PDA

View Full Version : Pasadena, TX shooting official report..utube


Bongos
12-08-2007, 7:09 PM
This is just the report from the Utube video a few weeks ago, apparently there was an undercover police that witness the whole thing and could not react in time

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in the back

The two burglary suspects killed by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn were shot in the back after they ventured into his front yard, police disclosed Friday.
In another twist, investigators revealed that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings after he pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun.
The men, who had just burglarized Horn's neighbor's house, faced him from seven to 10 feet away when they ignored his order to "not move"or they would be dead, police said.
The controversial shootings have outraged minority activists but also brought an outpouring of support for Horn.
"We now have a summary documenting what we think happened," said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett. "We will turn it over to the district attorney in a couple of weeks after we do an extensive review for quality control."
The district attorney will then present the case to a grand jury to determine if any charges should be filed against Horn, 61, a computer consultant, who has claimed self-defense.
The two men — Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48 — collapsed and died not far from Horn's home on Timberline in a Pasadena neighborhood.
Both were illegal immigrants from Colombia, authorities said. Torres had been deported to Colombia in 1999 after serving time for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Both were also using fake identification cards and aliases, and their backgrounds are now being scrutinized by federal authorities to determine if they were part of a Colombian fake ID and burglary ring, authorities said.
On Friday, Corbett described the shooting scenario that had been pieced together so far.
According to a transcript of Horn's 911 call, at 2 p.m., he became concerned that his next- door neighbor's home was being burglarized after hearing some glass break.
The dispatcher repeatedly urges Horn to stay in his house but Horn states that he doesn't feel it's right to let the burglars get away.
"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn tells the dispatcher. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
The dispatcher replies: "Don't go outside."
Then the tape records Horn warning someone: "Move and you're dead!" Two quick shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then a third shot.
Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.
Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present.
"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."
When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.
Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.
"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

Autopsy report

The wounded man crossed the street, collapsed and died, authorities said. At the same time, the other man had turned and ran away from Horn. Horn swung his shotgun around after shooting the first man and fired at the second one after he entered the neighbor's yard, investigators said.
He was hit in the back but continued running until collapsing a few hundred yards down the street, Corbett said.
According to a final ruling, Ortiz died of shotgun wounds to his neck and torso, said Ellie Wallace, an investigator at the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office.
The report said that Torres died of shotgun wounds to his torso and upper left extremity.
Wallace could not confirm whether the men were shot in the back, saying the autopsy report only indicated they were shot in the torso.
Neither suspect was armed, but one had a "center punch," a 6-inch pointed metal tool, in his pocket that might be used as a weapon, authorities said.
Also, they were carrying a sack filled with more than $2,000 in cash and assorted jewelry believed taken in the burglary, police said.

Self-defense claim

Investigators believe a third person may have driven the men from Houston to the Pasadena neighborhood. Police could find no vehicle belonging to the pair parked in the area. On the 911 tape, Horn mentioned a new state law that allows residents to protect their own home from intruders.
"This case is a little different," Corbett said. "We'll have to let the grand jury sort this one out."
Horn's attorney, Charles T. Lambright, said his client fired in self-defense because he feared for his life.
"One of them (suspects) moved and Joe thought he was coming towards him," Lambright said. "They were in such close proximity (to Horn) that they could be on top of him in half a second."
The fact that a police officer witnessed the shooting but did not arrest Horn is further evidence that he acted in self-defense, he said.
"You've got a trained police officer sitting there watching this, and he doesn't arrest Horn," Lambright said. "If the (plainclothes) officer thought it was not a righteous shooting, maybe the Pasadena Police Department would have arrested Mr. Horn for murder."
Civil rights activist Quanell X said he would step up the call for a murder indictment against Horn, and questioned whether the Pasadena police should investigate the case.
Quanell X said the shooting should be handled instead by the Texas Rangers and the FBI.
"I don't trust the Pasadena Police Department," he said. "Why are they just now releasing the fact that an undercover officer witnessed the whole thing? This case stinks."

tankerman
12-08-2007, 7:21 PM
I would like to shake that man's hand.

He's a hero in my book. A true Patriot defending his neiborhood and country from foreign invaders.

I wonder what size shot he was using?

DedEye
12-08-2007, 7:25 PM
Sounds like the first shot was justified (even though it would have been unnecessary if he'd listened to the dispatcher and stayed inside), but shooting the other guy in the back sounds like flat out murder.

CavTrooper
12-08-2007, 7:54 PM
nite-nite bad guys. That man deserves a beer.

cartman
12-08-2007, 8:08 PM
Well in my opinion the people he shot had it coming. He deserves a medal. 2 less illegals makes me smile.

damon1272
12-08-2007, 8:27 PM
If we had more people like Mr. Horn, our country would have less crime. The powers that be just hate it when people are self reliant.

gcrtkd
12-08-2007, 8:58 PM
Say what you will... but that's the kind of neighbor I want living next door to me. If someone broke into my house and stole my isht, and my neighbor shot and killed them, I'd be nothing but grateful.

odesskiy
12-08-2007, 10:34 PM
Thank god it happened in Texas. I'm sure they won't bring any charges against Mr. Horn. I'd love to shake the man's hand and buy him a beer...and a box of 00....

N6ATF
12-08-2007, 11:18 PM
You could have updated any one of the duplicate posts regarding this incident, but instead you opted to start yet another redundant thread about it. Guess the mods do not share my sentiment about not having potentially dozens of threads about a single incident.

Japedo
12-08-2007, 11:25 PM
I for one support Mr. Horn, and wish he was my neighbor. I think that if a family member of the neighbor's house that was broken into/robbed was home it would have gone much different. Imagine if the wife or daughter was home and raped/killed, there would not be any controversy. I listened to the 911 tape he does psych himself up, but that is what happens when you have aderelin going through you and a crime is being committed in front of you. He does'nt know if they are armed, or if anyone is home.

If the last part of the article is true about the undercover officer being a witness, it says a lot about Mr. Horn's witnessed actions, as he was not arrested.

Salty
12-09-2007, 1:27 AM
I would like to shake that man's hand.

He's a hero in my book. A true Patriot defending his neiborhood and country from foreign invaders.



Exactly!

1911su16b870
12-09-2007, 6:49 AM
Thanks for posting that Bongos.

Wow, detective ducking not to be mistaken as the wheel-man. It appears that the standard of reasonableness is met with regards to "this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted".

CavTrooper
12-09-2007, 7:23 AM
You could have updated any one of the duplicate posts regarding this incident, but instead you opted to start yet another redundant thread about it. Guess the mods do not share my sentiment about not having potentially dozens of threads about a single incident.

I take it you dont like what Mr Horn did.

Maybe the mods can insist on one Ron Paul thread as well.

amd64
12-09-2007, 7:30 AM
I wish all my neighbors were like Mr. Horn, and a Federal law were passed to allow deadly force to be used in property crimes, with immunity from civil suits. Does he have a defense fund set up? I'm glad he's in Texas and good people are standing behind him.

People commit property crimes because they can get away with it; if severe injury and/or death were a likely consequence for doing crap like than, maybe dirtbags would step in line and work for a living instead of ripping people off.

Criminals are criminals because they are allowed to be criminals.

tyrist
12-09-2007, 8:34 AM
I think he might be prosecuted for the second shooting, however I doubt the DA will find a jury to convict.

Crazed_SS
12-09-2007, 9:42 AM
I wish all my neighbors were like Mr. Horn, and a Federal law were passed to allow deadly force to be used in property crimes, with immunity from civil suits. Does he have a defense fund set up? I'm glad he's in Texas and good people are standing behind him.

People commit property crimes because they can get away with it; if severe injury and/or death were a likely consequence for doing crap like than, maybe dirtbags would step in line and work for a living instead of ripping people off.

Criminals are criminals because they are allowed to be criminals.

Would you also support allowing police to shoot suspects on site? If a cop sees a kid breaking into a car, should the cop be able to open fire, even if there's no danger to the cop?

Im all for self-defence, but I think Horn went way too far. He went out of his way to shoot someone. He's lucky he got the right guys and not some guests of his neighbors that he didnt recognize.

I dont even think it was a tactically sound decision to go outside. He didnt know if either guy was armed. What if they both had guns? Now you have two against one.. Horn could have easily ended up dead

Also, shooting everyone wont stop crime. Criminals often dont really consider the consequences of their actions because they dont plan on getting caught.

CavTrooper
12-09-2007, 10:07 AM
Would you also support allowing police to shoot suspects on site? If a cop sees a kid breaking into a car, should the cop be able to open fire, even if there's no danger to the cop?

Nope, Im against cops having guns in the first place.
Citizens should be allowed and encouraged to defend thier private property.

Im all for self-defence, but I think Horn went way too far. He went out of his way to shoot someone. He's lucky he got the right guys and not some guests of his neighbors that he didnt recognize.

I dont think he went far enough. The second guy ran a few hundred yards before he died, obviously he needed better shot placement. Also, Im sure the coroner came and picked up the bodies. Why didnt they decapitate the 2 dead criminals and place thier heads on pikes? One at the each end of the neighborhood as a warning to other illegal alien criminal thieves to stay out? that would be going (almost) far enough.

I dont even think it was a tactically sound decision to go outside. He didnt know if either guy was armed. What if they both had guns? Now you have two against one.. Horn could have easily ended up dead.

He had the element of suprise, which placed him in the tactically advantagous
position. Plus he was on his property, home turf if you will, therefore had more familiarity with the terrain, advantage- good guy. He had the illegal alien criminal thieves dead to rights. More people and more guns dont neccesarily give one the advantage, Mr Horn had the advantage and engaged these scumbags and came out on top, good on him.

Also, shooting everyone wont stop crime. Criminals often dont really consider the consequences of their actions because they dont plan on getting caught.

No one is advocating shooting EVERYONE, just people who commit criminal acts against others. Bad guy trys to steal your stuff, defend it, bad guy tries to assault you or another innocent person, defend. Bad guys need to go into crimes thinking they will be caught, shot, and (hopefully) killed. Like you said, they didnt consider the concequences, well, maybe next time, they will....



oops, no more next time for these guys!:cool2:

odesskiy
12-09-2007, 10:18 AM
...I dont think he went far enough. The second guy ran a few hundred yards before he died, obviously he needed better shot placement. Also, Im sure the coroner came and picked up the bodies. Why didnt they decapitate the 2 dead criminals and place thier heads on pikes? One at the each end of the neighborhood as a warning to other illegal alien criminal thieves to stay out? that would be going (almost) far enough....


Ummm....I have a suggestion. Can we keep one head in the neighborhood, and put the other one on the fence at the border? I think we should have a 50/50 split in general. That way we'll have a warning for both the scumbags that are already in and the scumbags that are thinking about coming here.

CavTrooper
12-09-2007, 10:25 AM
Ummm....I have a suggestion. Can we keep one head in the neighborhood, and put the other one on the fence at the border? I think we should have a 50/50 split in general. That way we'll have a warning for both the scumbags that are already in and the scumbags that are thinking about coming here.

Thats why I said "almost" far enough. The headless bodies would be hung by one leg, suspended from a tall pole, on the border.

Crazed_SS
12-09-2007, 11:21 AM
Nope, Im against cops having guns in the first place.
Citizens should be allowed and encouraged to defend thier private property.


The cops shouldnt have guns? :confused:


I dont think he went far enough. The second guy ran a few hundred yards before he died, obviously he needed better shot placement. Also, Im sure the coroner came and picked up the bodies. Why didnt they decapitate the 2 dead criminals and place thier heads on pikes? One at the each end of the neighborhood as a warning to other illegal alien criminal thieves to stay out? that would be going (almost) far enough.


Ok.. Sounds a little barbaric.


He had the element of suprise, which placed him in the tactically advantagous
position. Plus he was on his property, home turf if you will, therefore had more familiarity with the terrain, advantage- good guy. He had the illegal alien criminal thieves dead to rights. More people and more guns dont neccesarily give one the advantage, Mr Horn had the advantage and engaged these scumbags and came out on top, good on him.


My point is he put HIMSELF in danger unecessarily. Bad judgment IMO. He didnt have to go outside. It's not like the guys were in his house or even posing any danger to Horn. Sure it turned out "good" for him, but it easily could have went bad. Why risk YOUR LIFE over some property? .. Property that isnt even yours. Why not stay prepared in the safety of your own house and wait for the calvary? If the guys come into your house then by all means, blast away.. but going outside and shooting people in the back seems a bit much to me.


No one is advocating shooting EVERYONE, just people who commit criminal acts against others. Bad guy trys to steal your stuff, defend it, bad guy tries to assault you or another innocent person, defend. Bad guys need to go into crimes thinking they will be caught, shot, and (hopefully) killed. Like you said, they didnt consider the concequences, well, maybe next time, they will....



oops, no more next time for these guys!:cool2:

Bad guys dont go into crimes considering the consquences. That's why we have crime. If bad guys considered the consquences, we wouldnt have any crime. You're applying your logic to criminals who are operating on a completely different logic.

CavTrooper
12-09-2007, 11:38 AM
The cops shouldnt have guns? :confused:.

Nope, regular cops should not have guns, they should have tact and a healthy respect for the civilian population.
Special response units should be armed and well trained to handle any situation that requires it.
This would prevent alot of the problems that plauge the police and thier images.

Ok.. Sounds a little barbaric.

Sometimes, the ugly thing is the right thing to do. When criminals realize that they arent going to get away with a slap on the wrist, they might think twice about commiting crimes.

My point is he put HIMSELF in danger unecessarily. Bad judgment IMO. He didnt have to go outside. It's not like the guys were in his house or even posing any danger to Horn. Sure it turned out "good" for him, but it easily could have went bad. Why risk YOUR LIFE over some property? .. Property that isnt even yours. Why not stay prepared in the safety of your own house and wait for the calvary? If the guys come into your house then by all means, blast away.. but going outside and shooting people in the back seems a bit much to me..

He may not of had to, but he choose to, on principal. Thats the difference between him and someone else, he is tired of criminals running rampant across America, others want to make excuse for and coddle them. Risking ones life is taking the hard right over the easy wrong, it couldve gone bad for him, but at least he went down fighting.
Besides that, he couldve been impregnated by green space aliens in the middle of the night, but he wasnt. Couldve, wouldve, shouldve, is irrelevent, what he did is what matters.

Bad guys dont go into crimes considering the consquences. That's why we have crime. If bad guys considered the consquences, we wouldnt have any crime. You're applying your logic to criminals who are operating on a completely different logic.

Criminals know theyre are no concequences for thier actions. When they see that theyre are, they might consider a different line of "work"

boogak
12-09-2007, 11:47 AM
i support him. its not about the two being illegal immigrants but being criminals. whats weird is all this human rights sh*t. the criminals dont care for your human rights. i think he would have shot them regardless of race or nationality. he propably wouldve shot them even if they were white. a criminal is a criminal regardless. oh well, two less criminals to worry about. good sh*t

Crazed_SS
12-09-2007, 12:26 PM
i support him. its not about the two being illegal immigrants but being criminals. whats weird is all this human rights sh*t. the criminals dont care for your human rights. i think he would have shot them regardless of race or nationality. he propably wouldve shot them even if they were white. a criminal is a criminal regardless. oh well, two less criminals to worry about. good sh*t

So do all criminals automatically deserve death? What if someone configures their OLL improperly.. that's a felony.. should they be shot?

CavTrooper
12-09-2007, 1:15 PM
So do all criminals automatically deserve death? What if someone configures their OLL improperly.. that's a felony.. should they be shot?

All people who perpatrate a crime on an innocent person, whether it be a violent or property crime, deserves to be removed from the population permanatly.

amd64
12-09-2007, 1:20 PM
So do all criminals automatically deserve death? What if someone configures their OLL improperly.. that's a felony.. should they be shot?

Good point. But if "bad people" are more easily eliminated and don't get a 2nd chance to do more bad things, then grandstanding legislators would have a harder time implementing all the laws they do. The existence of "bad people" breeds too many laws that prohibits freedom of "good" people who abide by the law. So perhaps the definition of "criminal" would focus more on actual acts that harm other people and their property, rather than the capacity to cause harm.

Back to the subject-type of crime... yes, I think property crimes like what these two dirtbags were caught doing should be punished by death. Barbaric? I think having to lock down everything I own because there are too many scum who think taking stuff from others is acceptable is barbaric.

Would I shoot someone under the same circumstances? Never. Because in California, criminals are protected like endangered species. I'd watch out from my window and call 911 and wait like any other California sheep. This guy is in Texas, he has a chance, I hope he prevails.

What's the problem? Don't steal from others and you don't suffer severe injury and/or death. This argument is moot though, we've already gone too far in a direction where bad behavior is acceptable with not enough consequence to be preventative.

Bad guys dont go into crimes considering the consquences. That's why we have crime. If bad guys considered the consquences, we wouldnt have any crime. You're applying your logic to criminals who are operating on a completely different logic.

Right, but if they didn't get a chance to do it again (i.e. the consequences of their first crime left them in a condition where they couldn't do it again), things would work beautifully.

DedEye
12-09-2007, 1:31 PM
:popcorn: IBTL.

cartman
12-09-2007, 1:46 PM
Nope, regular cops should not have guns, they should have tact and a healthy respect for the civilian population.
Special response units should be armed and well trained to handle any situation that requires it.
This would prevent alot of the problems that plauge the police and thier images.



Sometimes, the ugly thing is the right thing to do. When criminals realize that they arent going to get away with a slap on the wrist, they might think twice about commiting crimes.



He may not of had to, but he choose to, on principal. Thats the difference between him and someone else, he is tired of criminals running rampant across America, others want to make excuse for and coddle them. Risking ones life is taking the hard right over the easy wrong, it couldve gone bad for him, but at least he went down fighting.
Besides that, he couldve been impregnated by green space aliens in the middle of the night, but he wasnt. Couldve, wouldve, shouldve, is irrelevent, what he did is what matters.



Criminals know theyre are no concequences for thier actions. When they see that theyre are, they might consider a different line of "work"

I agree 100% with you cav.Your thinking is inline with mine. Too many people lay down waiting for someone else to take care of them. Then they get butt hurt when someone does what is right.

eta34
12-09-2007, 7:50 PM
All people who perpatrate a crime on an innocent person, whether it be a violent or property crime, deserves to be removed from the population permanatly.

Graffiti (vandalism), petty theft, littering on another's property, simple assault (as in punching another in the face)....these are all examples of crimes against innocent persons. Do you propose that these people be put to death?

While I agree that these crimes should be punished, I don't think death is appropriate. Are we talking about the death penalty for these crimes or simply allowing the victim to "defend" himself or his property?

Knauga
12-09-2007, 8:03 PM
Graffiti (vandalism)[snip] Do you propose that these people be put to death?

Yes, this is why the SWAT team has snipers. If I were Lord High Emperor of the World, I would direct my law enforcement to find the most graffitied building in a town, paint it pristine white and station a sniper team on the roof of the next building. First tagger to come by gets to leave his mark with the assistance of that sniper team.... but that's me, I hate people who think it is cool to ruin other peoples homes and businesses because they have nothing better to do with their lives.

hoffmang
12-09-2007, 8:13 PM
Committing a felony of moral turpitude carries high risks. One of those risk is being placed under citizen's arrest by a citizen catching you in the act of a felony of moral turpitude. Reasonable men can disagree about using deadly force in a citizen's arrest when a property felony is the underlying issue but I tend to also lean towards allowing the good guy to shoot if a felon is trying to flee from the felony.

AW laws aren't a crime of moral turpitude.

And those of you who think that the perpetrator's INS status matters should leave our melting pot for a more xenophobic country like Switzerland but they probably would not let you in. These guys were just criminals for their crimes of moral turpitude - not for their immigration status (absent the guy who'd been deported for crimes of moral turpitude.)

-Gene

draconianruler
12-09-2007, 8:27 PM
Committing a felony of moral turpitude carries high risks. One of those risk is being placed under citizen's arrest by a citizen catching you in the act of a felony of moral turpitude. Reasonable men can disagree about using deadly force in a citizen's arrest when a property felony is the underlying issue but I tend to also lean towards allowing the good guy to shoot if a felon is trying to flee from the felony.

AW laws aren't a crime of moral turpitude.

And those of you who think that the perpetrator's INS status matters should leave our melting pot for a more xenophobic country like Switzerland but they probably would not let you in. These guys were just criminals for their crimes of moral turpitude - not for their immigration status (absent the guy who'd been deported for crimes of moral turpitude.)

-Gene

Well said Gene. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

N6ATF
12-09-2007, 11:18 PM
I take it you dont like what Mr Horn did.

Maybe the mods can insist on one Ron Paul thread as well.

I don't care what Mr Horn did or didn't do or what frame of mind he was in. What I don't like is multiple people posting multiple threads about a single incident.

I agree with one Ron Paul thread, and I am closer to being a RP supporter than any other candidate.

eckerph
12-10-2007, 12:51 AM
Roaches and calguns..........................:beatdeadhorse5:

Hoop
12-10-2007, 7:44 AM
Quanell X

I'm sorry but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.

mblat
12-10-2007, 8:50 AM
My point is he put HIMSELF in danger unecessarily. Bad judgment IMO. He didnt have to go outside. It's not like the guys were in his house or even posing any danger to Horn. Sure it turned out "good" for him, but it easily could have went bad. Why risk YOUR LIFE over some property?

That is HIS problem. Even if we agree that he exercised bad judgment it surely not punishable by imprisonment. And some would argue that this wasn't bad judgment, but rather act of civic minded citizen.

Bad guys dont go into crimes considering the consquences. That's why we have crime. If bad guys considered the consquences, we wouldnt have any crime. You're applying your logic to criminals who are operating on a completely different logic.

That is wrong. For most of the people crime is just cost/risk/benefit analysis. Like everything else. There have been several studies that shows that punishment deters crime. Recently I've couple articles in WSJ and NYT that shows that death penalty does reduce murder rate. Not for EVERY particular case, but as the matter of policy. Isn't CCW movement showed that pretty conclusively?

AJAX22
12-10-2007, 9:07 AM
Committing a felony of moral turpitude carries high risks. One of those risk is being placed under citizen's arrest by a citizen catching you in the act of a felony of moral turpitude. Reasonable men can disagree about using deadly force in a citizen's arrest when a property felony is the underlying issue but I tend to also lean towards allowing the good guy to shoot if a felon is trying to flee from the felony.

AW laws aren't a crime of moral turpitude.

And those of you who think that the perpetrator's INS status matters should leave our melting pot for a more xenophobic country like Switzerland but they probably would not let you in. These guys were just criminals for their crimes of moral turpitude - not for their immigration status (absent the guy who'd been deported for crimes of moral turpitude.)

-Gene


Thank you Gene, you are 100% correct,

The fact that posession of an inanimate object can even be compared to a crime perpetrated against an individual shows how screwed up our society is becoming.

Actions which hurt others can and should be criminalized, the 'act' of posessing things hurts no one and therefore shouldn't be a crime in the first place.

If somone commits a crime against you, then you are morally justified in using whatever means nececary to aprehend them. The amount of force used is determined by the willingness of the perpetrator to be brought to justice, the more they resist the more force is acceptable.

If someone is commiting the crime of vandalism and you attempt to place them under citizens arrest and they go to pull a gun on you, then you are morally justified in shooting them.

What is Legal and What is moral are not nececarily the same.

*cough* CCW permits *cough*

pnkssbtz
12-10-2007, 9:52 AM
The story says the plainclothes cop pulled up seconds before horn shot the bad guys.

The distance was 7-10 feet and they refused the commands from mr. horn.


7-10 feet from known felons is knife fighting distance. If they TWITCHED at me I would of done the same.

The article even admits that the bad guys crossed onto Mr. Horn's property.


Looks like media and Mr. X are trying to railroad the justice system.


This is all that needs to be said:Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.
"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

11Z50
12-10-2007, 11:25 AM
I'm sure Tx laws are different than here, but if Mr Horn's INTENT was to make a citizen's arrest for a felony being committed in his presence, he is allowed to use that force necessary to make the arrest. Horn ordered the men to freeze, they did not, so he used that force necessary to make them stop. While shooting a fleeing felon is generally frowned upon, it is largely a matter of jurisdictions and how the courts will interpret the law. The fact the case is going to a Grand Jury indicates to me the local DA doesn't want to touch it. If the GJ hands down an indictment, Mr Horn will have his day in court. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

In any event, murder charges are not justified. Maybe voluntary manslaughter, if that.

Crazed_SS
12-10-2007, 12:13 PM
That is HIS problem. Even if we agree that he exercised bad judgment it surely not punishable by imprisonment. And some would argue that this wasn't bad judgment, but rather act of civic minded citizen.



That is wrong. For most of the people crime is just cost/risk/benefit analysis. Like everything else. There have been several studies that shows that punishment deters crime. Recently I've couple articles in WSJ and NYT that shows that death penalty does reduce murder rate. Not for EVERY particular case, but as the matter of policy. Isn't CCW movement showed that pretty conclusively?

Not everyone operates under the same assumptions. I dont have a OLL because my own cost/risk/benefit analysis tells me the risks are way too high for any possible benefit. Of course the entire board would disagree with me as most people here believes the risks are really low.

Yes, criminals do use a cost/risk/benefit analysis, but they arent using the same one as you think they are. They dont plan on getting caught so the risks are fairly low to them. It doesnt matter if the penalty is death.. that still isnt a big enough risk because

Crazed_SS
12-10-2007, 12:25 PM
Thank you Gene, you are 100% correct,

The fact that posession of an inanimate object can even be compared to a crime perpetrated against an individual shows how screwed up our society is becoming.



The authorities will argue that the felonious act of illegally manufacturing an assault weapon does hurt someone. It says right there in 12275.5. PC, "that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state" ..

So using you guys' system where criminals, especially felons, should be shot for their crimes, a person who built their OLL incorrectly should get the death penalty or their neighbor would be justified in shooting them in the back.


If somone commits a crime against you, then you are morally justified in using whatever means nececary to aprehend them. The amount of force used is determined by the willingness of the perpetrator to be brought to justice, the more they resist the more force is acceptable.

If someone is commiting the crime of vandalism and you attempt to place them under citizens arrest and they go to pull a gun on you, then you are morally justified in shooting them.

What is Legal and What is moral are not nececarily the same.

*cough* CCW permits *cough*

I hope if their ever is a realistic push for shall issue CCW in California, these wont be the arguments that you will be using. The whole "vigilante" thing one of the main arguments used against CCW, yet you're sitting here telling everyone to go after crooks.

A CCW is for self-defense, not for playing cop. If you wanna apprehend people and fight crime, I'm sure your local PD and Sherriff is hiring.

hoffmang
12-10-2007, 1:22 PM
Crazed,

You need to learn more vocabulary. Moral turpitude is a pretty well understood concept and it is not implicated in a firearms possession or transport felony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude

There is something articulable different between rape and shoplifting. If you wish to keep building your straw man by intentionally ignoring rational distinctions then you give strong evidence that your argument should be ignored.

How about you debate the tougher question of whether the state should allow a citizen to shoot a fleeing felon that the citizen is trying to arrest. I tend to think on balance it should because I want people who burglarize homes to be exposed to all the risks that that sort of behavior should create. We know the risk exposure dissuades criminals based on their post conviction interviews and the incidence of home robbery versus non home property crime compared between nations.

-Gene

11Z50
12-10-2007, 2:03 PM
That's what I was trying to touch on in my earlier post, ie fleeing felon cases. In some jurisdictions, one would most certainly get charged with Vol Man in shooting a fleeing felon. I've heard of cops getting charged in these cases.

In other jurisdictions, he who dispatched a fleeing felon might get away with it, if the situation was right. If the intent is to effect a citizen's arrest for a felony, deadly force could well be justified. If the intentwas to protect property, it would probably not been justified. I don't think a self defense argument could be made in the Horn case, since no articulable threat was present.

Here in the PRK my experience is if you shoot a fleeing felon, it should be in the course of attempting a 837 PC citizen's arrest. Also present should be a reasonable suspicion that if the felon was allowed to escape, others might be endangered as well.

Crazed_SS
12-10-2007, 2:23 PM
Crazed,

You need to learn more vocabulary. Moral turpitude is a pretty well understood concept and it is not implicated in a firearms possession or transport felony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude

There is something articulable different between rape and shoplifting. If you wish to keep building your straw man by intentionally ignoring rational distinctions then you give strong evidence that your argument should be ignored.

How about you debate the tougher question of whether the state should allow a citizen to shoot a fleeing felon that the citizen is trying to arrest. I tend to think on balance it should because I want people who burglarize homes to be exposed to all the risks that that sort of behavior should create. We know the risk exposure dissuades criminals based on their post conviction interviews and the incidence of home robbery versus non home property crime compared between nations.

-Gene

Yes, there is a difference between rape and shoplifting, but if you read this post you'll see people advocating death for stealing and property crimes. Dont you think that's a little much?

Whether or not someone should shoot a fleeing felon depends entirely on the situation. If someone sees a murder occur and gives chase and shoots the killer, I have no problem with that.

If someone sees another shooter with a misconfigured rifle at the range, tries to arrest the person who has committed a felony by manufacturing and possessing an unregistered AW, then ends up shooting the "felon" with the unregistered AW when he refuses to submit to a citizen's arrest... well then I'd have a problem with that.

Not everything in life is black and white. Im not comfortable saying all criminals should be shot or citizens should shoot at fleeing felons or whatever. You have to take the situation into account.

In Horn's situation, I dont agree with him taking the fight to the bad guys. People constantly talk about how CCW classes teach de-escalation of situations. Horn went OUT OF HIS WAY to escalate this one. Now two people are dead (yea they were illegal criminals.. I know.. they're still people) and even though he is in Texas, the case is gonna be reviewed by the DA there is still a chance he could go down for this. He risked everything.. for what? A couple grand worth of his neighbor's possessions?

All this could have been avoided if he had simply let the police do their jobs.
Sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor IMO.

hoffmang
12-10-2007, 2:45 PM
Not everything in life is black and white. Im not comfortable saying all criminals should be shot or citizens should shoot at fleeing felons or whatever. You have to take the situation into account.

In Horn's situation, I dont agree with him taking the fight to the bad guys. People constantly talk about how CCW classes teach de-escalation of situations. Horn went OUT OF HIS WAY to escalate this one. Now two people are dead (yea they were illegal criminals.. I know.. they're still people) and even though he is in Texas, the case is gonna be reviewed by the DA there is still a chance he could go down for this. He risked everything.. for what? A couple grand worth of his neighbor's possessions?

Things may not be black and white but we need to choose rules of general applicability and stick with them.

The one issue I think you may be glossing over a bit is that Horn was at home and was protecting his neighbor's house. I concur that I can see a strong argument for de-escalation when out in public, but standing your ground and expecting a felon who has just B&E'd your neighbor's house in the night to freeze when you tell him to freeze seems justified. What we don't have a lot of evidence for either way is whether these guys clearly just turned and ran or whether they bolted in some more threatening direction. On balance, when a criminal has just committed a high risk criminal act (B&E of a home at night) there is going to be a lot of confusion. I think we want to give private citizens standing on their own property a pretty strong benefit of the doubt when they employ a firearm to detain and are forced to use force to detain.

Currently, California has decided that a fleeing felon shouldn't be shot, but at the same time there is a mildly infamous case where a father shot at least one guy in the back and he's not going to be charged.

Explain to me why on balance you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the felon in this instance?

Also, what if his discretion had lead to one of the felons murdering a different neighbor a couple of weeks later?

-Gene

Crazed_SS
12-10-2007, 3:21 PM
Explain to me why on balance you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the felon in this instance?


In this case, it really didnt sound like these guys were posing much of a threat to Horn or anyone else. It's not like Horn was out in the middle of nowhere with poor police response.

The dispatcher gave him clear instructions and the police were on their way. Hell, the police were there! He's lucky he didnt get popped by the plainclothes officer.

From the 911 tapes, the guy sounds like here was determined to shoot.. Almost as if it was already a foregone conclusion with him that people were gonna die. I dont want people pumped up on bravado grabbing their guns and blasting away everytime a crime happens.

I swear, when I heard the tape, the first thing I thought of was, "THEY'RE COMIN RIGHT FOR US!" from South Park :)


Also, what if his discretion had lead to one of the felons murdering a different neighbor a couple of weeks later?

-Gene

There's a 1000 what if's.

*If* these guys came back and commited another crime, I wouldnt blame Horn for not acting, I would blame the criminals.

DedEye
12-10-2007, 3:31 PM
In this case, it really didnt sound like these guys were posing much of a threat to Horn or anyone else. It's not like Horn was out in the middle of nowhere with poor police response.

The dispatcher gave him clear instructions and the police were on their way. Hell, the police were there! He's lucky he didnt get popped by the plainclothes officer.

From the 911 tapes, the guy sounds like here was determined to shoot.. Almost as if it was already a foregone conclusion with him that people were gonna die. I dont want people pumped up on bravado grabbing their guns and blasting away everytime a crime happens.

I swear, when I heard the tape, the first thing I thought of was, "THEY'RE COMIN RIGHT FOR US!" from South Park :)



There's a 1000 what if's.

*If* these guys came back and commited another crime, I wouldnt blame Horn for not acting, I would blame the criminals.

I'm with Crazed. My opinion of this shoot would be radically different if the dispatcher hadn't kept telling him that officers were on scene and to stay inside. He was mad and he wanted to shoot them (my take from listening to the tape). This isn't even comparable to a Bernie Goetz since he started from a position of safety (in his own home) and chose to engage, compared to Goetz, who was for all intents and purposes cornered on that subway. He was angry too, but he had far fewer - if any - options.

hoffmang
12-10-2007, 3:38 PM
I admit to having the disadvantage of not listening to the tape and instead having read the transcript. I'll go back and do that and return.

-Gene

Crazed_SS
12-10-2007, 3:38 PM
I will concede though that it does speak volumes that the plainclothes officer (who supposedly witnessed the shooting) didnt arrest him. It will be very interesting to see what the DA and or grand jury say. Im guessing the Texas justice officials are sitting around scratching their heads right now :)

11Z50
12-10-2007, 4:40 PM
Crazed, for the DA to hand off the case to the GJ indicates the DA doesn't want the case; otherwise Mr Horn would have already been arraigned.

artherd
12-10-2007, 6:32 PM
Let's see, plainclothes 'undercover' agent sits there assessing and ducking while homeowner shoots two dudes in the back...

Then he does not arrest said homeowner (probably too panicked that his buddies just got iced.)

Lastly, there's no getaway car, the robbers just happened to 'beam in'. Wheras there's this completely unrelated idling vehicle...

. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."
That's because he was the wheel man! HELLO?!?!?!?!

"I don't trust the Pasadena Police Department," he said. "Why are they just now releasing the fact that an undercover officer witnessed the whole thing? This case stinks."

Damn right, somebody's paying attention.

JALLEN
12-11-2007, 9:24 AM
I'm with Crazed. My opinion of this shoot would be radically different if the dispatcher hadn't kept telling him that officers were on scene and to stay inside. He was mad and he wanted to shoot them (my take from listening to the tape). This isn't even comparable to a Bernie Goetz since he started from a position of safety (in his own home) and chose to engage, compared to Goetz, who was for all intents and purposes cornered on that subway. He was angry too, but he had far fewer - if any - options.

The dispatcher is not a law enforcement officer; he wasn't issuing commands, merely suggestions, advice. The dispatcher did not tell him that officers were "on the scene" but merely that they were on the way. It turns out apparently that the plainclothes detective rolled up just in time to watch the shoot.

California law reflects the societal attitude that one cannot shoot unless you are in reasonable fear of death or serious personal injury; Texas looks at it differently, and I, for one, prefer the Texas view.

I expect the Grand Jury will no-bill Mr. Horn. This is an urban GJ, Harris County which is Houston, so I can't be sure. If it was one of the hill country rural counties northwest of San Antonio-Austin, there would be no chance of an indictment. Folks there just won't put up with stuff like that.

STAGE 2
12-11-2007, 10:17 AM
In this case, it really didnt sound like these guys were posing much of a threat to Horn or anyone else. It's not like Horn was out in the middle of nowhere with poor police response.

Sayeth you sitting behind your computer. Clearly the perps didn't know Horn was there. What was to stop them from going to his house next? Safety is relative. He had a window of time in which he had the drop on them. If he would have waited, it could have very well been the case that things could have changed. Remember, he had no idea whether these felons (and yes they are felons) were armed.


The dispatcher gave him clear instructions and the police were on their way. Hell, the police were there! He's lucky he didnt get popped by the plainclothes officer.

Which is irrelevant. The dispatcher has no authority to tell Horn to do anything. As far as the plain clothes cop, he is irrelevant as well. He never made his presence known to Horn or anyone else. If the cop would have done his job maybe things would have turned out differently.


From the 911 tapes, the guy sounds like here was determined to shoot.. Almost as if it was already a foregone conclusion with him that people were gonna die. I dont want people pumped up on bravado grabbing their guns and blasting away everytime a crime happens.

Fallacious argument. People arent shooting folks for jaywalking, loitering, or littering. Burglary is an entirely different matter as its a violent crime. In fact, its one of the crimes that is violent enough that it can give rise to first degree felony murder. The law presupposed that its forseeable that people will get killed in the process of a burglary.

Furthermore, this incident didn't take place in the dark of night in the wee hours of the morning. It happened in broad daylight. Who knows what would have happened if someone was home. Maybe a mom and her kids. If that was the case, I don't think its at all certian that these guy would have just left.

Horn's act of confronting them with a shotgun is totally acceptable under Texas law. Thats beyond dispute. What is at issue is whether the shooting was kosher. To determine this, we look at the totality of the circumstances. What will get Horn off, despite his stupid statements on the phone, is the fact that he gave them an ultimatium. They decided to move and that can easily be viewed as a threatening action giving him sufficient justification.




*If* these guys came back and commited another crime, I wouldnt blame Horn for not acting, I would blame the criminals.

Thats one crime too many. Where I come from, we don't give felons freebies.

odesskiy
12-11-2007, 10:35 AM
Very well said, Stage 2! Bravo!

Crazed_SS
12-11-2007, 11:01 AM
Sayeth you sitting behind your computer. Clearly the perps didn't know Horn was there. What was to stop them from going to his house next? Safety is relative. He had a window of time in which he had the drop on them. If he would have waited, it could have very well been the case that things could have changed. Remember, he had no idea whether these felons (and yes they are felons) were armed.




Which is irrelevant. The dispatcher has no authority to tell Horn to do anything. As far as the plain clothes cop, he is irrelevant as well. He never made his presence known to Horn or anyone else. If the cop would have done his job maybe things would have turned out differently.




Fallacious argument. People arent shooting folks for jaywalking, loitering, or littering. Burglary is an entirely different matter as its a violent crime. In fact, its one of the crimes that is violent enough that it can give rise to first degree felony murder. The law presupposed that its forseeable that people will get killed in the process of a burglary.

Furthermore, this incident didn't take place in the dark of night in the wee hours of the morning. It happened in broad daylight. Who knows what would have happened if someone was home. Maybe a mom and her kids. If that was the case, I don't think its at all certian that these guy would have just left.

Horn's act of confronting them with a shotgun is totally acceptable under Texas law. Thats beyond dispute. What is at issue is whether the shooting was kosher. To determine this, we look at the totality of the circumstances. What will get Horn off, despite his stupid statements on the phone, is the fact that he gave them an ultimatium. They decided to move and that can easily be viewed as a threatening action giving him sufficient justification.






Thats one crime too many. Where I come from, we don't give felons freebies.

We can argue what if's all day. What if the bad guys' buddies come back and retaliate against Horn for killing them? What if.. what if..

All I'm saying is I dont think it was a prudent decision to confront these guys in such a manner. I'm not arguing that what he did was illegal or that he should go to prison. I'm just saying that if it were me, I'd sit there and keep tabs on the situation with my gun ready to go in case they came onto my property.

From the tape it seems Horn was able to clearly see what was going on. The fact of the matter is there was no pressing reason for Horn to risk his own safety to engage these guys. No one's life was in immediate danger. The 911 dispatcher gave him sound adivce, that had he listened to it, would have saved him all kinds of trouble. The cops were on their way and he didnt even give them a chance to do their job. Listen to the tape; he's ready to start shooting from the outset. He refuses to even take advice from the operator.

Everyone seems to be convinced that he's out of the woods. Like I said before, if Horn goes down for this, he will have lost everything for a couple grand worth of his neighbor's property.. doesnt seem worth it to me.

I'm not advocating given felons freebies. I'm just saying people should use a little discretion. Escalating a situation to a violent encounter should always be an absolute last resort IMO.

hoffmang
12-11-2007, 11:07 AM
Everyone seems to be convinced that he's out of the woods. Like I said before, if Horn goes down for this, he will have lost everything for a couple grand worth of his neighbor's property.. doesnt seem worth it to me.


Crazed,

I still need to listen to the audio, but I want to point out something subtly different. You seem to be a real fan of the consequintialist argument here. It has two potential flaws. Flaw one is that you are only applying it to the civilian and not the robbers. Flaw two is much more serious in that the line of argument your making is that you should derive most of your decision process in respect to state authority. That way lies dragons...

-Gene

Can'thavenuthingood
12-11-2007, 11:23 AM
The DA can see the jury going either way so he hands it off to the Grand Jury to toss or add cement to hold the case together.

I for one have no problem with a citizen taking care of his area of influence, meaning his and neighbors home. He thought it out and decided keeping the criminal element at bay meant more than long term consequences.
No one would have faulted him for staying inside and being a good witness because that is what we are told to do.
Yet we as citizens are not to expect protection until AFTER the fact. A police response after the crime of burglary, rape, murder etc.

I like to think I'd act same as Mr. Horn in protecting my neighborhood from thugs. One only has to look at France or the UK to see what a continuing lack of response by citizenry to criminal elements does to a society or country.

Vick

Crazed_SS
12-11-2007, 11:26 AM
Crazed,

I still need to listen to the audio, but I want to point out something subtly different. You seem to be a real fan of the consequintialist argument here. It has two potential flaws. Flaw one is that you are only applying it to the civilian and not the robbers. Flaw two is much more serious in that the line of argument your making is that you should derive most of your decision process in respect to state authority. That way lies dragons...

-Gene

I'm focusing on Horn, because if it were me, I'd be concerned with my well-being and livelihood. Im not gonna go out of my way to risk my life over some property that I dont even own. Depending on the situation, I might not even risk my life over property I do own. Possessions can be replaced/repaired, life cannot. I'm have no desire to be a hero if I dont have to be. As I said, the 911 operator gave sound advice, there was compelling reason not to follow it. In the Marines we used the phrase, "Good Initiative, Bad Judgement" .. I think that applies here.

Also, yes, I do have a certain respect for "the system", and at least giving it a chance to work before taking up arms and opening fire. I dont think LE is an incompetent as many people make them out to be. The way I see it, I pay taxes for police services, let them do their job and risk their lives to apprehend felons.

EDIT: If you listen to the tape you will see Joe Horn is concerned about risking his life... He says, "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story .. the transcript is incorrect in the story there. "Boom! You're dead!" should be "Move! You're dead"

Either way, he seems conflicted to me. He doesnt want to take a chance getting killed, but he's determined not to let them "get away with this" .. Which is it? Personally, if the options are A) Possibly getting killed, or B) Letting them get away.. Call me a coward, liberal, bleeding heart, whatever, but I'm going with option B.

tankerman
12-11-2007, 11:50 AM
Repeat offenders. So they should just be allowed to continue burglarizing homes until they end up arrested by LE. How long before they broke into a house with someone at home? These are criminals from another country coming here to prey on Americans. You expect home owners. neighbors to respect a criminals judgement and assume they will never physically injure anyone, just take property?

This is a simple equation for me.

I'm focusing on Horn, because if it were me, I'd be concerned with my well-being and livelihood. Im not gonna go out of my way to risk my life over some property that I dont even own. Depending on the situation, I might not even risk my life over property I do own. Possessions can be replaced/repaired, life cannot. I'm have no desire to be a hero if I dont have to be. As I said, the 911 operator gave sound advice, there was compelling reason not to follow it. In the Marines we used the phrase, "Good Initiative, Bad Judgement" .. I think that applies here.

Also, yes, I do have a certain respect for "the system", and at least giving it a chance to work before taking up arms and opening fire. I dont think LE is an incompetent as many people make them out to be. The way I see it, I pay taxes for police services, let them do their job and risk their lives to apprehend felons.

Crazed_SS
12-11-2007, 12:10 PM
Repeat offenders. So they should just be allowed to continue burglarizing homes until they end up arrested by LE.


I'm not saying they should be "allowed" to do anything. In this particular situation I'm saying Horn should have listened to the advice of the 911 dispatcher and let the police handle the situation.

Also if you had bothered to read my post you would see that I said, "Depending on the situation..". Depending on the situation, the reasonable choice might be to let the property go rather than risk your life to recover it.


These are criminals from another country coming here to prey on Americans.


What does their country of origin have on anything? :confused:


You expect home owners. neighbors to respect a criminals judgement and assume they will never physically injure anyone, just take property?

This is a simple equation for me.

If someone is in your house, the reasonable choice might be to open fire as waiting to see what a home invader's intentions are would be a bad idea.

If someone just broke into your neighbor's house, stole some stuff, and you called 911 and were instructed to stay put as the cops are on the way, the reasonable choice would be to stay put and let the cops apprehend the guys.

hoffmang
12-11-2007, 12:32 PM
Now that I'm listening to this (I used this version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlwkLJ9kBlU) this guy doesn't sound gung ho, he sounds angry that someone is doing it in broad daylight and is worried about having to confront the guys. He is a doofus however. The 911 operator isn't helping a whole lot.

Now that I've listened to it, this incident is a hard call both ways. The one thing I will say is that Mr. Horn, though not a wise individual, didn't seem to me to be out to kill somebody but to stop a robbery in progress.

-Gene

odesskiy
12-11-2007, 12:46 PM
I'm
If someone just broke into your neighbor's house, stole some stuff, and you called 911 and were instructed to stay put as the cops are on the way, the reasonable choice would be to stay put and let the cops apprehend the guys.

This is where we don't know if Mr. Horn had any way of knowing that his neighbors' bodies weren't getting cold on the floor. For all we know he could've assumed that the perps just commited murder(s).


You know, I can't say I entirely disagree with Crazed here. I'd be semi-comfortable confronting a single burglar, but 1-on-2 situation seems to put you into a position where you almost have no other choice but to use deadly force in response to any actions of the perps once they are aware of your presence.

5968
12-11-2007, 1:30 PM
Sounds like the first shot was justified (even though it would have been unnecessary if he'd listened to the dispatcher and stayed inside), but shooting the other guy in the back sounds like flat out murder.

I don't know about Texas, but in some states it is legal to shoot a fleeing felon. Granted you have to know that a felony did in deed occur. California should adopt a similar law instead of protecting the criminals.

STAGE 2
12-11-2007, 1:45 PM
All I'm saying is I dont think it was a prudent decision to confront these guys in such a manner. I'm not arguing that what he did was illegal or that he should go to prison. I'm just saying that if it were me, I'd sit there and keep tabs on the situation with my gun ready to go in case they came onto my property.

Different strokes for different folks. But than again thats why I brought up the point about the changing situation. Horn is 60, which places him at a disadvantage, and hes outnumbered. There is absolutely no guarantee that these guys won't hit his house next. Thats bad juju, especially if one perp goes around back and one tries to enter from the side. Add to this the fact that Horn doesn't know if these guys are armed and potential gets even worse.

He realized an advantage and he took it. I'm not going to blame anyone for not wagering their life/property on the odds of what some felons are going to do. Its better to control a situation than hope it passes by.


From the tape it seems Horn was able to clearly see what was going on. The fact of the matter is there was no pressing reason for Horn to risk his own safety to engage these guys. No one's life was in immediate danger.

No, all Horn knew was that a couple of felons were burglarizing the house next door. He didn't know if there were more perps, if they were armed, if they planned on hitting 1 house or several, or if the police were 5 seconds away or 20 minutes.


The 911 dispatcher gave him sound adivce, that had he listened to it, would have saved him all kinds of trouble. The cops were on their way and he didnt even give them a chance to do their job. Listen to the tape; he's ready to start shooting from the outset. He refuses to even take advice from the operator.

No, the dispatcher gave CYA advise. If the dispatcher had said anything otherwise then the department would be open to massive liability if Horn would have gotten hurt.


Everyone seems to be convinced that he's out of the woods. Like I said before, if Horn goes down for this, he will have lost everything for a couple grand worth of his neighbor's property.. doesnt seem worth it to me.

I don't know if he's out of the woods, but he won't be convicted, nor should he.


I'm not advocating given felons freebies. I'm just saying people should use a little discretion. Escalating a situation to a violent encounter should always be an absolute last resort IMO.

Sure you are. You just said that he should only do something if they knock over a house twice. Thats a freebie.

As far as escalating the situation to a violent encounter, I think this is where your problem is. Horn didn't escalate anything. Burglary is a violent crime. The situation was already violent. Whatever Horn did, it wasn't adding violence to the situation.

tankerman
12-11-2007, 1:55 PM
Why should anyone take the advice of a Dispatcher?

Country of origin could certainly should play a roll in whether may be prosecuted. If these idiots came to the US with the sole purpose of Burglarizing Americans, that should be certainly be considered. They viewed themselves a predators and US citizens as prey.

"Depending on the situation" what does that mean? Isn't that what this gentlemen did? Are you saying that your judgement is better than his, even though you were not present when this occured?

Like others have stated, you have no idea what the crooks had just done in your neighbors house, maybe rape, murder, etc... You are willing to let them flee, because that's what you pay the Police to do. Well I believe in taking ownership and responsibility and yes that does include risk. To me that's better than doing nothing.



I'm not saying they should be "allowed" to do anything. In this particular situation I'm saying Horn should have listened to the advice of the 911 dispatcher and let the police handle the situation.

Also if you had bothered to read my post you would see that I said, "Depending on the situation..". Depending on the situation, the reasonable choice might be to let the property go rather than risk your life to recover it.



What does their country of origin have on anything? :confused:



If someone is in your house, the reasonable choice might be to open fire as waiting to see what a home invader's intentions are would be a bad idea.

If someone just broke into your neighbor's house, stole some stuff, and you called 911 and were instructed to stay put as the cops are on the way, the reasonable choice would be to stay put and let the cops apprehend the guys.

Libertarian2008
12-11-2007, 9:18 PM
This guy is the man. I would have done the same exact thing. Criminals caught in the act of breaking and entering run the risk of having their heads blown off, and they were illegals too. Once again illustrating that the criminals have no respect for the law. I hope this man is cleared of all wrong doing. I also doubt that his neighborhood will be robbed again.

ghettoshecky
12-11-2007, 9:30 PM
yes these two definitely had it coming to them. Yes according to law I guess you can say it was murder, but seriously wtf were these two bastards doing in this country robbing people? I would love to have a neighbor who would watch out for your home like that.

doctor_vals
12-11-2007, 11:05 PM
Horn went OUT OF HIS WAY to escalate this one. Now two people are dead (yea they were illegal criminals.. I know.. they're still people)

1. Not to escalate this situation, but stop freebies and defend own house as well.
2. They are not still people - just bodies.


I'm not advocating given felons freebies. I'm just saying people should use a little discretion.
3. Actually - you are. And I would imagine if Mr. Horn would be a black guy - you will support him - and it doesn't matter if he will shoot black or white freebooter.
For me it should be a good precedent to all criminals (doesn't matter illegal or legal) - they may face with death even for robbery.
Of course it may happen on USA soil - not in California.

I don't know about Texas, but in some states it is legal to shoot a fleeing felon. Granted you have to know that a felony did in deed occur. California should adopt a similar law instead of protecting the criminals.
California will not adopt this kind of law. And I think you and all others know why.

Crazed_SS
12-11-2007, 11:27 PM
1. Not to escalate this situation, but stop freebies and defend own house as well.
2. They are not still people - just bodies.


3. Actually - you are. And I would imagine if Mr. Horn would be a black guy - you will support him - and it doesn't matter if he will shoot black or white freebooter.
For me it should be a good precedent to all criminals (doesn't matter illegal or legal) - they may face with death even for robbery.
Of course it may happen on USA soil - not in California.


California will not adopt this kind of law. And I think you and all others know why.

No, I'm not advocating given felons freebies. I'm just saying people should use a little discretion.

I dont know why you feel the need to play the race card, but if Horn was Black it wouldnt have made his decision any less rash. All this stuff about race, country of origin, etc are just issues people are throwing in to cloud the issue.

Crazed_SS
12-11-2007, 11:47 PM
Different strokes for different folks. But than again thats why I brought up the point about the changing situation. Horn is 60, which places him at a disadvantage, and hes outnumbered.


Exactly. He's an older gentleman and maybe outnumbered. All the more reason to stay put.

No, all Horn knew was that a couple of felons were burglarizing the house next door. He didn't know if there were more perps, if they were armed, if they planned on hitting 1 house or several, or if the police were 5 seconds away or 20 minutes.

Exactly. He doesnt know the full gravity of the situation. All the more reason to stay put.


No, the dispatcher gave CYA advise. If the dispatcher had said anything otherwise then the department would be open to massive liability if Horn would have gotten hurt.

Exactly, Horn could have gotten hurt. All the more reason to stay put.

I don't know if he's out of the woods, but he won't be convicted, nor should he.

I dont think anyone here can say for sure he wont be convicted. Remember, a Texas jury convicted two border patrol agents for shooting an illegal drug smuggler. Then there's another case of a Texas jury convicting a LEO for shooting an illegal in a car that supposedly drove in his direction.

Just because it's Texas, doesnt automatically mean he's getting off.

Sure you are. You just said that he should only do something if they knock over a house twice. Thats a freebie.

I said people should do something if they're in immediate danger.

STAGE 2
12-12-2007, 12:44 PM
Exactly. He's an older gentleman and maybe outnumbered. All the more reason to stay put.

Exactly. He doesnt know the full gravity of the situation. All the more reason to stay put.

Exactly, Horn could have gotten hurt. All the more reason to stay put.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever had any formal firearms training for tactics and such? Cause it really doesn't sound like it.

By waiting, the only thing Horn can count on is the HOPE that they don't come over. Thats it. By doing that he is playing a game of chance. That eliminates the advantage of suprise and position, the only two things that Horn had going for him.

Conversely, by going out and confronting these two guys, he had both the element of surprise and a superior position. Here its a certianty than any bad thing that does happen will do so while Horn has the tactical advantage.

Thats the choice. A) hope nothing happens and be in a world of crap if it does or B) make sure nothing happens and control the situation with the deck in your favor.


If you personally prefer to sit and cross your fingers, thats fine, but don't say that doing anything else is rash or improper.

In fact I'm 99% positive that if you hear something go bump in the night you AREN'T going to sit in your bedroom and hope they don't enter. You will probably go out and confront them. And if you're smart, you'll wait till the opportune moment and proverbially suckerpunch the perp.

Thats what Horn did.

Crazed_SS
12-12-2007, 1:51 PM
Just out of curiosity, have you ever had any formal firearms training for tactics and such? Cause it really doesn't sound like it.



We did some tactics and firearms training in the Marines.

If you're talking about taking self-defense classes at the local range or whatever, no I havent done that. However, I am sure if I go take the defensive shotgun course at American Shooting Center, they arent going to teach me to grab my 870 and go on the offensive against fleeing burglars who arent posing any threat to anyone at the time.

They're probably gonna tell me to make sure my home and person are secure, call the SDPD, and wait for the calvary. I read a lot about tactics on the internets, and I've never heard anyone advocate taking the fight to bad guys in the manner Horn did.


By waiting, the only thing Horn can count on is the HOPE that they don't come over. Thats it. By doing that he is playing a game of chance. That eliminates the advantage of suprise and position, the only two things that Horn had going for him.


He is playing a game of chance either way. However, he takes a much bigger risk in this game of chance by engaging these guys were there is no reason to.

I think the difference between us is you focus on "What ifs" .. what if these guys just killed the neighbors?, what if these guys are coming over to my house?, what if they're Al-Qaeda terrorists bent on destroying the world?

I'd be more concerned with the situation as it is unfolding and taking what information and evidence is known, then making a decision based on that, not based on a bunch of hypothetical situations.

In court, you arent gonna be able to throw out a bunch of "what ifs" as a defense.


In fact I'm 99% positive that if you hear something go bump in the night you AREN'T going to sit in your bedroom and hope they don't enter. You will probably go out and confront them. And if you're smart, you'll wait till the opportune moment and proverbially suckerpunch the perp.

Thats what Horn did.


There's a difference. Burglars inside my house pose a threat to me. In that case, it's game on. Burglars outside, leaving my neighbor's house with a bag of loot .. not so much.

STAGE 2
12-12-2007, 6:16 PM
We did some tactics and firearms training in the Marines.

If you're talking about taking self-defense classes at the local range or whatever, no I havent done that. However, I am sure if I go take the defensive shotgun course at American Shooting Center, they arent going to teach me to grab my 870 and go on the offensive against fleeing burglars who arent posing any threat to anyone at the time.

I wouldn't trust ASC to teach me how to tie my shoes, but thats a whole different story.



He is playing a game of chance either way. However, he takes a much bigger risk in this game of chance by engaging these guys were there is no reason to.

But thats the point. He has several reasons to. First, he has the reason to stop these perps from knocking over his neighbors house. Second, he has the reason to stop them before they come over to his yard.

While Horn didn't know this at the time, it turns out that these two were part of a larger burglary ring. There is a huge potential that they would have hit other houses if Horn didn't walk out. So, while he didn't know this, its really reasonable to assume that burglars will hit more than one house on a block.


I think the difference between us is you focus on "What ifs" .. what if these guys just killed the neighbors?, what if these guys are coming over to my house?, what if they're Al-Qaeda terrorists bent on destroying the world?

But again, thats the point. Everything is a what if. You make it sound as if hunkering down in your home is 100% safe. Thats not the case.


I'd be more concerned with the situation as it is unfolding and taking what information and evidence is known, then making a decision based on that, not based on a bunch of hypothetical situations.

Well isn't that what Horn did?



In court, you arent gonna be able to throw out a bunch of "what ifs" as a defense.

Sure you are. Those "what if's" are exactly what the reasonable person standard deals with.

Of course none if that matters since the issue in this case isn't whether it was legal for Horn to go out and confront them. Its perfectly legal for HOrn to confront them.


There's a difference. Burglars inside my house pose a threat to me. In that case, it's game on. Burglars outside, leaving my neighbor's house with a bag of loot .. not so much.

But you just assumed that they were leaving. One of the guys was shot in Horn's yard. That doesn't sound like leaving to me.

gunn
12-13-2007, 3:46 PM
Having lived in Texas for most of my life prior to moving to CA, I can see how the GJ might go either way on this case -- especially since the perps were shot in the back.

Even if Horn does walk away from criminal charges, I'm willing to bet that he's going to be slapped with a pretty serious CIVIL suit for wrongful death. Sure, the felons were trash. Sure, they died. Sure, society is better off without them walking around. Whether or not they deserved it is up for debate but I'm not interested in that part of this situation.

You have to admit though that whatever expenses HORN incurs defending himself in both the criminal and civil lawsuit (which is SURE to come), HORN brought it on himself. It was HIS choice to confront the perps and at his age and likely health (his pasty complexion isn't exactly one of a marathon runner), he's a fool for prioritizing:
"Gettin' the perps to make sure they don't get away with this"
over
"are they coming after ME, MY family, and MY belongings?"
"will they sue me?"
"is my health worth dealing with the aftermath?"

IMO, his words (bringing up the new texas law, his word choice about confronting the criminals, etc) is only going to come back and bite him in the ***.
It's sad to think that all the money he's worked hard for (a "computer consultant" makes decent money) may end up going to raise some criminal's rugrats (and their lawyer's rugrats) and not his own. Compenstating his neighbor for their loss ($2K not that it would help in reality) would cost Horn much less than the poop storm he cooked up for himself.

---
Finally, I'm not quite sure why some of you are using the excuse that this was a tactically good measure to "get the drop on the perps before they come after the HORN house."

Consider the alternatives:
Instead of rushing outside, he could have just sat there with a camera, taken pictures (not potshots) of the proceedings, and tried to get a view of the getaway car. They would probably never had known he was there.

Even if a perp had seen him taking pictures (or just looking at the scene), what are the chances they would have veered off to try and get him from his house? Not likely.

Plus, had the perps decided to break into someone elses house, the cops would have arrived in due time.

Now, if they were stupid enough to try to come after him, or if they hadn't seen him and were greedy enough to break into HIS house, HORN would have had plenty of opportunity to "get the drop on the perps" as they tried to enter his house. If they got shot coming into his house, this would be much less of a mess. Even in the event of a civil suit, it would be a much more clean cut case since HORN could state that he knew these guys were robbers since they just came from their shopping spree at the neighbors.

The burglers were dumb but in this situation, I think that HORN was much dumber (since he had the freedom to decide whether or not to engage). I'm just glad that the plainclothes cop that arrived didn't get shot up by this fool.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html

-g

N6ATF
12-13-2007, 11:31 PM
Who would have standing to file this civil suit exactly? The perps are dead and their families are likely in Columbia.

gunn
12-14-2007, 8:11 AM
Who would have standing to file this civil suit exactly? The perps are dead and their families are likely in Columbia.

If by Columbia you mean some ghetto part of Houston (like the Fifth ward), you would be correct.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5766455
This sob story came out 2 days after the shooting so Diamond Morgan must not have been THAT hard to find.

Even if she's also here illegally, this poop will likely allow her to petition to stay in the country until her civil case is settled. The sad thing is that even if she loses her case, it's gonna cost HORN a lot of money to deal with it.

Is it sad that this woman and her child lost their husband and provider for their samily? Sure. Do they deserve millions for it? No.

Note: There is precedent for this before.
Check out the case of this. Google "Kurt Prochaska" and Milawaukee (WI a blue state IIRC)
* A Doctor hears a burglar fall through his roof b/c he was ripping off the exhaust fan.
* Doctor yells to the burglar to leave.
* Perp runs into the bathroom instead
* Doctor gets his .38, sees the perp, shoots ONCE.
* Perp's spine gets hit and cannot walk again. He goes to jail b/c guess what? the burglarly is a parole violation and he goes to jail.
* Doctor is cleared of criminal charges b/c he used restraint (one bullet vs. emptying the mag)
* Perp's wife sues for "loss of earning capacity"

Now, Dr Rainiero's case is a LOT more clean cut than HORNs. I haven't found anything about if this case was settled but one thing is guaranteed - its gonna cost the good doctor $$$.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

UPDATE:
Prochaska's defense was that he was drunk and needed to go to the bathroom. har har.
His civil lawsuit was closed... and was to be refiled in a different county. That's one more bill for the doctor. sigh.
http://www.gazetteextra.com/prochaska012407.asp


--
My thoughts:
This has made me totally re-think the value of a CCW permit. It's not my job to defend society and society is not giving me any kind of financial indemnification to engage with bad guys.
* Remove all possibly evil features from my Mossberg 12ga. it's bad enough that it has an evil looking synthetic stock and a 18.5" barrel. Having tactical lights or a laser sight might look cool but isn't going to play well with a jury.
* If I see someone breaking into my neighbors? Call the cops
* If I see/hear someone breaking into my house? Call the cops, Load up the mossberg and see to the safety of my wife and family.
* I will NOT go hunting for the intruder or engage in any activity that says I'm eager to confront the intruder.

BOTTOM LINE: Don't go picking fights even if you think you are legally OK to do so. You may have a higher tolerance for financial pain but to me, shooting anyone unless they are threatening my family is simply not worth the financial pain. I'd rather pay for MY future kids college education than some criminal's spawn. If you really want to shoot 6 foot upright animals, join the local PD or the army. They're hiring.

Crazed_SS
12-14-2007, 9:22 AM
My points exactly.

I've even read people advocate that even if a burglar is in your house, that you shouldnt go Seal Team 6 style and start slicing the pie and trying to clear your house of tangos. Secure yourself and your family, take up a defensive position and call the police. If the badguys wander into your secured position.. too bad, so sad.

The most important thing is securing yourself and the one's you care about. If you end up stopping the criminals from stealing some property, that is an bonus, but it should not be your main goal.

I dont think Horn thought his neighbor had just be raped and murdered. Listen to the tape. He mentions a bag of loot. He says something like "Im not gonna let them get away with this" .. it seems he was most concerned with stopping/apprehending the burglars. While that is commendable, I dont think it's worth risking yourself butt for.

I guess people have different values though.

tankerman
12-14-2007, 4:40 PM
:beatdeadhorse5::beatdeadhorse5::beatdeadhorse5::b eatdeadhorse5::beatdeadhorse5::beatdeadhorse5::bea tdeadhorse5:My points exactly.

I've even read people advocate that even if a burglar is in your house, that you shouldnt go Seal Team 6 style and start slicing the pie and trying to clear your house of tangos. Secure yourself and your family, take up a defensive position and call the police. If the badguys wander into your secured position.. too bad, so sad.

The most important thing is securing yourself and the one's you care about. If you end up stopping the criminals from stealing some property, that is an bonus, but it should not be your main goal.

I dont think Horn thought his neighbor had just be raped and murdered. Listen to the tape. He mentions a bag of loot. He says something like "Im not gonna let them get away with this" .. it seems he was most concerned with stopping/apprehending the burglars. While that is commendable, I dont think it's worth risking yourself butt for.

I guess people have different values though.

mblat
12-14-2007, 5:01 PM
I am sure if conversation "Did he make tactically sound decision" is useless. Answer is absolutely obvious I am surprised that anybody would have different opinion on the subject. I am Crased that I absolutely certain that NO self defense school will teach you to go outside of your house to confront couple of criminals. I think we all in agreement that this aren't going to happened.

On other hand Mr. Horn had made a decision to put his life in danger to prevent a felony. That is commendable. And while it may not be tactically sound, from societal point of view Mr. Horn did strategically correct thing. He took 2 criminals from the street. It saves all of us a lot of money, possibly saves lives in the future and put additional weight on risk part of risk/reward equation.

And that is a good thing. Mr. Horn should and thanks G.d to Texas law will probably walk free man.

CWatson
12-15-2007, 7:35 AM
The only thing Mr Horn did wrong was not hanging up the phone.

CW

M. Sage
12-15-2007, 10:35 AM
Even if she's also here illegally, this poop will likely allow her to petition to stay in the country until her civil case is settled. The sad thing is that even if she loses her case, it's gonna cost HORN a lot of money to deal with it.

Is it sad that this woman and her child lost their husband and provider for their samily? Sure. Do they deserve millions for it? No.

Note: There is precedent for this before.
Check out the case of this. Google "Kurt Prochaska" and Milawaukee (WI a blue state IIRC)
* A Doctor hears a burglar fall through his roof b/c he was ripping off the exhaust fan.
* Doctor yells to the burglar to leave.
* Perp runs into the bathroom instead
* Doctor gets his .38, sees the perp, shoots ONCE.
* Perp's spine gets hit and cannot walk again. He goes to jail b/c guess what? the burglarly is a parole violation and he goes to jail.
* Doctor is cleared of criminal charges b/c he used restraint (one bullet vs. emptying the mag)
* Perp's wife sues for "loss of earning capacity"

Now, Dr Rainiero's case is a LOT more clean cut than HORNs. I haven't found anything about if this case was settled but one thing is guaranteed - its gonna cost the good doctor $$$.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

UPDATE:
Prochaska's defense was that he was drunk and needed to go to the bathroom. har har.
His civil lawsuit was closed... and was to be refiled in a different county. That's one more bill for the doctor. sigh.
http://www.gazetteextra.com/prochaska012407.asp

Rainero's case can't be compared. Texas has full Castle Doctrine, all three parts. If you're vindicated in a defensive shooting, you're protected against civil suits. If the grand jury no-bills Horn, he's in the clear as far as civil action goes, too.

Is it sad that this woman lost her husband and provider? Not really, since he was stealing from law-abiding citizens to provide for her. Doesn't that make her just as much a parasite as he was? Hmm, receiving stolen goods is illegal, and she was living off of those stolen goods....

Rainero's situation is a bunch of BS for so many reasons. Criminal charges shouldn't even be an option when you shoot an intruder... And allowing someone who was convicted of burglary in the incident where they got shot to sue the person who shot them? Wisconsin needs Castle badly... So does the rest of the nation.

Can'thavenuthingood
12-15-2007, 5:18 PM
Texas has full Castle Doctrine, all three parts. If you're vindicated in a defensive shooting, you're protected against civil suits. If the grand jury no-bills Horn, he's in the clear as far as civil action goes, too.



This sounds like a good idea for Legislative action in the form of a Bill the Governor could sign into law.
Negate any and all Civil Action suits if no criminal conviction or Grand Jury indictment.

Vick

ZapThyCat
12-15-2007, 11:16 PM
Has anyone seen the youtube video of this Quanell X guy? He was going to try to talk to the media and denounce Horn, but an ENORMUS crowd of people shouted him down... harley riders revving their engines and all... he couldn't even get an interview. Him and his 5 little black-supremist followers finally left. It was awesome.

M. Sage
12-16-2007, 5:09 AM
This sounds like a good idea for Legislative action in the form of a Bill the Governor could sign into law.
Negate any and all Civil Action suits if no criminal conviction or Grand Jury indictment.

Vick

Yep. Getting it through would be a very uphill battle as the politics in this state are now. But it's a very worthwhile fight. What good is CCW if you're going to be robbed of everything you own after a defensive shooting anyway?

Whenever a state pushes for this bill, the Brady Bunch dubs it the "Shoot First Law!" What a bunch of wieners. For example: http://www.shootfirstlaw.org/ You'll notice, of course, that they're wrong about blood flowing in the streets (again.)

The good news is that we currently have two parts of Castle. We're really only lacking the immunity from wrongful prosecution and frivolous civil suits.

Has anyone seen the youtube video of this Quanell X guy? He was going to try to talk to the media and denounce Horn, but an ENORMUS crowd of people shouted him down... harley riders revving their engines and all... he couldn't even get an interview. Him and his 5 little black-supremist followers finally left. It was awesome.

Yep. Hilarious! My friends in that area tell me that Quanell X is a local race-baiter. Wonderful: a wanna-be Jesse Jackson! Pretty pathetic, IMO, when JJ is your apparent role model...

gunn
12-17-2007, 8:07 AM
Rainero's case can't be compared. Texas has full Castle Doctrine, all three parts. If you're vindicated in a defensive shooting, you're protected against civil suits. If the grand jury no-bills Horn, he's in the clear as far as civil action goes, too.

Is it sad that this woman lost her husband and provider? Not really, since he was stealing from law-abiding citizens to provide for her. Doesn't that make her just as much a parasite as he was? Hmm, receiving stolen goods is illegal, and she was living off of those stolen goods....

Rainero's situation is a bunch of BS for so many reasons. Criminal charges shouldn't even be an option when you shoot an intruder... And allowing someone who was convicted of burglary in the incident where they got shot to sue the person who shot them? Wisconsin needs Castle badly... So does the rest of the nation.

1) You learn something new everyday. I thought the Castle Doctrine merely provided that you did not have a duty to retreat in your own home. Who knew it also provided for immunity against civil suits?!
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/HB00284I.pdf

Q: What are the three parts of Castle Doctrine? No need to retreat, immunity from criminal prosecution, ???

2) I think we have a difference of opinion here. Society is full of parasites but you have to draw the line somewhere as to culpability. If you think she should have been shot b/c she lived off a parasite (I agree with you about the robbers), well, we might as well start tagging folks and ordering up a fresh batch of Zyklon-B. We all know how well that worked for the last folks who tried that form of "societal delousing".

3) I completely agree that Rainero should be immune from civil lawsuits. As I mentioned in #1, I had no idea that this 'immunity from civil suits' was part of the CD bill.
Apparently, they're working on it in WI:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB35hst.html

---
The one downside is that with a civil suit, you can STILL be sued even if you have immunity and it still costs the defendant time/money to get. After all, anyone can sue anyone in this society (or god for that matter) as long as a) they have enough money to hire the lawyer or b) they find a shady lawyer willing to work on 100% contingency.

Now, there are negative side effects from expanding the "Castle Doctrine" to beyond the castle (aka "Stand your ground"): Apparently, in FL, gangsters are using it as a defense when they get into gunfights in public.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/22/wuspols122.xml

I can't imagine that any lawmaker in FL intended that this law help one thug get away with shooting another one in public.

I'm 100% behind a full CD law in CA (one that protects law abiding citizen in their homes and not the criminal instigators). I'm not entirely sold that it should apply outside the home (like on your neighbor's lawn or in a cafe).

-g

Can'thavenuthingood
12-17-2007, 1:26 PM
Now, there are negative side effects from expanding the "Castle Doctrine" to beyond the castle (aka "Stand your ground"): Apparently, in FL, gangsters are using it as a defense when they get into gunfights in public.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuspols122.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/22/wuspols122.xml)

I can't imagine that any lawmaker in FL intended that this law help one thug get away with shooting another one in public.

I'm 100% behind a full CD law in CA (one that protects law abiding citizen in their homes and not the criminal instigators). I'm not entirely sold that it should apply outside the home (like on your neighbor's lawn or in a cafe).

-g

Hadn't thought of CD and 'stand your ground' being used by criminal element. They sure make it difficult for an honset man to remain honest and law abiding.

I still think its worth pushing for a Bill from our illustrious legislators to cover immunity from civil suits where no conviction or indictment exists. Its a push in the right direction and may discourage many suits from being filed.

Vick

M. Sage
12-17-2007, 5:03 PM
1) You learn something new everyday. I thought the Castle Doctrine merely provided that you did not have a duty to retreat in your own home. Who knew it also provided for immunity against civil suits?!
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/HB00284I.pdf

Q: What are the three parts of Castle Doctrine? No need to retreat, immunity from criminal prosecution, ???

The third part is a presumed danger in your own home. CA has that and no duty to retreat. If we add in immunity (criminal and civil, that last one is important), we'd be in pretty good shape.

2) I think we have a difference of opinion here. Society is full of parasites but you have to draw the line somewhere as to culpability. If you think she should have been shot b/c she lived off a parasite (I agree with you about the robbers), well, we might as well start tagging folks and ordering up a fresh batch of Zyklon-B. We all know how well that worked for the last folks who tried that form of "societal delousing".

No, I don't advocate that. I'm just saying that if she's living off stolen goods, or the proceeds from selling those stolen goods, she's a criminal as much as her husband was. IMO, she should do a couple of years.

3) I completely agree that Rainero should be immune from civil lawsuits. As I mentioned in #1, I had no idea that this 'immunity from civil suits' was part of the CD bill.
Apparently, they're working on it in WI:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB35hst.html

Awesome! Hope they get it.

The one downside is that with a civil suit, you can STILL be sued even if you have immunity and it still costs the defendant time/money to get. After all, anyone can sue anyone in this society (or god for that matter) as long as a) they have enough money to hire the lawyer or b) they find a shady lawyer willing to work on 100% contingency.

Now, there are negative side effects from expanding the "Castle Doctrine" to beyond the castle (aka "Stand your ground"): Apparently, in FL, gangsters are using it as a defense when they get into gunfights in public.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/22/wuspols122.xml

I can't imagine that any lawmaker in FL intended that this law help one thug get away with shooting another one in public.

I'm 100% behind a full CD law in CA (one that protects law abiding citizen in their homes and not the criminal instigators). I'm not entirely sold that it should apply outside the home (like on your neighbor's lawn or in a cafe).

-g

I'm not sure how that works if they decide to sue you anyway. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the legal system, though I'd hope that it would be as simple as submitting a form without ever setting foot in a courtroom.

The Telegraph article.. Beware anyone who calls Castle a "shoot first" law. That's the anti's name for Castle Doctrine and sets off my "oh, boy... bias ahead" alarms. Also, certain FL LE have been known to slant heavily toward the anti side of the fence. See Wayne LaPierre's smackdown (http://youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8) of CNN for faking a story 3 years ago. It involved a FL LEO who helped fake a story on how evil the assault weapons banned in the 1994 fed ban were.

IIRC, that sheriff got busted for something kind of recently and is now in the clink. :43:

Nra-Life-Member
12-21-2007, 7:27 PM
If anyone wants to help Joe Horn, Here is your chance..

http://www.joehornformyneighbor.com/