Because you can't come up with a supportable, reasoned argument against them.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars
- Thread starter BrianH
- Start date
§ 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.
Was there a threat of being shot or killed by the burglars? NO, so this does not give him authorization to even use force, let alone Deadly 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;
This doesn't fit for Mr Horn because the perps did not enter ANY OCCUPIED home via using force, (a gun as example) and the home was not occupied....mr horn knew this...told the Police dispatch such.
(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
the perps were not trying to kidnap mr horn or his neighbor, so this does not fit or give Mr horn permission either.
(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
again, none of this was taking place, no aggravated assault of anyone was taking place.
(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.
None, of the above pertains to Mr horn's scenario!
===============================
§ 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
which he wasn't justified in using force, let alone deadly force according to the law above in 9.31
(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
this was NOT the case with Mr Horn.
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
this was not the situation with mr Horn.
(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;
This was mot the case with Mr Horn.
(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
This was not the case with Mr horn's situation either.
(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.
This also was not the case with Mr Horn.
(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.
================================================
WHERE was Mr Horn justified in legally using Force or Deadly force?
When you pull out only 9.41. 9.42, 9.43 and do not use 9;31 and 9.32 which gives the sole reasons that are legally justifiable in using force or deadly force, you are skirting the law and twisting it to make this man seem innocent of actions of deadly force that were and are CLEARLY NOT JUSTIFIED.
AMEN!
Care
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.
Was there a threat of being shot or killed by the burglars? NO, so this does not give him authorization to even use force, let alone Deadly 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;
This doesn't fit for Mr Horn because the perps did not enter ANY OCCUPIED home via using force, (a gun as example) and the home was not occupied....mr horn knew this...told the Police dispatch such.
(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
the perps were not trying to kidnap mr horn or his neighbor, so this does not fit or give Mr horn permission either.
(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
again, none of this was taking place, no aggravated assault of anyone was taking place.
(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.
None, of the above pertains to Mr horn's scenario!
===============================
§ 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
which he wasn't justified in using force, let alone deadly force according to the law above in 9.31
(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
this was NOT the case with Mr Horn.
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
this was not the situation with mr Horn.
(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;
This was mot the case with Mr Horn.
(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
This was not the case with Mr horn's situation either.
(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.
This also was not the case with Mr Horn.
(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.
================================================
WHERE was Mr Horn justified in legally using Force or Deadly force?
When you pull out only 9.41. 9.42, 9.43 and do not use 9;31 and 9.32 which gives the sole reasons that are legally justifiable in using force or deadly force, you are skirting the law and twisting it to make this man seem innocent of actions of deadly force that were and are CLEARLY NOT JUSTIFIED.
AMEN!
Care
My abortion analogy is a perfectly valid one. Care to explain why it is not?
The point is, "what if" is a possibility when it happens. Do you know if...
okay, you wanna play the "what if" game...?
let's kill two birds with one stone with your abortion analogy and let's say...what if that burgler's mother was a crack ho and people like you guilted her into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. what if the government had the authority to force her to carry that baby to term?
then what if that boy was raised in squalor by his loving grandmother. and what if one day, the crack head ho steals grandma's welfare check that she uses to pay for her prescription medicine...what if the grandson, (who was not aborted 20 years ago), desperately wants to help grandma get her medicine and when his friend suggests they should go rob the house of that no good bastard who pistol whipped his mother last month...what if they break into that man's house and steal all the gold jewelry to pay for grandma's prescriptions? what if the neighbor, who is not imminently threatened by the robbers, decides to dispense justice because he clearly judges them to be worthless human beings. what if he shoots them dead on the lawn, essentially aborting their lives later than sooner? what if?
i would really like to know how you reconcile these "what ifs" and still try to claim the moral high ground...
The authorities disagree with you.WHERE was Mr Horn justified in legally using Force or Deadly force?
That makes you wrong.
Last edited:
The authorities disagree with you.
That makes you wrong.
No, not necessarily M14, the Picked by Texas prosecutor's with an agenda Grand jury, could have gotten it wrong, JUST AS THE JURORS got it WRONG in the OJ case....
to act as though jurors don't make any mistakes is absolutely absurd and shows purposeful ignorance....imo.
care
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,927
- 0
- Banned
- #586
However there's no way to know in this case since the facts are not available to the public and therefore, you just don't know what happened. The grand jury was privy to all the information, and chose not to pursue it.
Barring corruption, we don't second-guess juries. Unless more information comes to light (and I really doubt it will) it's a done deal.
And if what's his face thinks aborting people based upon what they MIGHT do as adults is "moral high ground" he has a serious problem.
Barring corruption, we don't second-guess juries. Unless more information comes to light (and I really doubt it will) it's a done deal.
And if what's his face thinks aborting people based upon what they MIGHT do as adults is "moral high ground" he has a serious problem.
However there's no way to know in this case since the facts are not available to the public and therefore, you just don't know what happened. The grand jury was privy to all the information, and chose not to pursue it.
Barring corruption, we don't second-guess juries. Unless more information comes to light (and I really doubt it will) it's a done deal.
And if what's his face thinks aborting people based upon what they MIGHT do as adults is "moral high ground" he has a serious problem.
Yes Allie, I have mentioned several times throughout this thread, that there could be more evidence than we are not in possesion of, or has not been reported which could give cause for the grand jury's position, but at this point, with all the evidence that has been released on this, ESPECIALLY the live recording of the entire incident from Mr.Horn's perspective, along with what i have posted of Texas LAW, it doesn't appear to be so....
And yes, we are suppose to believe the results of our juries in a trial under most all circumstances, BUT THIS WAS NOT A JURY, this was a grand jury that was deciding on whether a jury would be necessary....a grand jury is the tool of a prosecutor, there is not any representation from both sides of the argument or crime with the same checks and balances that must take place in a TRIAL with a jury....
I am NOT saying for certain that mr Horn is guilty as hell, I am saying that there was enough evidence shown, that SHOULD HAVE GIVEN REASON, for the Grand Jury to say that Mr horn's circumstance and case should AT LEAST go to a trial by Jury.
By the Grand Jury not doing this, opens the door to a "shoot and kill for all, with no reason" within the texas law as writen. In other words, in my opinion the Texas grand jury was negligent in their duties and makes the current law, UNCLEAR and not defined as it was writen, but opened for MORE haphazzard and needless killings that I feel texas law never allowed in the first place, even with the new provisions writen in to it this past se[tember of 07.
There is nothing in Texas law, of which i have posted in its ENTIRETY here, that justifies using deadly force and killing the unarmed suspects in the back while fleaing, in the circumstance of Mr Horn. NOTHING. Texas Law 9 has to be read in full, not just one chapter at a time....and when read IN FULL, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR mR hORN USING DEADLY FORCE, BASED ON TEXAS LAW.....and using the disclaimer that we may not know everything.....
People here keep trying to say texas law justified this and I have asked numerous times for people to show me HOW and where texas law has justified this and the answers I get, are basically, "It just does" without any of these people reading and discerning the Law in FULL....the whole chapter 9, including definitions to all subsections regarding when deadly force is justifiable according to Law.
care
Last edited:
That you disagree with them doesnt make them wrong.No, not necessarily M14, the Picked by Texas prosecutor's with an agenda Grand jury, could have gotten it wrong...
In fact, that you disagree with them makes YOU wrong, as -they- are the party that gets to decide.
Steerpike
VIP Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 1,847
- 182
- 83
By the Grand Jury not doing this, opens the door to a "shoot and kill for all, with no reason" within the texas law as writen.
This is nuts. If you think the grand jury opened the door for people just walking around Texas shooting each other, you're insane.
Odd. I read it to say he was within his rights to do exactly that.There is nothing in Texas law, of which i have posted in its ENTIRETY here, that justifies using deadly force and killing the unarmed suspects in the back while fleaing,
The Grand Jury apparently agrees.
Last edited:
nomdeplume
Member
- Jun 18, 2008
- 378
- 13
- 16
Care and Glori, you both need to take basic logic classes, and perhaps some reading comprehension classes.
I've never seen so much non-sequitur and assorted moronic nonsense.
The law is blindgly clear that Horn is not guilt of any crime. In fact, he was merely excersizing one the rights granted to him by the state of Texas.
Just as I don't like women who abort children, you don't like a guy that guns down criminal aliens.
But if you think you stand on some moral high ground, you are on some good fucking liberal kool aid.
I've never seen so much non-sequitur and assorted moronic nonsense.
The law is blindgly clear that Horn is not guilt of any crime. In fact, he was merely excersizing one the rights granted to him by the state of Texas.
Just as I don't like women who abort children, you don't like a guy that guns down criminal aliens.
But if you think you stand on some moral high ground, you are on some good fucking liberal kool aid.
did mr horn meet the justification standard in texas law to use deadly force?
the answer to that question, is NO, he did not....meet the reqired justification to use deadly force in 9.31 or 9.32.....the JUSTIFICATION clauses in those 2 laws HAD TO BE MET BEFORE, 9.41, 9.42, or 9.43 could come in to play is how I read it, which means that the perps HAD TO SHOW the possibility of using illegal DEADLY FORCE TOWARDS Mr horn or his neighbor, or anyone in mr horns house...., or they had to be kidnapping him or someone else, before he was justified BY LAW to use deadly force against them.
i posted both the Texas legal justification for the use of force and deadly force that are part of this law several times in this thread....no one, absolutely no one has taken 9.31 and 9.32 and shown where it says, mr horn's actions were reasonable or justified when it comes to his use of deadly force...imo
NO ONE has shown how mr horn met the laws justification standards in 9.31/32.
the answer to that question, is NO, he did not....meet the reqired justification to use deadly force in 9.31 or 9.32.....the JUSTIFICATION clauses in those 2 laws HAD TO BE MET BEFORE, 9.41, 9.42, or 9.43 could come in to play is how I read it, which means that the perps HAD TO SHOW the possibility of using illegal DEADLY FORCE TOWARDS Mr horn or his neighbor, or anyone in mr horns house...., or they had to be kidnapping him or someone else, before he was justified BY LAW to use deadly force against them.
i posted both the Texas legal justification for the use of force and deadly force that are part of this law several times in this thread....no one, absolutely no one has taken 9.31 and 9.32 and shown where it says, mr horn's actions were reasonable or justified when it comes to his use of deadly force...imo
NO ONE has shown how mr horn met the laws justification standards in 9.31/32.
It's a great law.
the LAW is fine and good, mr horn imo, DID NOT meet the justification standard to use force or deadly force.
THE LAW IS NOT a free kill for all......allie.
matty
SUMbodyweedemOUT
- Jun 17, 2008
- 610
- 23
- 16
Yeah, I'm positive. If you go into court and try to bring a Constitutional claim (like due process) against a private party it will get tossed out because there is no "state action." The only part of the Constitution that constrains private individuals is the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude.
You could try to challenge the law on due process grounds (which would fail) but you couldn't bring any type of Constitutional claims against Mr. Horn.
when you break into attorneyspeak.
Care and Glori, you both need to take basic logic classes, and perhaps some reading comprehension classes.
I've never seen so much non-sequitur and assorted moronic nonsense.
The law is blindgly clear that Horn is not guilt of any crime. In fact, he was merely excersizing one the rights granted to him by the state of Texas.
Just as I don't like women who abort children, you don't like a guy that guns down criminal aliens.
But if you think you stand on some moral high ground, you are on some good fucking liberal kool aid.
maybe you should check your own reading comprehension skills, oh fraudulent one...and for the record, i aced logic. 
In your opinion, which is not the opinion that matters.Did mr horn meet the justification standard in texas law to use deadly force?
The answer to that question, is NO, he did not....
The opinion that matters disagrees with you, making you wrong.
Because you can't come up with a supportable, reasoned argument against them.
Hardly anything I need to do.
This cowardly gun queer who shot fleeing burgulars in the back is all the argument one needs to make agains gun queers.
Gun owners are not gun queer, by the way.
Gun owners are merely people who own guns for their utility, and who understand how to use those tools responsibly.
Hardly anything I need to do.
This cowardly gun queer who shot fleeing burgulars in the back is all the argument one needs to make agains gun queers.
Gun owners are not gun queer, by the way.
Gun owners are merely people who own guns for their utility, and who understand how to use those tools responsibly.
If I catch you robbing my neighbors house I will call the cops, if they tell me they can not get there in time I will arm myself and stop them. It is a duty of us all to protect each other, it is the only way society can stay functional.
If one of the criminals charges me, you can bet your ass I will shoot them. If I order them to stop and they flee WITH the property I will also fire at them if I think I can hit them and not my neighbors.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 261
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 325
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 184
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 548
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 87
- Views
- 884
- Replies
- 75
- Views
- 438
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8213
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-