculation by the press.

 

[Care4all]

Whose lying, bitch? Joe Horn is a free man. Cry on someones shoulder all you want. THAT is the fact for reasons that the legal minds of the state of Texas have decided. I realize this may shock the piss out of you since, apparently, the world revolves around your opinion but the FACTS are no lie.

I HAVE provided evidence FROM THE COPS ON THE SCENE that testified on his behalf. If you dont want to deal with this evidence then so be it. Again, your opinion means jack shit. They were in his yard. Physics trumps your goofy fucking crocodile tears.

Now, feel free to continue being brave behind the safety of a keyboard.

WHERE? Please give the link again bitch!

 

[Ravi]

WHERE? Please give the link again bitch!

I love how he keeps calling women bitches behind the safety of his keyboard, don't you?

 

[Glori.B]

THAT is exactly it. You bitches trying to read whatever you WANT into the 911 tape are fucking loons. You expect an old man who has been thrust into a dire situation to react like a fucking 40 year pilot right before take off. I say that you are all batshit crazy for assuming that they should have all hugged and traded myspace page addys. Call him whatever names you want; the REAL pussies would have hid behind a curtain while their neighbor gets robbed. Hopefully, the next time you are being victimized, anyone who is not a cop who may have been able to help you will walk on by in order to circumvent pissing off some keyboard commandos on a net forum.

shogun, i thought of you at midnight on the 4th of july, which was just after the initial discussion on this topic...it was midnight and several of my neighbors were celebrating the holiday. i was standing in my kitchen when two strange men came walking right into my house. most of my guests had left and a few of us were cleaning up. i looked at the men and realized i had no idea who they were. i smiled and asked them if they were lost...two of my male friends came in from the the next room and we all had a good laugh as we realized they were my neighbors friends and they had walked into the wrong house. honest to God, i said to myself, boy am i glad shogun wasn't at my party, he probably would have shot those guys dead.

i understand your postition on this issue and i think it's all pretty much been said already, but i have one question for you...how do you reconcile that mr horn's actions put those police officers in imminent danger?

 

[Care4all]

Care, I think the fault lies here:

It's quite possible that this man and his supporters are such wusses that they reasonably believe men fleeing from them are somehow a threat to them.

I would hope they fix this legislation. There needs to be a compelling reason that someone believes they are in danger, not just some whiney wussiness.

Well, there is this:

SUBCHAPTER B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY


§ 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by
Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor
reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law,
by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental
tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is
used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect
property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by
virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is
specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful
conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to
retreat before using it.
(d) The justification afforded by this section is available
if the actor reasonably believes:
(1) the court or governmental tribunal has
jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or
governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is
unlawful; or
(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a
public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though
the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

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.


§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

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.

I don't see mr horn meeting any of this....

And reasonable is defined by the texas congress as something that any NORMAL person would do the majority of the time....

MAYBE NORMAL, REASONABLE people in texas would normally be defiant of the police, and maybe NORMAL people in texas would KILL PEOPLE BY SHOOTING THEM IN THE BACK FOR NO APPARENT THREAT OF THEIR LIFE?

 

[Shogun]

shogun, i thought of you at midnight on the 4th of july, which was just after the initial discussion on this topic...it was midnight and several of my neighbors were celebrating the holiday. i was standing in my kitchen when two strange men came walking right into my house. most of my guests had left and a few of us were cleaning up. i looked at the men and realized i had no idea who they were. i smiled and asked them if they were lost...two of my male friends came in from the the next room and we all had a good laugh as we realized they were my neighbors friends and they had walked into the wrong house. honest to God, i said to myself, boy am i glad shogun wasn't at my party, he probably would have shot those guys dead.

i understand your postition on this issue and i think it's all pretty much been said already, but i have one question for you...how do you reconcile that mr horn's actions put those police officers in imminent danger?

indeed. that sounds just like what happened to Joe Horn! Now, if those two cats happened to have your TV in their hands and decided there could be no witnesses to their theft... I guess i'd have to go find a curtain to hide behind while a criminal decides to fuck you in the ass and then shoot you in the face.

gosh.. talk about witch hunting for anything to pin on Horn. There was no danger by the time the cops left their car since Horn had already taken care of the DIRTY WORK. I suggest you take a deep breath and get over it.


Oh, and dont forget to avoid castle doctrine and right to carry states like you would basic logic.



States with a Stand-your-ground Law

No duty to retreat anywhere.

* Alabama
* Arizona
* Florida
* Georgia
* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
* Oklahoma §21-1289.25
* South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
* Texas
* Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)

States with a Castle Law

No duty to retreat if in the home.

* Alaska
* Colorado (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.)
* Connecticut
* Hawaii (Retreat required ouside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
* Maine (Deadly force justified to teminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
* Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, seems to have incorporated the castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law.)
* Massachusetts
* Michigan (more recent law--Act 309 of 2006--does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done)
* Missouri (Extends Castle Doctrine to one's vehicle)
* Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 8th, 2008. Section 2901.09
* New Jersey ("Statues" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statues 2C:3-4, retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc.)
* North Carolina
* Rhode Island
* West Virginia
* Wyoming

[edit] States with weak Castle Law

The duty to retreat is not removed, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat.

* Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
* Illinois (Use of deadly force is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
* Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling. A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his dwelling.)
* Minnesota (Homicide justified to prevent the commission of a felony in the home)
* Montana (Deadly force justified to prevent felony in the home)
* Utah
* Washington

 

[Shogun]

What police report? All you've linked to is speculation by the press.

clearly, you haven't put as much effort into diving into the evidence as you could. Dont be lazy, rav.. it's not the worlds job to convince you or educate you. purposefully dragging your feet isn't impressive then or now.

 

[Shogun]

WHERE? Please give the link again bitch!

naaa.. I've already posted my evidence. Me and the Grand Jury will be over here laughing at your tears while making just the slightest attempt to educate yourself.

 

[Shogun]

I love how he keeps calling women bitches behind the safety of his keyboard, don't you?

SAFETY?

hA! yea.. ravi.. cause you'd totally do something about it otherwise, woulndlt you?


having a jodie foster moment today?


bitch?

 

[Care4all]

indeed. that sounds just like what happened to Joe Horn! Now, if those two cats happened to have your TV in their hands and decided there could be no witnesses to their theft... I guess i'd have to go find a curtain to hide behind while a criminal decides to fuck you in the ass and then shoot you in the face.

gosh.. talk about witch hunting for anything to pin on Horn. There was no danger by the time the cops left their car since Horn had already taken care of the DIRTY WORK. I suggest you take a deep breath and get over it.


Oh, and dont forget to avoid castle doctrine and right to carry states like you would basic logic.



States with a Stand-your-ground Law

No duty to retreat anywhere.

* Alabama
* Arizona
* Florida
* Georgia
* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
* Oklahoma §21-1289.25
* South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
* Texas
* Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)

States with a Castle Law

No duty to retreat if in the home.

* Alaska
* Colorado (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.)
* Connecticut
* Hawaii (Retreat required ouside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
* Maine (Deadly force justified to teminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
* Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, seems to have incorporated the castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law.)
* Massachusetts
* Michigan (more recent law--Act 309 of 2006--does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done)
* Missouri (Extends Castle Doctrine to one's vehicle)
* Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 8th, 2008. Section 2901.09
* New Jersey ("Statues" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statues 2C:3-4, retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc.)
* North Carolina
* Rhode Island
* West Virginia
* Wyoming

[edit] States with weak Castle Law

The duty to retreat is not removed, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat.

* Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
* Illinois (Use of deadly force is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
* Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling. A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his dwelling.)
* Minnesota (Homicide justified to prevent the commission of a felony in the home)
* Montana (Deadly force justified to prevent felony in the home)
* Utah
* Washington

What's this GARBAGE? NONE OF IT has anything to do with mr Horn...his house was NOT ENTERED, his house was not burglarized, the men were no threat to him....

you can't kill someone under ANY OF THESE CASTLE LAWS, unless the life of the Actor was threatened by Force....

learn to comprehend what you post and read.

 

[Ravi]

MAYBE NORMAL, REASONABLE people in texas would normally be defiant of the police, and maybe NORMAL people in texas would KILL PEOPLE BY SHOOTING THEM IN THE BACK FOR NO APPARENT THREAT OF THEIR LIFE?

Um...a lot of the people on this thread seem to think shooting fleeing criminals and killing them is normal.

It's funny that I read that the pol that pushed this law through said he didn't mean it to be written to excuse what Horn did. I'm waiting to see if they change the language, though I'm not sure how they will do it.