Rack the fuck out of Texas.

[smackaholic]

Smackaholic, if a case establishes a new legal precedent, that precedent is then in effect in ALL situations, not only in white middle-class neighborhoods where dark-skinned fellas with tat's and bandanas are entering a home.

If you listened to Horn's 911 call you heard some very important facts come out.

- Almost from the beginning of the call he said he was going to go out and shoot them, despite hs life and his property very clearly being in NO peril at all.

- He was told by the dispatcher, you know, the guy who's trained to handle these situations, NOT to go outside at least 14 times ... 14 fucking times.

- He didn't even know his neighbor, and he told the dispatcher that.

- He had given a solid description of both men to the dispatcher, including the clothing one of them was wearing.

- He said early on in the call, "I'M GOING TO GO KILL THEM!!"

WTF, dude??

- He shot them both in the fucking BACK and killed them on the spot.

The police, you know, the other trained professionals, were on the way, and Horn knew this.
The trained police were fully advised of what the situation at the hosue was.
Do you think they need to have Billy Joe Trigger Finger out there complicating matters ... maybe significantly??

Bace's example has merit.
What if you live in a 'mixed' neighborhood ... some whiteys and some darkies.
You're out walking your dog at 2:00 a.m.
You see somebody crawling in a side window of a house.

You gonna cap him?

You better, he might be fixin' to do some harm to some people in there.

Or not??

This jury decision blows totally.

If dude had sat in his living room and plunked them with a deer rifle without so much as a "hey you". I might, possibly see your point. He didn't. He walked out there and said "freeze, you shitstains". They didn't. So he froze them for fukking good.

As for the 9 dollar an hour 911 operator, wtf do you expect them to do? Tell him to go out there and start shooting. They are taught to play CYA.

And did the cops inform him when exactly the cops would arrive? Ofcourse not.

Rack him, yet again.

[BSmack]

Maybe the next bunch of crooks caught red handed by a citizen will be smart and stand fucking still like they were ordered to do.

Yikes!

Bri's turning into a conservative in front of my very eyes.

That happens when you get older, own a house mortgage, have children and so forth. Just never figured you'd get so far, so fast. Rack the transformation. Next thing you know, you'll be voting Republican.

I've always been a believer in the 2nd Amendment. When I was a teenager I shot in an indoor .22 caliber league every winter. And every fall I would go deer and pheasant hunting with my father. At the gun club, in between competition rounds, one of our favorite activities was to read the monthly "Armed Citizen" feature in the NRA's "American Rifleman" magazine where the editors would compile stories of armed, law abiding citizens who had either fought off or otherwise deterred criminals by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. I have always opposed gun bans on this board and in real life and always will.

That being said, in the balance I am still more of a Democrat than I ever will be a Republican.

[rozy]

You have no right, in the state of Texas, to protect property by use of deadly force in broad freaking daylight. And I certainly, including my days as a cop, have never been under immediate physical threat by someone facing the other freaking direction. The grand jury completely ignored the law. So as much as I would love to disagree with Tart and Bace, they are spot on here. And the day I'm in agreement with Bace, Quanell, Invictus, and the 5th Ward is the day Joe Horn needs to shotgun my ass as well. UN.....fortunately, the truth lies more on that side of the aisle this time. Though, not due to any stinking, overused, irrelevant race card. (I know I'm splitting hairs)

Now, if I heard wrong, or read wrong, and this happened while the Celestial Solar Being was sleeping and the Great Light was in China then I reserve the right to change my opinion. Otherwise, gotta RACK Tart per usualm.

And 99% of the occupants of this thread would NOT do what Horn did. Though cloaked in internet anonymity all will say otherwise.

If everyone involved would just come right out and say, "Hey, we just ain't gonna send Grandpa ta jail for offin' a coupla thievin' wetbacks, law be dadgummed" then I actually would have a lot more respect for the situation than people actually thinking there was anything remotely lawful about this dude's actions.

Funny how the S.C. says no to the Death Chamber for the Diegos of the world, yet nailing burglars rocks if it is a citizen.

[rozy]

Sorry, 'tart. If I go out, confront somebody breaking into my neighbors' house (that looked like those guys) and they come at me - I'd go Joe Horn in .2 seconds.

Might go to jail, but I think I'd trust my intuition on something like that.

Would you shoot them in the back?

[RumpleForeskin]

You have no right, in the state of Texas, to protect property by use of deadly force in broad freaking daylight.

You're a fucking moron.

§ 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.

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.


§ 9.43. 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.

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.

[poptart]

Rumps, Horn's deadly shooting might be justifiable under 9.41 -- if it were his own property.
But it wasn't.

So on to 9.42., where in this case the clear nighttime criteria is not present.
He lost his case ... except, as rozy said, the jury ignored the law.

For 9.43 to be relevant, both 9.41 and 9.42 criteria must be met, which they were not.
On top of that, Horn did not even know his neighbor, let alone dream up a way to prove that he was somehow resposnsible for the property in any way.


If Horn HAD to go outside, which he didn't, he should have shot them both in the leg or lower body.

The good ol' boy fucked up and he should be sittin' in a dark cell for a good long time.

[RadioFan]

Try reading the article someday, you handwringing dipshit.

Sue me, bitch.

Their legal status has about as much to do with the merits of this case as the price of brandy in Orange County.

And take your handwringing comment and stick it up your ass.

[Mister Bushice]

This whole story is useless to me unless I hear that he pulled a cell phone out of a tree and called the incident in.

~tweeeet!

There's been a back story challenge on the tree cell phone call reference.

[Dan Vogel]

I saw this story on Nightline a while back and it was pretty sickening from every angle. The illegals need to get their documentation but they didn't deserve to be blown away like somebody slapping a mosquito on their arm. All life is precious and unless you want to walk a mile in the shoes of another person then it's not your duty to judge them with death like Mr Horn did. But I understand his frustration and I think he just snapped over it. I don't think he should do jail time but I do think a large dose of community service and maybe probation is in order. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the racial tension won't rise anymore from all of this.

[RumpleForeskin]

Under 9.42 3 (B) it became a substantial risk when they ran onto his property.

[poptart]

Rumps, the very last word of 942(2)(B) is ... and, which means that criteria 1,2 and 3 must be met.

(2) is just simply not met, so whether or not (3) was met is a mute point.

But for what it's worth to the discussion (nothing, really), the case for (3) having been met anyway is extremely weak.
Horn faced no substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, and even if he did it was only because he chose to go outside to "KILL 'EM" after being told NOT to go outside 14 times.

I understand the emotional pull in this case is for the 'good guy' citizen over the illegal thug @zzholes, but Joe Horn was off the chain and his actions are just not defendable under the laws that are in place.

[Invictus]

And the day I'm in agreement with Bace, Quanell, Invictus, and the 5th Ward is the day Joe Horn needs to shotgun my ass as well.

Please show me where I disagreed with or agreed with this verdict. I posted twice in this thread and neither time did I give an opinion about the grand jury's verdict.

Reading carefully is always fresh.

[rozy]

No.

'Twas this one, Vic. I should have been more clear.

[Adelpiero]

rack this ^^^^

[Invictus]

No.

What the Fukkk has this country sunk to when we allow kniggers to infilerate our internet with these types of responses?




Hey Knigger, it's "NO SIR!" to you!

Pickle, hey good to hear from ya!

Listen, I'm going to be in town Labor Day weekend for a picnic at Rennebohm Park and I would love to see you. Make sure you let your mom know I will be in the area. She will be glad to renew old acquaintances and to also let me rape and defile her wrinkly, saggy body. Feel free to come along to our tryst; I will need someone to wipe the santorum from my dick and to dab the sweat and blood from your mother's shredded anus.

Maybe afterwards, we can hoist a beer or two at the Rathskellar while the ER docs at Meriter try to push your mother's cunt back inside her.

You can pm me, no one will know but you and I.

[velocet]

Pickle,

Let a fellow white man help you out here.

This and past boards are smack venues. We here are Smackers first and foremost.

That is not to minimize or belittle one's other aspects of identity in terms of relation, nationality, geography or profession. Indeed, these things can be of good use in other posting contexts.
Think of these other aspects of identity as special knowledge.


Examples:

please note: what is listed as a special knowledge is not necessarily the only thing that the individual has in that capacity... just what has been shared with the boards.

Dins- Smacker. special knowledge: U&L
88- Smacker. special knowledge: law
mvscal- Smacker. special knowledge: military
The Whistle is Screaming- Smacker. special knowledge: Judaism
Sudden Sam- Smacker. special knowledge: motorcycles
Papa Willie- Smacker. special knowledge: Southern Rock
Invictus- Smacker. special knowledge: H.N.I.C.
Revlimiter- Smacker. special knowledge: cars
Martyred- Smacker. special knowledge: computers
mikey- Smacker. special knowledge: environmental science


No doubt you concentrate on what is presented as each poster's special knowledge, which is your failing. The first tag following each nic above should be your major consideration in all interactions. Perhaps if someone hipped you out to this 8 fukking years ago it might have saved you a lot of bannings, pile-ons and heaps of ridicule. You're like the rodeo cowboy trying to ride the bull but sitting on it backwards facing its ass. Wakey, fella.





velocet

[Mister Bushice]

Rumps, Horn's deadly shooting might be justifiable under 9.41 -- if it were his own property.
But it wasn't.

It was as soon as they stepped foot on his property, which makes 9.41 justifiable.

So on to 9.42., where in this case the clear nighttime criteria is not present.
He lost his case ... except, as rozy said, the jury ignored the law.

rozy was also clueless as to the existence of the above laws, so he's dismissed as any sort of legal expert.

For 9.43 to be relevant, both 9.41 and 9.42 criteria must be met, which they were not.
On top of that, Horn did not even know his neighbor, let alone dream up a way to prove that he was somehow resposnsible for the property in any way.

9.42 would not apply, but you're wrong on the "Both" criteria. It clearly says "or"

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:

If Horn HAD to go outside, which he didn't, he should have shot them both in the leg or lower body.

The good ol' boy fucked up and he should be sittin' in a dark cell for a good long time.

You don't have the whole story, you have an account of it. The jury came back with this verdict based on the whole story. The laws listed above supports it enough to at least listen to corroborating evidence, which was given by ringside seater undercover detective barney fife, whose gun was stuck in his holster, and his car door wouldn't open, apparently. That barney. Always messin' up.

[PSUFAN]

Humpback whales. special knowledge: underwater sonar.

Stanley "HumpBlack" Pikkle. Special knowledge: moaning under Nubians.

[RumpleForeskin]

Pickle needs a customized title, PUS.

Should I start a thread?

[rozy]

Bushice, you are missing a very key word in 9.41. Damn, but it has to suck to get schooled by such a non-expert as I.

Force does not equal Deadly Force. If he wanted to go kick their asses for running on his yard, that is HIS decision and the consequences are on his shoulders. So 9.41 does NOT apply here. He used
DEADLY Force so time to move to 9.42 which deals with DEADLY Force.

It was BROAD FREAKING DAYLIGHT. 9.42 does NOT apply here.

The absence of 9.41 and 9.42 renders 9.43 to NOT apply here.

Lots of fucking retards in this thread. I guess I shouldn't have expected otherwise.

Yep, and the list keeps growing.

[rozy]

Jury nullification is perfectly acceptable democratic tradition.

Absolutely. And let's call it what it is here.

If a jury of Horn's peers drawn from the local community sees fit to no bill the case, then it's none of your motherfucking business.

Anything that happens in my local community, especially application of law, is my motherfucking business.

Why should anybody give a shit about those two fuck ups? You steal shit, you might get your fucking head blown off. What's the problem here?

Practical application of lawlessness. Ends justifying the means. Anarchy. Chaos. But, hey, gotta give you props for being one of the only to willingly call this what it was. However, surely, you are not advocating liberal interpretations and applications of law, eh?

[Mister Bushice]

Bushice, you are missing a very key word in 9.41. Damn, but it has to suck to get schooled by such a non-expert as I.

You're not "schooling" anyone. You didn't even know about the fucking law until it was pointed out to you, idiot, and now you're strutting around "schooling" others on it? .

Force does not equal Deadly Force. If he wanted to go kick their asses for running on his yard, that is HIS decision and the consequences are on his shoulders. So 9.41 does NOT apply here. He used
DEADLY Force so time to move to 9.42 which deals with DEADLY Force.

Oh? and you've been elected the arbiter that defines what "Force" is, or how the court interprets the REST of the law that you don't know shit about?

From Texas Law Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. :

when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;

If it isn't clearly defined, it is interpreted as written. THAT is what the Jury did. Good thing you weren't on it.

It was BROAD FREAKING DAYLIGHT. 9.42 does NOT apply here.

No SHIT. that's what I said, parrot.

The absence of 9.41 and 9.42 renders 9.43 to NOT apply here.

Lots of fucking retards in this thread. I guess I shouldn't have expected otherwise.

Yep, and the list keeps growing.

Yeah. Enjoy your trip on the short bus, and be sure to make up an excuse not to be a juror next time you're called for duty.

[Dinsdale]

You didn't even know about the fucking law until it was pointed out to you, idiot, and now you're strutting around "schooling" others on it?

Just because jokes are more fun when shared...


I'm laughing with you, Rozy.


VERY hard.

[rozy]

Bushice, you are missing a very key word in 9.41. Damn, but it has to suck to get schooled by such a non-expert as I.

You're not "schooling" anyone. You didn't even know about the fucking law until it was pointed out to you, idiot, and now you're strutting around "schooling" others on it? .

Force does not equal Deadly Force. If he wanted to go kick their asses for running on his yard, that is HIS decision and the consequences are on his shoulders. So 9.41 does NOT apply here. He used
DEADLY Force so time to move to 9.42 which deals with DEADLY Force.

Oh? and you've been elected the arbiter that defines what "Force" is, or how the court interprets the REST of the law that you don't know shit about?

From Texas Law Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. :

when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;

If it isn't clearly defined, it is interpreted as written. THAT is what the Jury did. Good thing you weren't on it.

It was BROAD FREAKING DAYLIGHT. 9.42 does NOT apply here.

No SHIT. that's what I said, parrot.

The absence of 9.41 and 9.42 renders 9.43 to NOT apply here.

Lots of fucking retards in this thread. I guess I shouldn't have expected otherwise.

Yep, and the list keeps growing.

Yeah. Enjoy your trip on the short bus, and be sure to make up an excuse not to be a juror next time you're called for duty.

You have gone an entirely different direction, now. So now we are going to discuss defending person rather than property. Cool. He shot them in the back. Next?

[rozy]

Practical application of lawlessness. Ends justifying the means. Anarchy. Chaos. But, hey, gotta give you props for being one of the only to willingly call this what it was. However, surely, you are not advocating liberal interpretations and applications of law, eh?

Killing thieves will result in anarchy and chaos? Are you out of your fucking mind?

There was nothing liberal about the interpretation of that law. The purpose of the law is quite clear. The letter of the law means absolutely nothing to me. Quite honestly, I have nothing but contempt for "The Law." I'm far more concerned with justice and justice was meted to those two motherfucking scumbags. The community is a better and safer place as a result. That is the bottom line. Any law which does not serve that end should be ignored. Slavish devotion to the "letter of the law" is a rocket ride to tyranny. That's why we have juries and guns in this country.

Why do you hate democracy, you chicken-dicked cocksmoker?

Absolute malarkey. But at least you're consistent.

[rozy]

You didn't even know about the fucking law until it was pointed out to you, idiot, and now you're strutting around "schooling" others on it?

Just because jokes are more fun when shared...


I'm laughing with you, Rozy.


VERY hard.

Dude, it's like freaking tee-ball.

[rozy]

Absolute malarkey. But at least you're consistent.

Break it down for us. Demonstrate how killing thieves is going to result in "anarchy and chaos", you fucking drama queen.

You're being simplistic and you know it, you fucking simpleton.

[rozy]

It was your point not mine. Horn was not killing people at random. He did not blow away neighborhood kids because they were on his lawn. He personally witnessed the crime and killed the two thieves responsible.

Wasn't my point even in the slightest. YOU errantly chose to interpret the statement in the simpleton manner that you saw fit. YOU are the one chiseling this down solely to "killing thieves". So don't put words in my mouth, moron.

Now explain how armed citizens killing criminals in the act will result in chaos and anarchy.

Well, if that is what I had said, in those words, I'd have a problem wouldn't I? Since I didn't I will just continue having fun mocking your 4th grade logic.

Obviously the police aren't up to the task. What is the community supposed to do? Just sit there and take it?

And shooting 2 criminals in the back in broad daylight in violation of state law is the answer?

Fuck that and fuck you.

Fuckable Mexicans have long black hair, black eyes, real boobs, and pussies. Self-described red-headed streetspics with no clit don't rate. So keep your propositions to yourself.

[Mister Bushice]

Dude, it's like freaking tee-ball.

No shit.

You have no right, in the state of Texas, to protect property by use of deadly force in broad freaking daylight.

District Attorney Ken Magidson said he couldn't comment on the grand jury's secret proceedings.

"In Texas, a person has a right to use deadly force in certain circumstances to protect property ... and that's basically what the grand jurors had to deal with," Magidson said.

Horn's defense hinged on his assertion that he fired out of fear for his life, making the shooting justifiable under Texas law. The law also permits the use of deadly force to protect property under some circumstances.

Tee-Ball game over.

This is too easy. Lets play without the Tee next time, if you can. :)

[rozy]

It was daylight.

He shot them in the back.

Both of these are without controversy.

Simple

So, was it to protect property, Bushlice, or to protect himself? You keep quoting one side to try and validate the other.

Did he fire to protect himself or property? If property, he violated the law. If himself, he shot them in the back.

Which is it? You're dead either way.

The game'll be over when I get to 10 and call the mercy rule. Til then, at my own whim, I will continue to laugh at you watching another of my bombs fly over your head into the stands.

[Mister Bushice]

It was daylight.

A non-issue since his felt his life was threatened.

He shot them in the back.

Both of these are without controversy.

Simple

You? Simple
This? Not simple.

From the article you also missed:

When Horn confronted the men in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, police have said. However, the men ignored his order to freeze.

Authorities have said one man ran toward Horn but had angled away toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

So, was it to protect property, Bushlice, or to protect himself? You keep quoting one side to try and validate the other.

Both issues were on the table, dimwit, and the law addresses them both. Did you even read what his defense claim was?

Did he fire to protect himself or property? If property, he violated the law. If himself, he shot them in the back.

Seriously, read much? I even bolded it for you. Let me add an underline:

Horn's defense hinged on his assertion that he fired out of fear for his life, making the shooting justifiable under Texas law.

Which is it? You're dead either way.

Me? Where exactly? In the court of Rozy the armchair lawyer, or in the grand jury room?

The game'll be over when I get to 10 and call the mercy rule. Til then, at my own whim, I will continue to laugh at you watching another of my bombs fly over your head into the stands.

And when you wake up to find it was all just a dream in your own little pointed head, remember these three little words:

VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.

[Jerkovich]

Shot them in the back, ass, head, balls, dick, shins, or where the fuck ever. WTF cares, as long as he shot their ass dead.

[Mister Bushice]

Your opinion of state of law doesn't count for shit.

And his knowledge of it IS shit.

[BSmack]

It was daylight.

If ever a law needed to be re-written that is it. What the fuck does daylight have to do with any other part of that statute? That "nighttime" clause is the living, breathing definition of arbitrary and capricious. And if the jury deliberately ignored it, then props to them for not putting the law in front of common sense.

He shot them in the back.

You keep harping on how these guys were shot in the back without mentioning that there was eyewitness testimony that the thieves reacted to the order to stop by first running TOWARDS Horn. It was only at the last second that they turned tail. It is not necessarily unreasonable for Horn to anticipate that they might again try to rush towards him in a hostile manner. The thieves had a chance to save their lives and blew it by getting cute. Fuck em.

[poptart]

RACKS all around for rozy.

The jury flat out ignored the rule of law and made a decison based on emotion and what 'feels' right to them.

This is ALL spin by Bushice and mvscal, and mvscal is making a complete 'tard of himself with his take that we're better off with a jury IGNORING THE LAW ... because they want to do what is ... right.

He'd be the first one in here pissing his pants if a jury ignored the rule of law and came down with a 'liberal' ruling that he didn't agree with.

No doubt about that.

Get out of the thread, 'tard, you're a total fraud.

[Mister Bushice]

This is ALL spin by Bushice.

I quoted the DA. I quoted Texas State Law. There's no spin there, just interpretation of the law, and at the end of the day there was enough there for the jury to decide the way they did.

It's so easy to dismiss them as "Idiots", but you weren't there. You're the one making a decision on emotion, not law. You're basing your decision on information you read in a newspaper article!

Juries will ALWAYS be given instructions, and they have to make a decision based on those instructions.

Will opinion play a part in it? As long as humans are jurors it will.

[poptart]

In his 911 call, Horn cited a newly enacted Texas law, the "castle doctrine," which authorizes the use of deadly force during a home invasion. But Sen. Jeff Wentworth, who wrote the law, said it did not apply to Horn's case. "It was not an issue in this case other than him saying incorrectly that he understood it to mean he could protect his neighbor's property," said Wentworth, R-San Antonio. He said the castle doctrine simply didn't apply because, although the burglars were running across Horn's lawn, Horn's home wasn't under siege — his neighbor's home was. "It comes from the saying 'A man's home is his castle,' " Wentworth said. "But this wasn't his castle."


He had ZERO legal authority to use deadly force in protection of property in this case.

If you want to take the spin path that he was was within his right to use deadly force because his person was at risk of serious bodily injury then you better pause and remember (aside from the fact that he was told 14 times not to go outside) that Joe Horn shot not one, but two dudes in the back.

If one of them 'ran at him' ... and that is justification for Horn killing him, then the guy should have taken a bullet in the front ... or at the very least the side.

Once the guy turns and is headed AWAY from you, you can no longer be said to be at serious risk of bodily injury.
This is not a difficult concept.


Shot in the back.

TWO of 'em.



"I'M GONNA GO KILL 'EM!!!!

[poptart]

I don't like to 'side' with shitbags, Buttsy, that's true.

The genesis of their being off'd was their OWN decision to engage in criminal activity.
Believe me, I get that, and I know rozy does too.

However, if you thumb your nose at the rule of law you have nothing.
How do you feel when a jury ignores law and comes back with some kind of wack 'liberal' ruling?
I'm guessing not too good.

Horn had no authority to impose the death penalty on the shitbags.

So fuck him.
He should sit in the can for a while.

[smackaholic]

Another question, pahtah.

Would you have had a problem with this dude if he had went out there, told them to freeze and they complied and went to jail?

Would you send him up the river then?

Prolly not.

Because that is basically what he did. The fatal mistake was made by the shitbags in not complying.

And for rozy or whoever that was that said he should have just winged them, that is utter bullshit. If you are gonna shoot, it's center of mass. Right in the middle of the fukking chest.

Suppose one of those shitstains had a handgun tucked in his belt. Shoot him in the left foot and he is quite likely to pull it out and shoot back

BTW, were either of these fukks armed? Not that it matters, since, you have pretty much got to assume that a burglar will be.

[Mister Bushice]

If you want to take the spin path that he was was within his right to use deadly force because his person was at risk of serious bodily injury then you better pause and remember (aside from the fact that he was told 14 times not to go outside) that Joe Horn shot not one, but two dudes in the back.

If one of them 'ran at him' ... and that is justification for Horn killing him, then the guy should have taken a bullet in the front ... or at the very least the side.

Any you know exactly where they were shot - how?




Wait for it....






Ooh-ooh-ooooh!!

It was from a newspaper article, because you weren't there, nor were you in the courtroom listening to the evidence. ~hayank hayank hayank hayank~

From the coroners office:

autopsy results released by the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office on Tuesday show the two burglars who were fatally shot by Horn outside his Pasadena home were struck in the back, shoulders and arms by buckshot . The results affirm accounts of the shooting earlier disclosed by investigators. The buckshot hit Ortiz in the back of both shoulders and elsewhere on the left side of his back, according to his autopsy. The pellets penetrated his left lung, heart, spleen, aortic root, left jugular vein and other areas, the Medical Examiner's Office reported.

The pellets exited his body in his left upper chest, the left side of his neck and his left shoulder.

Torres had buckshot wounds in the left lateral chest and posterolateral torso, left posterior arm and other areas.

The pellets injured his spleen, transverse colon, left lung, heart and left wrist.

Two things. or five.


Three, sir. <--- MPHG ref. asswipes

1. It's a fucking SHOTGUN. Do you have any idea what the dispersal range of that weapon is?
2. It appears they weren't exactly dead center in the back. So were they turning away, or towards the gun?
5. no. 3. It all happen in a split second, two dirtbags and one scared 61 old man attempting to defend himself from two criminals.

And you expect him to be a marksman that should be able to "Hit them in the leg"? With a shotgun?

Once the guy turns and is headed AWAY from you, you can no longer be said to be at serious risk of bodily injury.
This is not a difficult concept.

Unless in those scant few seconds when the threat was obvious and the decision to shoot was made, the dirtbags turned away when they realized they were not going to get over.

Not that it would have mattered. It wasn't a pistol.

Shot in the back.

And the side.

TWO of 'em.

Against one.

"I'M GONNA GO KILL 'EM!!!!

Lets hope you NEVER Have to make that kind of a decision but if you do, you protect yourself, your house your home and your family AT ALL COSTS.

War the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND USE THEM WHEN NECESSARY.