tightloop Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Updated news on the case: read in todays paper that just moments b4 he shot them, a policeman in an unmarked car was in front of his house and saw the entire thing... Tx law does allow deadly force in the protection of property, yours and others; after dark. It puts Horn in a better light that a policeman was a witness and did not arrest him immediately, which he could have done if he thought Horn committed murder... So, we'll just have to wait and see what the Grand Jury allows...I expect him to walk... As an aside; the two dead guys were not the kind of productive citizens who contribute to this country in any way what so ever...just guys doing what they wanted to do regardless of any laws and had been in the court system before...so, it will be harder for their survivors to plead that they were just innocent people trying to get by... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cking Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Liveleak.com has all the videos just search under "911 pasadena". As long a forensic shows a solid hit in the front of one of the victims from a close distance then Horn will be OK. I doubt grand jury will say there is cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 If it does go to a criminal trial, I am hoping that a jury of his "peers" will commit "jury nullification" and find him not guilty of all the charges. If that does happen, I'm expecting crime, especially burglary to drop dramatically in the Pasadena, TX area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoShooter Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 The paper says today that both were hit in the back. and That a plain Clothes Police man had just driven up in an unmarked car and witnessed the shooting No charges filed by Police ...yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtremeShot Posted December 10, 2007 Author Share Posted December 10, 2007 Ooooo....not good. The paper says today that both were hit in the back. and That a plain Clothes Police man had just driven up in an unmarked car and witnessed the shooting No charges filed by Police ...yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Ooooo....not good. The paper says today that both were hit in the back. and That a plain Clothes Police man had just driven up in an unmarked car and witnessed the shooting No charges filed by Police ...yet. Combine that with the "kill them" statement and I think he's in deep shit. He's in Texas, so maybe he still has a shot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoShooter Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Ooooo....not good. The paper says today that both were hit in the back. and That a plain Clothes Police man had just driven up in an unmarked car and witnessed the shooting No charges filed by Police ...yet. Combine that with the "kill them" statement and I think he's in deep shit. He's in Texas, so maybe he still has a shot... The first thing I said to my wife was "Do you >Realy think< that a plain -clothes dective was at the site "? Or is that part a fabrication? The paper calls him a "unnamed dective" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markm Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Defending property is legal in SC, and this guy would get away with this stunt with a SC jury, but anywhere except Texas and he'd be screwed.I've known of at least one instance where he would have shot the neighbor's friends or relatives instead of theives. If My relatives or friends need a crowbar to get in, and then carry my tv and cash out of a window then they are thief's also, my neighbors have my blessing to shoot them too! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cautery Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Mmmm.... Front or back makes little difference in this case.... IF they apply the law. The two men were fleeing felons... So besides protecting property, he was stopping the felons from fleeing. These two guys were actually double felons.... Illegally in the country AND felony burglary... Only way the guy would really be in any real trouble would be if he shot them in the chest while they were standing still WITH their HANDS UP. I'm pretty familiar with the area. I am SURE those folks down there are getting danged tired of scumbags breaking into their homes and stealing from them. "Stop" a few more criminals like that, and the word starts to get around.... THAT will "deter" crime. And it doesn't cause prison over-crowding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Mmmm.... Front or back makes little difference in this case.... IF they apply the law. The two men were fleeing felons... So besides protecting property, he was stopping the felons from fleeing. These two guys were actually double felons.... Illegally in the country AND felony burglary...Only way the guy would really be in any real trouble would be if he shot them in the chest while they were standing still WITH their HANDS UP. I'm pretty familiar with the area. I am SURE those folks down there are getting danged tired of scumbags breaking into their homes and stealing from them. "Stop" a few more criminals like that, and the word starts to get around.... THAT will "deter" crime. And it doesn't cause prison over-crowding. I am NOT an attorney,but the fleeing felon statute is based on the shooters knowledge of them being a felon...he had no prior knowledge...the statute is based on something like you are driving down old 288 past the Ramsey II Unit and see a DPS car in the ditch with a guy in an orange jump suit sitting on top of a DPA officer beating him with a rock...as you stop he flees and you yell.."...stop or I'll shoot." something like that... regardless of the 911 call, I do not think the grand jury will indict him...just a gut feeling.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Gaines Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 He already has a website out here it is: http://joehornformyneighbor.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaShooter Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I dont necesarily disagree with what he did and he even if does not get indicted by a Grand Jury that guy could be in a world of hurt through the civil process: Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer/individual has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." He needs to be able to articulate the above in order to avoid getting jammed up. If he felt that he was in danger of serious physical injury (ie. the bad guy coming towards him had the crow bar in his hands). The civil attorneys I am sure will spin it like this: the defendant could have remained in his home on the phone and provided a good description of perpetrators, their vehicle and direction of travel. He put himself in the line of danger by proceeding outside of his home. It sucks but belive me it more than likely will happen like that!! I hope he makes out OK in the end. Jayson Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I dont necesarily disagree with what he did and he even if does not get indicted by a Grand Jury that guy could be in a world of hurt through the civil process:Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer/individual has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." He needs to be able to articulate the above in order to avoid getting jammed up. If he felt that he was in danger of serious physical injury (ie. the bad guy coming towards him had the crow bar in his hands). The civil attorneys I am sure will spin it like this: the defendant could have remained in his home on the phone and provided a good description of perpetrators, their vehicle and direction of travel. He put himself in the line of danger by proceeding outside of his home. It sucks but belive me it more than likely will happen like that!! I hope he makes out OK in the end. Jayson Smith Well Mr. Attorney, I could not see them very well inside the house so I went outside and they approached me and I felt my life was in danger...so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harm152 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 "The civil attorneys I am sure will spin it like this: the defendant could have remained in his home on the phone and provided a good description of perpetrators, their vehicle and direction of travel. He put himself in the line of danger by proceeding outside of his home." My wife manages a retail store that was sholifted by illegals (most likely) and also witnessed another individual (most likely an illegal) break into a car and steal a bag only a few weeks later. During the first incident, when she went to get the vehicle desripciton and plate number they tried to run her over. (It was a CA Plate, we live in Utah, apparently, there are several professional shoplifting rings that travel the I-15 corridor stealing large amounts of merchandise and then export it through AZ/CA.) In both instances, she got DESCRIPTIONS and Vehicle PLATE #s. In both cases, the local police (Layton PD) took several HOURS to respond. Additionally, no action has been taken in either event that we are aware of. The police never followed up with us or communicated that what she did made a difference. In addition, the night my wife was nearly run over and robbed, the police officer taking her report said, "If there was no crime, I wouldn't have a job." I am in the National Guard, and I can state that if there were no more wars and I was put out of a job I would be very happy, especially for the sake of my children. Anyways, the bottom line is I am less and less convinced the police can resopond in a manner which they can effect a difference to an ongoing event. However, just getting a description and plate number most likely will result in nothing and I think the bad guys know it which only emboldens them. Maybe it's the lack of police in quantity or maybe its because there have been so few real consequences for criminals..... until now..... As far as civil court goes, I think it would be great if Mr. Horn could sue the families of the deceased for the cost of the shells.... that would send a message..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I bet real money that the crime rate has gone down in that neighborhood. jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
et45 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now