Joe Horn is the asshole of the year. (Shoots man in coldblood for burglerly and set free)

[inthebrain]

Man kills two for breaking into neighbors house

This is one of the most disturbing things I've ever listened to. Here is a link to the 9/11 call.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

The men that he killed were not armed. The 911 operator repeatedly told him not to go outside or shoot these people. There were plain clothes officers on the way to deal with the situation and he shot the suspects six seconds after police arrived on the scene.

This guy is now the hero for every racist and paranoid gun nut across the country.

[polichick]

1. Pretty stunning, but I doubt he'd hesitate to shoot a white burglar either. nt

[YOY]

3. Yup.

I don't think race was a motivation here. Just pure trigger happy BS.

He could have shot them in the legs but he didn't. Did these guys freeze or run away though? I highly doubt they "charged" him.

[Colobo]

4. I don't know... I can't sympathize with the burglars no matter how hard I try.

[sandnsea]

8. We don't kill people over stuff

It isn't a matter of sympathizing with them, it's a matter of defining the morals of our own society.

[inthebrain]

9. I can

They didn't deserve to lose their lives over this.

[Greenwood]

82. Maybe others will be a little more hestiant about breaking in a house.....

Sorry they lost their lives but DON'T BREAK IN A HOUSE AND STEAL!!!!!!

Pretty simple.

[YOY]

10. Oh I don't feel sorry for "them" moreover the attitude involved...

but I do feel sorry that the attitude that the police can't take care of it (this part IS their job) and that the guys needed to be capped instead of held at gunpoint until the authorities arrived prevailed. The authorities arriving within 6 seconds makes it really rather sick.

Was killing really needed here as well?

A fair day in court is what those guys deserved. Not vigilante justice.

[inthebrain]

15. Police were already on the scene

There were plain clothes officers.

Generally they will sit and observe just to gather evidence. Especially if they think they have the suspects cornered. Generally the arrest is made when the suspects come out into the open which is usually the way they go about it.

If you get them in the street you have an easier time taking them down if they are armed.

This asshole was told repeatedly not to leave the house and shoot these guys. As far as I'm concerned this idiot is responable for excalating a situation that needn't be escalated.

[YOY]

16. Yes I agree, but racially motivated? No.

n/t

[AlCzervik]

17. he shot them in the back and they weren't burglarizing his house, i don't have

sympathy for burglars or other criminals Joe Horn included.

[polichick]

5. They didn't stop so he shot - yes, he could've hit their legs. nt

[Dollface]

11. Hitting legs is harder than it looks in the movies

[YOY]

14. So is hitting a moving target. Were the guys running away anyways?

Shooting someone is the back is a cowards move.

[Dollface]

28. Not to mention homicide.

[inthebrain]

40. He had a fucking shotgun!!!!

How hard is it to hit someone in the legs with a shotgun.

Furthermore; This act was clearly an act of premeditated murder. When he called the police he handed this situation off to them. The only way he involved himself directly with the burglery was by going outside himself.

There is such a thing as written law and unwritten law. He may be "covered by the law" in shooting. Perhaps not in the fact that his actions were premeditated. He flat out planned on killing these people the whole time he was on the phone with the dispatcher.

[DaLittle Kitty]

20. The MF'er Just wanted to shoot somebody and

This was his excuse to do it. Some people wait for years for the opportunity to put a cap in somebody, he got his chance and he was not going to let it go. His mistake was calling the police who did very clearly instruct Mr. Horn to STAY IN THE HOUSE! While the burglars were COMPLETELY wrong in their actions, vigilante justice is not the answer.

Mr Horn will likely as not go on a speaking tour and make tons of money describing his experience to throngs of envious gun toters and I am certainly NOT anti- gun, but this kind of behavior is only going to grow as people become more desperate in a declining economy.

So I guess we might as well get ready to line up and shoot all the poor bastards who lose their jobs before they rob our homes. Orrrr line up and get shot before we in desperation rob someone elses home. :nuke:

[ORDagnabbit]

2. hmmm dont rob dont get shot... pretty simple.

[inthebrain]

6. So you think people are justified in killing people over property?

I'm not a gun not nor am I anti gun either. one this is certain is that this crazy asshole should not own one.

The 911 dispatcher repeatedly told him not to go outside and NOT to shoot these two. They had plain clothes officers already on the scene when he started firing. He could have killed them as well.

Anyone that thinks killing people over material posessions is justified is a borderline sociopath.

[Greenwood]

80. I totally agree! Don't rob and you don't get shot...

Not a hard concept to grasp.

[sandnsea]

7. This used to be plain illegal

We have really gone down the tubes in this country. Nobody used to think property was worth killing people over. I do think racism has allowed people to dehumanize others, and once you start down that path it's pretty easy to dehumanize everybody who isn't just like you, even "white trash".

[polichick]

13. Don't you see the irony here???

It still IS illegal to enter this country without going through the proper procedures ~ but many Dems don't seem to care that illegal immigrants are stealing from citizens day in and day out (whether they break into houses or not).

That said, I think a redneck like that would shoot ANY burglar.

[sandnsea]

23. Illegal employers are stealing

from everybody by not paying fair wages. That has nothing to do with shooting people in cold blood.

[polichick]

27. Yes, employers are most definitely stealing from citizens...

But I'm just as sick of Dems making excuses for illegal immigrants as I am of Republicans making excuses for employers. The irony is that you seem more bothered by an action that's not illegal in Texas than you are either the illegal burglary or the illegal entry into the country.

[sandnsea]

54. Do you have any personal morals?? Is law all that matters?

If you are more worried about someone trying to feed their family than someone murdering someone, then you seriously need therapy and I don't say that lightly.

[polichick]

56. Do you feel sorry for all burglars then??

In my view it's not just illegal to break into someone else's home or someone else's country ~ it's immoral. I didn't say that the shooter is a good guy ~ he seemed trigger happy to me. What disturbs me is the twisted logic some Dems use regarding those who break into our country and steal from citizens every day.

[sandnsea]

64. No burglar should be murdered in cold blood

Period. There is no comparison between killing someone and working for legal citizens who want to pay you.

[glowing]

25. The country was founded by the gun... People used to be shot or

hung over less.. let's not pretend that just because of Bush, we have slid into some moral decrepit society.. Now, while you may find this appaling.. I call it advancement.. Better than pistols at high noon? Burning the witches at salem.. crazy stuff like that

[sandnsea]

53. Current history, not 200 fucking years ago

Good god.

I don't know how old you are, but NO, people did not think like this 30 years ago.

[glowing]

94. Yes they did, you just didn't hear about it.. It wasn't as reported as now..

Also, instead of 911.. there would be no report at all other than brugalars shot while attempting robbery.

[bluestateguy]

12. I don't condone what he did

But the simple fact is that if the two illegal immigrants who were robbing from the neighborhood had not being doing so, none of this would have happened.

I don't condone what he did. I would have acted differently. But we need to understand the fear and anger he had at the time.

[polichick]

19. This is going to happen more and more if Congress doesn't deal with the immigration problem...

Nobody is protecting the country from this invasion and all that it's costing citizens.

[inthebrain]

21. Oh really?

Now it's justified to shoot them as well?

[polichick]

22. In Texas you can shoot any criminal - not just illegal ones. nt

[AlCzervik]

26. wtf does that have to do with illegal immigrants?

[polichick]

29. As I said, this will happen more frequently if Congress doesn't deal...

...with the immigration problem.

[AlCzervik]

31. and that still makes 0 sense, are you saying Joe Horn knew those burglars were illegal?

so thats why he shot them? How do you know someone is not here legally just by looking at them?

[polichick]

34. I've already said that imo this guy would've shot ANY burglar...

If you were less reactive, you'd see that there is more than one issue involved here. There's the gun-totin' redneck, the Texas laws, the burglars AND the illegal immigration problem.

[AlCzervik]

37. you are the one that connected the 2.

[polichick]

42. The OP began with racism - my first response was that the man...

...probably would've shot a white burglar. (As you can read for yourself.)

[inthebrain]

45. I wrote the OP

I didn't include anything regarding race in this thread. You're full of shit on that account. Me think thou doth protest to much to cover their thinly veiled racism though.

That's what I'm reading into a lot of this shit.

Of course those folks will say there is nothing racist about any of it.

[polichick]

51. "This guy is now the hero for every racist and paranoid gun nut across the country."

[AlCzervik]

24. so people are just going to choose random brown people, hope they're illegals and start blasting?

is that what you're saying?

[polichick]

32. Whether some Dems want to understand it or not...

Illegal immigration results in additional crime to communities ~ in our small suburban town, almost all the crime is the result of illegal immigrants migrating from the city as times get rough economically. People are fed up with this problem, and will eventually take things into their own hands if the government doesn't deal with it. Democrats need to wake up regarding this issue.

[AlCzervik]

36. so again, you're advocating shooting random brown folks and maybe the odds

are good you'll hit an illegal.

[inthebrain]

38. That's ridiculous

in areas where crime rates are through the roof it is not illegal immigrants committing them.

Furthermore.

What you are posting here sounds more like a threat.

[polichick]

48. That may be true in large cities...

But not in many small towns and suburban areas that are seeing their first wave of illegal immigrants.

A threat??? LOL It's a prediction.

[inthebrain]

50. It's been factually proven

that the majority of immigrants are law abiding. As a matter of fact, much more cautious in that area than non immigrants.

I suppose the fact that they are here illegally is the only sticking point you have.

[kestrel91316]

35. I'm afraid you are correct. People are tired of illegal immigration

being given a complete pass.

I don't know a single LIBERAL in my area who isn't royally PO'd about the situation. The CONSERVATIVES are gonna explode at some point if something isn't done about the illegals.

[polichick]

39. Very true...

All the liberals I know are completely fed up as well ~ and I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if some conservatives in my area start shooting soon. And honestly, I don't know if I'll blame them. We're even having carjackings in the middle of the day by illegal immigrants ~ unheard of in this area before.

[AlCzervik]

41. wow. your link is the opposite from what you post.

[polichick]

44. I'm sorry that you can't understand the issue...

When innocent families start getting carjacked in your town by illegal immigrants maybe you'll open your mind to the problem that citizens are facing. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with right and wrong.

[AlCzervik]

46. i live in california so it's a pretty safe bet we've got more illegals than you.

[T Wolf]

52. I was hassled and abused by cops when I was younger, so I am justified in hating

all of them. Right?

And justified in pre-emptively killing any cop that makes me feel threatened?

[polichick]

55. Of course not...

Try reading more carefully and being less reactive. What I have said is that if the gov't doesn't deal with the problems arising with illegal immigration, more people will take things into their own hands. Just a fact. It's not about racism. Not about hatred. Just about people trying to protect themselves, their communities and their families.

[T Wolf]

65. The gov't does nothing about police abusing and killing innocent citizens. So,

by your logic, it would be understandable and justifiable for me to off a pig if he threatens me. Right?

It's just a fact. No prejudice involved. Just trying to protect myself and my family.

[polichick]

68. Our gov't does nothing about police abusing and killing innocent citizens???

If that were so, I would expect people to take things into their own hands eventually. Of course ~ that's how revolutions happen.

[Justitia]

47. "this area" - just curious, where is that? -eom

[kestrel91316]

62. Here the big thing is the skyrocketing incidence of hit-and-run

accidents. Somebody causes a car accident, and if their own car is too trashed to drive, they get out and run away from the scene. If their car is driveable, they race away in the car. Apparently the vast majority of these turn out to be illegal immigrants who don't have current registration or insurance.

If they knew how to F---ING DRIVE, it wouldn't be such an issue. But it's getting the (legal) residents in an uproar. No wonder my car insurance is so high in this area........

[polichick]

73. We've had some of that too...

People are pissed that the government has let it get so out of hand ~ imo it's the one thing that could lose the election for Dems.

[butterfly77]

71. That asshole didn't have any fear.

[aikoaiko]

18. I probably wouldn't do it -- but I condone what he did.

Although I can see why people don't like what Joe Horn did, he acted within his rights as a law-abiding citizen of Texas to stop the burglary of a third party. By my reading of the law -- he acted lawfully.

I sympathize with people arguing that its not worth shooting someone over property, but at some point that argument breaks down when too much gets stolen (not that I think that was the case here).

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

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

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person

is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[brokensymmetry]

49. My compliments. Posting the actual law is helpful

in understanding the situation.

My take - the shooting was protected under the law.

[inthebrain]

57. That law does not cover what he did

he had no reason to believe that the property being stolen could not be recovered and this part royally fucks him;

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means;

This guy is going to jail.

[aikoaiko]

59. I think he did, the last he heard from the dispatcher was the police were still on the way

With no police in sight, it was reasonable to think that they were about to get away.

The reasonableness standard will be one of the community from which he comes -- and right now none of the Mayor candidates have said he should be prosecuted. Some have even said he should not be.

[inthebrain]

60. It's going to a grand jury next week.

The DA has already decided to go after him.

[aikoaiko]

63. Yes, and I think it is a reasonable thing to do.

Of course, the DA could have just had him arrested, but he didn't.

I think this is an issue for the people of Texas to deal with. As far as I can tell, the law was designed explicitly to protect behavior like Horn's. If the people of Texas don't like what Horn did, they should change the law.

[FredScuttle]

58. Bullshit

as you've been advised many, many times:

1) This wasn't at night
2) It was Mr. Horn's choice entirely to go out and confront the burglars. In fact, he was advised by the 911 dispatcher not to go outside because police were on their way, but he chose to go out and initiate a confrontation
3) Mr. Horn had no prior dealing or understanding with his neighbor. Has anyone even located this neighbor yet?

This "Son of Sam" wanted to shoot somebody and he wasn't going to let anything, be it common sense or an order from the 911 dispatcher, stop him. That he held a gun on the two (ordering them that if they moved, he'd shoot) and then shooting them in the back is the act of a coward, not a hero. I hope this asshole gets thrown into a federal shithole for the rest of his hopefully short life.

[aikoaiko]

61. You're reading of the law is incorrect, IMO.

1. Stopping the fleeing burglar doesn't have to be at night. The nighttime requirement is attached to theft -- not burglary. You see above where they repeat the phrase "during the nighttime" -- if nighttime was required to stop a fleeing burglar the legislators would have said so.

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and

2. He was acting lawfully when confronting the burglars -- the meeting of Horn and burlgars doesn't have to be accidental.

3. Horn only needed to think it was his duty to protect his neighbors stuff -- not necessarily have an explicit relationship with the neighbor regarding the issue. Do you see the word "or" in the part of the legislation -- that means he only needed one of the three criteria to be met.

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[sandnsea]

66. "reasonably believes" "legal duty"

He had to believe there was a law on the books that required him to stop all burglaries. If he didn't believe that, with specific reason to back it up, he didn't meet the requirements of the law. He had no business shooting anybody.

[inthebrain]

69. He also said he understood the law

He is thereby completely fucked in a court of law.

[aikoaiko]

72. All burglaries? Where did you get that? Certainly not from the text of the law.

In the dispatcher recording he refers to Texas law permitting him to confront the burglars.

[sandnsea]

75. But the law doesn't say that

So he's wrong. He doesn't have a legal duty to stop burglaries.

[aikoaiko]

83. But it does. He can go stop the burglary or stop them from fleeing.

[sandnsea]

84. He can't do it by killing them

Read the law. And he is not legally obligated to do so either, and he never said he thought he was.

[aikoaiko]

87. Yes he did, He said he can't let them get away with it. (or something to that effect).

and he kept talking about "it not being right". These both speak to his sense of moral obligation.

The law says he can use deadly force to stop a fleeing burglar.

[sandnsea]

91. Legal Duty does not equal moral obligation

It's not the same thing. Do you watch Dexter? No, you can't go around killing people because you think you have a moral obligation, you can't be a vigilante.

The law is clear. If someone has stolen from you, someone's property you have agreed to protect, or other legal duty. And I would submit that it shouldn't be legal to kill anyone over property and I know that in some states it has not been legal. It's SICK to think your property is more important than human life.

[aikoaiko]

93. I guess we'll have to see

[aikoaiko]

88. I'll bow out of this, but it seems to me that the spirit and letter of this law

was written for exactly the sort of thing Joe Horn did. I agree he made the situation more complicated by some of his utterances (i.e., wanting to kill them).

[Perry Logan]

30. Look for a lot of paperboys and meter men getting blown away in the next few months.

[Ishoutandscream2]

81. LOL! You know they'll avoid Horn's neighborhood

[madfloridian]

33. Ed Schultz was saying he had the law on his side....

and he was giving air time to nutcases. I had to turn it off. I try to listen to him, but when he starts on some topics he is way off base.

[inthebrain]

43. In his rights to shoot maybe

Not in his rights to plan the act though.

Ed Schultz is an asshole. I have a feeling that if the DA has a half a brain cell, Joe Horn is going to jail for this. The law in Texas where you can shoot to protect property doesn't allow for folks to premeditate the act.

If Schultz thinks that this law covers this act he is dumb as a skunk. Especailly after handing the situation off to the authorities and the 911 dispatcher telling him to stay in the house.

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. Considering that the DA is an elected position

I would venture a guess that he would lean toward not prosecuting.

[inthebrain]

70. The DA IS prosecuting

it's set to go in front of a Grand Jury next week.

[Kucinich4America]

74. Who did he have the "right" to shoot?

Two unarmed men who were in someone else's house?? Where is his "right" to shoot?

If they were in his house, absolutely. If they were coming towards him clearly armed and presenting a threat, most probably.

But in this case, it was more than likely a case of a racist bastard who wanted an excuse to shoot some "damn mexicans".

[slackmaster]

76. Question for inthebrain - What do you mean by "and set free"?

As far as I know the case hasn't been sent to a grand jury yet. Horn could still be facing charges.

[inthebrain]

77. He was arrested and let go for his stupidity.

[slackmaster]

78. Ah, he was released on his on recognizance pending investigation

He was not considered a flight risk or a hazard to the community.

[slackmaster]

79. stutter punch

stutter punch

[Catherine Vincent]

86. Arrested?

He hasn't been charged, so there was no arrest.

[inthebrain]

90. You don't have to charge someone in order to arrest them

Arrest basicly means to restrict someones freedom of movement. He was cuffed on the scene.

[Catherine Vincent]

85. The undercover officer on the scene said he had to duck for cover

from Joe Horn's trigger happy shooting. Horn is lucky he didn't shoot the officer and I remember on the 911 tape the operator told him that he's got undercover officers at the scene. I'm just hoping whatever the outcome, there won't be riots in Houston.

[Thrill]

89. I know you can shoot someone for breaking

into your house or car. But how the hell do you justify shooting someone stealing from a neighbor. You have the right to protect YOUR property and YOUR family. This makes no sense to me

[slackmaster]

92. See reply #18

It includes text of state laws that may be applicable.