posted
I'd be interested in hearing that 911 call. If he honestly said "There are two men robbnig my neighbor's house and I am going to go kill them" and then he went with the obvious intent of kiling them, despite the fact that no one was in any imminent harm, I can't understand how he wouldn't get tried. It's an interesting question though.
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: I'd be interested in hearing that 911 call. If he honestly said "There are two men robbnig my neighbor's house and I am going to go kill them" and then he went with the obvious intent of kiling them, despite the fact that no one was in any imminent harm, I can't understand how he wouldn't get tried. It's an interesting question though.
This is a quote from an article on CNN. "Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back."
-------------------- When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. Sinclair Lewis Posts: 1905 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: I'd be interested in hearing that 911 call. If he honestly said "There are two men robbnig my neighbor's house and I am going to go kill them" and then he went with the obvious intent of kiling them, despite the fact that no one was in any imminent harm, I can't understand how he wouldn't get tried. It's an interesting question though.
i heard it when it was announced.
this is a case of (grand) jury nullification. expect the Feds to open a file now.
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
this is a case of (grand) jury nullification. expect the Feds to open a file now.
Doubt it. Would still be tried in Texas. Hard to find 12 people and 3 alternates that would feel he was in the wrong and deserves multiple years in a federal pen.
On an off note, does Texas still have the 'Mad Cowboy' statute on the books?
Posts: 577 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
"§ 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"
Posts: 1277 | From: Ohio | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: this is a case of (grand) jury nullification. expect the Feds to open a file now.
Doubt it. Would still be tried in Texas. Hard to find 12 people and 3 alternates that would feel he was in the wrong and deserves multiple years in a federal pen.
On an off note, does Texas still have the 'Mad Cowboy' statute on the books?
dunno about the mad cowboy law , but the cops were there on the scene when he shot the burglars.
the feds will most likely come with some violation of civil rights. and the Colombian consulate will prolly help some family member sue for wrongful death.
i'd drop anybody on my front porch, but i know better than to shoot across the yard...
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"§ 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"
Seems like that clearly states he had the right to use deadly force in the protection of his neighbor's property.
Even the stipulations in that link above the cited part state deadly force is permissable "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."
Seems cut and dried to me.
Posts: 577 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems cut and dried to me not according to the guy (GOP) who wrote the law...
my problem with this really has more to do with how it affects more reasonable gun owners SF...
if that guy had shot a cop (plainclothes were already on the scene as evideced by the 9-11 operator saying so) the law would have already been repealed (even in Texas).
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In his 911 call, Horn cited a newly enacted Texas law, the "castle doctrine," which authorizes the use of deadly force during a home invasion.
But Sen. Jeff Wentworth, who wrote the law, said it did not apply to Horn's case.
"It was not an issue in this case other than him saying incorrectly that he understood it to mean he could protect his neighbor's property," said Wentworth, R-San Antonio. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
actually? a careful reading of the law proves that this was case of (grand) jury nullification:
§ 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.
§ 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.
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jury nullification or not, the result is that the scumbags are dead and justice was served!!!
Posts: 786 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Jury nullification or not, the result is that the scumbags are dead and justice was served!!!
just don't count on the same luck this guy has had SO FAR ...
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Seems cut and dried to me not according to the guy (GOP) who wrote the law...
my problem with this really has more to do with how it affects more reasonable gun owners SF...
if that guy had shot a cop (plainclothes were already on the scene as evideced by the 9-11 operator saying so) the law would have already been repealed (even in Texas).
Don't take this personally, Glass, but this is the same problem I have with Mach's 'what if's' in the gun ban Supreme Court ruling posts. 'If he had...' or 'if the cops had...' are just ways to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the actions that did happen.
What did happen was a man was entrusted with watching his neighbors house while he was away. Burglars broke into the house and the neighbor defended his neighbors property with deadly force. As we've read above in the link osubucks30 provided, under Texas law it is permissible to do so. End of story.
As for your reading of the law sections you posted, I don't agree with your interpretation based on the bolded parts.
The first part you emphasized (the AND), merely states that he must qualify under the 9.41 statute as well as believing it is necessary to prevent the crime from occuring. The second emphsized part (during the night time) is not a time qualifier. It is part of a listing of criminal acts. If you re-read it, it lists arson, burglary, robbery, and aggravated robbery along with theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. And continuing with the statute, it also lists 'to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery' as being a viable defense.
All he would have to show (if it had\does go to trial) is that he resonably believed it was necessary to shoot the thieves to stop them from taking his neighbors property. That's it.
As for Sen. Wentworth's comments, I may be mistaken but if the link osubucks30 provided is the Castle Law, and Wentworth penned it, he's an idiot because that's exactly what it reads.
Posts: 577 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I read was a brief summary, so I'm not standing by this statement with any conviction, just stating an observation. If the police were already on site, it would be hard for me to believe that he "reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property". Seems like if the police were there he had every reason to believe it wasn't necessary for him to shoot. But again, I don't know exactly how it went down, and don't feel like listening to the recording, so I could be 100% wrong.
"§ 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"
Seems like that clearly states he had the right to use deadly force in the protection of his neighbor's property.
Even the stipulations in that link above the cited part state deadly force is permissable "to the degree the actor ."
posted
I can't access the 911 recording here at work, but what I came up with from three different sites was that the police were NOT at the scene. In fact, one of the stories even states that Horn came back into the house and re-dialed 911 telling them he had just shot the two men and they needed to get police out there quick.
The major hang up in the case was whether Horn had been 'officially' asked by the neighbor to protect their home.
posted
The second emphasized part (during the night time) is not a time qualifier.
i think you have it bassackwards.. i read it to specifically say during the night time for a specific reason. it's not simply mentioned in passing. Nighttime is a qualifier. A) and B) add to 2) it's a "logic tree" each branch MUST be attached to the branch before...
And continuing with the statute, it also lists 'to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery' as being a viable defense.
All he would have to show (if it had\does go to trial) is that he resonably believed it was necessary to shoot the thieves to stop them from taking his neighbors property. That's it.
continue reading. and try again. it says during the nightime...
it also says (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;
the cops were on the way. he called them himself.. he didn't hear sirens so he assumed they were not coming, but they would not use sirens to try to capture a felon in progress.
furthermore? you have to consider the meaning of reasonable.
i am outraged by burglars myself, but if you listen to the 911 calls the cops released? the cop on the phone WAS reasonable. he told the guy NOT to go outside his house at least 4 times... that's reasonable..
going out to meet the burglar with a gun shows intent and puts the guy into 1st degree murder range. the grand jury couldn't deal with the idea that the guy might have to face 1st degree murder charges.
you will see more action in this case. i dunno about Texas in specific, but the grand jury instructions were most likely the key.
as for suggesting that i am left leaning speaking of could haves? that guys also lucky the cops didn't shoot him too..
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
and you beleive this guy is innocent? then you would be within your rights by your interpretation to walk into your brokerage house and shoot your broker if he didn't get you the best price on your stock.
§ 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.
or any other of a number of white collar criminal acts...
do you think Texas Laws are there to allow that?
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
As I think you do. It's alright. That's the beauty of it, we don't have to agree.
Here's a simplistic version of how I read 9.42:
Justified = sec 1 + sec (2a OR 2b) + (sec 3a or 3b)
To read either 2a or 2b as being limited to only the hours of darkness seems a little silly. Does that mean that if you're being robbed during the day you can't defend yourself?
but if you listen to the 911 calls the cops released? the cop on the phone WAS reasonable.
I haven't listened to the whole tape, but as far as I know, 911 operators aren't cops.
as for suggesting that i am left leaning speaking of could haves? that guys also lucky the cops didn't shoot him too..
I never suggested you were left leaning, just citing a recent example of 'what if's'. Second, the cops would have no reason to shoot the guy. He had already returned to his house and re-dialed 911 to tell them to get police there fast. He would have been out in his yard when they arrived sans shotgun.
Why is he lucky he wasn't shot?
Posts: 577 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
To read either 2a or 2b as being limited to only the hours of darkness seems a little silly. Does that mean that if you're being robbed during the day you can't defend yourself?
he was NOT defending himself or his own property. that would fall under 9.41. 9.42 is property in general, so YES, it was specifically written to say nighttime by the lawmakers for a reason...mostly for the protection of hired security guards.
9.41 makes no mention on daytime or nightime...
AND is an important word. had they used OR? then the logic chain would have been broken... AND makes it dependent.
you cannot ignore the previous qualifiers when interpreting laws like this.
i know it seems a little screwed up to write them this way, but that's why lawyers get the big bucks...
seriously? by your way of reading this you can shoot anybody for fraud. TV commercial providers would all be dead.
smiling Bob? no more Enzyte commercial..we can only hope right?
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the nighttime issue, Glass. I don't see ANY logic in restricting self-defense or defense of property to the hours of darkness. Just doesn't make sense and I don't believe that's how the above law reads.
It's all good.
As for the fraud interpretation of 9.41? I don't think any jury would consider that 'resonable.' We have laws for defrauding others because we can go to the broker (in your example) and look at the records, etc. In this case, the burglars aren't likely to leave forwarding addresses to appeal the theft. Posts: 577 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have laws for defrauding others because we can go to the broker (in your example) and look at the records, etc. In this case, the burglars
read your brokerage agreement (i bet you didn't when you signed up). you signed that right away and you have no reason to expect to recover your dough.. you'll get an arbitor who works in the securities feild. no trial, no jury...
you may not see the logic, but it is there and the GUY WHO WROTE THE LAW saying so is why i actually bothered to read it...
i personally do not find jury nullification to be offensive. as a matter of fact? juries are supposed to question these things, that's why we have them instead of, say, military tribunals, or "professional jurors"
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
...
no more Enzyte commercial..we can only hope right?![[Smile]](smile.gif)
