“Obviously Mr. Bob, Esq is a practicing attorney who perceives their business which is getting guilty people off the hook to be more important than the life liberty and pursuit of the American people who are tired of being victimized by criminals.”

*********************

Huh? Once you graduate elementary school I suspect you will realize that protecting everyone’s rights insures that your rights are also protected since we really don’t know whose guilty of what or of anything until they are tried in court. Criminals don’t wear signs and we really can’t look into their heads to determine intent or perceived circumstances. I assume you are still in grade school judging by the maturity manifest in this classic statement: “If the citizens want to survive they need to be able to defend themselves and take care of business.” Very Posse Comitatas. I bet you like Westerns and playing cowboy too. As for knowing any good lawyers, hang around here for a day or two and you’ll hear plenty of them–you should start with Bob, Esq.

I do understand what you said and I am glad you were not harmed in the incident you described above.

Jill

Was I scared? Absolutely….Did my gun make me feel safe? Absolutely not. What it did do was assured me that if that door had come down that night I could have defended my self and stopped this person from ever making it more than 2 feet into my residence. Again its not on the top of the list of things I want to do before I die…….but neither is being cut up by some love sick deranged psycho who wanted to kill his girlfriend and a man that he had never met before.

I don’t think you really read what I was trying to say to you. I was asking you to think about the consequences to you, not the person who broke in. I know soldiers who had to kill to survive. There is nothing about that experience that added to their life quality. They live with that pain every day.
Jill

No need to be a Marksman with a 12 gauge shotgun with double ought buckshot, it fires 9 .33″ pellets in a tight 12-14 inch pattern @ 8-15 meters and it will be followed by 3 more rounds….. but i will warn him, when I chamber the first round if he doesent turn tale and run thats his own damn fault….

If you are having a “I’m stupid” day and ended up at my house and broke a window or kicked down a door to get in …..tough break stupid….

Criminals, drunkards and kids looking for a cheap thrill by breaking into someones house in Texas need to realize that you could end up dead if you break into the wrong one…. especially at night

I am not anti-gun and not against self-protection. If someone is breaking into your house IF it’s possible why not get out to safety? In martial arts the point is to escape and survive and only as a last resort, fight. There is no sense in harming or killing anyone unless it is necessary. Even a good marksman misses or may be faced with an equally skilled marksman. The intruder may be a neighbor child on a drunken or “I’m stupid” day. Precisely because we do not know who is breaking in; getting out, WHEN POSSIBLE, could save our life and keep us from a world of regret should we wound/kill someone who was in the “I’m stupid” mode.

You’re assuming everyone who breaks in is a drug addict. I suspect if you checked your neighborhood carefully you would find many people stuggling with addiction to alcohol or other drugs, legal and illegal. It sounds like you feel a lot of hatred for drug addicts and certainly if you lived with one, I understand your feeling. If that happened to you I’m glad you got out. Every drug addict is not violent. Some are, some aren’t. So I’m just asking you to consider the rammifications of staying and trying to shoot another person. If you have the option of escape, it’s not shameful to take that route.

Jill

if you are willing/crazy enough to break in my house than you are willing/crazy enough to do me harm…..should I ask what their intentions are and direct them on how to get help?…Fuck no I will shoot them and find out what their intentions are later….No one cleans up after me I dont make a mess……maybe you have drug addicts and criminals in your family and dread to think that one day their lifestyle will lead them to my house looking for an easy score… I wouldnt shoot a guy thats in my front/back yard or tool shed stealing petty things but you can bet i am gonna keep him in my crosshairs and when he steps foot in my house he will get shot….

The worst argument I’ve heard in favor of this law, so far, is to expect even slower response times associated with looming cutbacks due to increasing gas prices!

Perhaps we can find some solace in knowing George Bush won’t have to look too far to see the whole unholy mess back in Texas.

Or maybe the Dixie Chicks will write another song!

“The problem with this case and with this law is that it requires an assessment of the gravity of individual situations and then a judgment call.”
***********
That is precisely the point, and even more so in the case of untrained, upset landowners firing in close proximity to neighbors. Even trained troops and their commanders have this problem. I give you the Boston Massacre and Kent State as just two vivid examples from our history of gun play gone awry.

Patty C 1, July 2, 2008 at 1:12 am

I don’t know the facts, I wasn’t there.

What was reported was that both men were shot in the back while fleeing.

Horn’s first duty was to retreat, as the 911 dispatch officer requested – not shoot to kill.

On that basis alone, I have to disagree.
*****

The problem with this case and with this law is that it requires an assessment of the gravity of individual situations and then a judgment call. That’s a BIG problem anywhere with guns cocked and loaded.

The 911 tape of Mr. Horn would suggest that he quite clearly knew what he wanted to do and what he had determined the law permitted him to do.

What we don’t know is what he told the Grand Jury.

2. ahhhhh the nazi argument, i don’t know why you stopped there. i concede there where many many many many immoral governments installed legally. most of which have been overthrown via violence but don’t you think this is a bit of a stretch? you think a man who killed 2 illegal immigrants for burglarizing his neighbor’s (a legal immigrant) home warrants a hitler/ mussolini/ stalin/ mao type of scenario?

3. rabbi/ atheist, are you asking me what i think? i’m saying it’s irrelavent because what they think is what they think. it’s a matter of opinion i guess is what i’m trying to say.

4. grand jury… sorry i guess i missed that whole sentence.

i guess we’ve gone full circle here. “texas’ typical attitude” from debating with you i can tell that you think and as a thinker i’m sure you know that bob does not represent the whole of texas.

I know what the law in Texas says, we were debating its application to these facts and whether is should be so broadly construed so as to authorize deadly force in defense of property alone,or should be modified to be in accord with the rest of the Nation and the greater weight of legal thinking. There is thus a substantial argument on what the law should be from both a policy standpoint and a moral standpoint. We have argued it is bad policy (regardless of its morality) to let roving, untrained, armed, vigilante landowners shoot-up the neighborhood in defense of their pink flamingo yard ornament. It is also immoral to kill someone for taking your items. Bob,Esq gave a cogent synopsis of the age old moral prohibition against death for theft unless the owner’s life is IMMINENTLY threatened or if it involves the risk of severe bodily injury such as an armed robbery.

I also don’t understand your legal process argument. All Nazi actions against the Jews were the result of legal process duly passed. That makes them neither lawful, nor moral for that matter. You might recall that Communist Russia also had a constitution. Was that a lawful state? Was Section 7 of the Military Commission Act recently declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court lawful?

You also got the rabbi/atheist comment past me. My understanding is that you said the answers to the moral question about the necessity of killing a thief, would be different if asked of each. I just asked you why you think that?

The Grand Jury reference was to the article’s point that the homeowner was not indicted by the Grand Jury. I stated in my post that it was a decision by the Texas Supreme Court and I was in error. Lastly, Texas may have a difference stance on morality but it clearly has a different stance on the law as Bob, Esq has indicated throughout. My point was to needle them for their typical attitude i.e. Don’t Mess With Texas.

Did you like the fancy Latin phrasing describing how Texas and God disagree?

Don’t mess with Texas?

Would that be the Lone Star state or the “Morning Star” state.

Either way, Texas can go shi+ in its collective hat.

[Death is too severe a punishment for theft, nor yet sufficient to restrain it; for neither is simple theft such a heinous offense, that it should be made capital, nor can there be any punishment so severe as to restrain those from robbing who have no other means of obtaining a livelihood.] (Mori Utopia. Edit. Glasg. 1750. pag. 21.)

Denique, cum lex Mosaica, quanquam inclemens et aspera, tamen pecunia furtum, haud morte, mulctavit; ne putemus Deum, in nova lege clementiae qua pater imperat filiis, majorem indusisse nobis invicem saeviendi licentiam. Haec sunt cur non licere putem: quam vero sit absurdum, atque etiam perniciosum reipublicae, furem atque homicidam ex aequo puniri, nemo est (opinor) qui nesciat.

[In short, since the Mosaic law, although rigorous and severe, only punished theft by a fine, not by death, we cannot think that God, in that new law of mercy by which as a father he governs his children, has granted us a greater liberty of harshness or severity towards each other. These are the reasons why I deem it unlawful. And there is no one, I think, but must be sensible how absurd it is, and even pernicious to the commonwealth, that a thief and a murderer should receive the same punishment.]

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-417.htm#fn33d

1. i think your coming at me with the wrong angle:

“You are undoubted correct on the law since the good justices of the Texas Supreme Court have now told us so. The question we are debating is not morality, but what the law should be on the issue of defense of property.”

there is no issue on what the law “should be” on the defense of property. it clearly states in the texas penal code that you can defend a 3rd parties property. the reason why a lot of people debate it is the morality issue, which once again i submit that there is no definite answer.
2. NY tax, sorry if i wasn’t clear what i was trying to point out so ineffectively is that laws a put into effect by a process. it doesn’t matter if it’s theft or taxation, there is certain LEGAL process that each state legislature/ city council must go through to make laws law. in the same manner if people don’t like the lay there is a LEGAL process in changing the law as well. bottom line is everyone must follow the law whether you like it or not. to answer your question, yes, if you can convince enough people to think the way you think you can change anything.

3. rabii/ atheist – was just to highlight what doesn’t make sense. like “i’m voting for obama because he’s gay,” he’s not gay but then why am i voting for him? we are arguing about morality and not legality which is fine but it’s unfair to mix the two. to each his own.

4. your quip about the grand jury i didn’t get that. it went through the texas judicial system, a grand jury is a part of that, so what? point being is that if you want to say that it’s not okay to kill someone over property that’s fine, and that’s your opinion.

it’s funny you mentioned the “bigger is better – texas” but at the yet at the same time you seem to look down on them because they have a different stance on morality (not law), morality.

“You are undoubted correct on the law since the good justices of the Texas Supreme Court have now told us so.” Oops. make that the Grand Jurors and of course, the Texas legislature. Serves me right for reading it two days ago and commenting now.

You are undoubted correct on the law since the good justices of the Texas Supreme Court have now told us so. The question we are debating is not morality, but what the law should be on the issue of defense of property. The reason for the passion is obvious given the facts. You are correct that the extraneous issues become involved like conservative versus liberal philosophies, but jurisprudence has always had that tension since liberals and conservatives are the ones making (and debating)the law.

I think your example of the New York taxing issue is inapposite. The NY tax issue involves a crime that is mal prohibita not mal in se. Financial requirements dictate taxing policy usually; mal in se crimes involves our notions of the normative organization of society and conduct we will accept or not accept. The tax code could change with the next meeting of the legislature. Do you think the prohibition against murder will ever change? I agree that the Texas comments are over the top, but they do add some flavor to the discussion by pin-pricking our “things are better and bigger in Texas” crowd.

Finally your comment that “morality – were the killings unnecessary, maybe. I can’t argue this because you’ll get one answer from a rabii and a different one from an atheist,” is curious since why would an atheist have a different view of murder than a rabbi? Einstein surely was not religious, but I’ m not aware that he advocated kmurder. I suspect Bertrand Russell didn’t either.

what is this post about? is it about the legality of joe horn’s actions or is it about the morality of joe horn’s actions? if it’s the former, there is NO argument – joe horn was perfectly within the laws that are set forth in the state of texas.
i don’t like the fact that you have to pay state income tax in new york city (along with city and county, not to mention federal) but i’m not going around screaming that we should kick out new york from the union at the same time i’m going to pay the taxes. each state has its own laws and we should obey them.

morality – were the killings unneccessary, maybe. i can’t argue this because you’ll get one answer from a rabii and a different one from an atheist. there is no definite answer but the law is the law. if this law is so outrageous, move to texas and vote the law down.

My, my such great detail for your victim’s death and funeral. How’s that shock therapy coming along? As for your statement “its that simple.” that is exactly what I thought you would say. For you, life is very simple and the rest of us get to clean up the messes of guys who are black and white thinkers like you.

Can I come too for a vacation from stupidity? They are rational at least.

Ok let’s say the kids were 18 years old and they were stealing your favorite pink flamingo yard ornament as a fraternity prank. Death penalty administered by you still ok? Spare me the old we’ve done it for years argument. It didn’t work for slavery or bigamy or a host of other crimes.

ONE:

Read (if you can) the US Constitution. It doesn’t say citizens have rights, it says “persons.” Grown up or take a civics class, oh great warrior.

You wouldn’t really kill Rush would you?

“I guess your family will have to dig through family portraits to find a sweet photo of you before you became a low life – drug addicted criminal to place next to your casket.”

alexis,

I am moving to Germany!

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-417.htm#fn33d

2. I am a friend of the USA and love the country

3. I find it disgusting that a Grand Jury lets this man get away with a double murder. I would maybe think different if Mr. Horn had acted in panic – but the 911 recording makes it very clear that all he wanted to do is kill these two poor guys.

4. It makes no difference if the two guys were in the US illegally. The worth of a human life is not defined by the right papers or a passport

5. Mr. Horn damaged the image of Texas in the world. Me, who has been there a couple of times and knows that most Texans are not of this type but warm hearted people, does understand the difference, but you shouldn’t accept that kind of wisdom from peopel all over the world who have never been in the US. For YEARS Mr. Horn’s example and especially that he could get away with it, will fuel every discussion about America when it’s about the american gun culture which is considered perverse all over Europe.

6. The decision of the Grand Jury is against every normal human’s idea of justice and humanity. It was simply a lynching.

Mespo,

What are your thoughts on the Estate having standing to sue under the 5th?

God Bless Texas and Don’t Mess With Texas!

What was reported was that both men were shot in the back while fleeing.

Horn’s first duty was to retreat, as the 911 dispatch officer requested
-not shoot to kill.

On that basis alone, I have to disagree.

Do you think the two ADULT thieves in this case decided to just steal some random day? Or do you think they probably have been used to a life of crime from an early age?

People have been killing each other for much worse reasons since we first began to manipulate tools. Some of the oldest human finds show evidence of being killed by other humans. Do you think the road to peace is going to stop by disarming those poeple who WANT a safe society? Do you think a gun ban will take guns out of the hands of criminals? Absolutely not, all you do is you leave people without a means to defend themselves and strengthen criminals, who already possess weapons ILLEGALLY (and would continue to do so with a gun ban). All this does is strengthen the evil nature of man that has existed for all this time.

Obviously any decent person doesn’t want a society where people have to die, it would be great if the general public participated in the legal process, if fair and just laws were passed based on the will of the people, and if people refrained from committing criminal acts against one another, but woops, time to wake up from your daydream because there is a real world out there where most of the american populace has no idea how it’s government works and where people who wish to do harm to others only get strengthened in their aims to do so purely out of the ignorance and naivete’ of people like you.

Ok ‘ll play “what if” with you. What if one hot summer night, your kid was playing with his buddies around this guys house, and Horn, armed with his new found right to “make criminals’ day”, decides to take them out for trespassing on his lawn claiming he thought they were a “street gang”? Still so sanctimonious about gun rights? Personally, I don’t think we need any more amateur Dirty Harry’s with guns taking the law into their own hands. Call me left-wing.

1) You can’t count on the Police force. They are too busy running radar.

2) You have no idea if the person commiting the crime is armed and going to visit your house next.

3) Crime has a down side ranging from death at the hands of a home owner, or death from hitting a street light after running from a cop. You take that chance when you decide to commit the crime.

4) Everyone is a victim in this country including the criminal that commits the crime.

You decide to commit a crime, the outcome is your responsibility. Don’t try to blame someone else for a situation gone bad.

“I say we give Texas, and their goddamned ‘independent republic-flag flying at equal height as U.S. flag’, back to Mexico.”
***********

Bob it’s spelled M-E-X-I-C-O not M-A-S-O-C-H-I-S-M. They won’t take it back now that they know what we’ve got. Come on!

Can you name the moral or legal code that permitted death as a penalty for theft? N.B. Poaching on “The King’s Land” isn’t a law we intended to preserve when we Declared our independence.

The only time death attached to the procurement of property was through “Wager of Battel” — i.e. a ‘Judicial Duel’ controlled by the King.

IOW, the penalty for theft was not death. If you wanted to challenge title to property and claim it as your own, you could lay your life on the line and, in a controlled environment, battle your opponent to the death.

Maybe it’s me, but I can’t think of a civilized society that ever gave citizens license to summarily execute thieves as they saw fit—which is what the Texas statute does.

“people have been killing to gain and protect property since the begining of time.”

Yes, we call that war.

our entire legal system is based on property, on ownership and protecting it. it’s what we took from the Brits, common law.

people have been killing to gain and protect property since the begining of time.

what’s the deal with the brown skin argument? the burglars happened to be black. did you know that the people they robbed happened to be asian (vietnamese, i guess they’re kind of tan)? this doesn’t make sense in that if you’re a racist “red-neck” why would you protect a “slant-eyed” fellas property?

Relevance?

“Another person on the panel remarked “Jeff, you aren’t listening; the people of Texas said no crime has been committed by not indicting Mr. Horn”.”

This doesn’t make the statute constitutional; no more than jury nullification abolishes a criminal law.

The State of Texas has, ESSENTIALLY, made it legal to set up a blind
on the front porch, give your neighbor expensive garden gnomes to put as bait on his front lawn, and pick off would-be thieves as they try to make off with the gnomes.

Perfectly legal in Texas; completely unheard of in common law and worthy of a ‘deadly force in defense of others’ by any gun owner with a scintilla human decency.

Categorically speaking, if I was witnessing Joe Horn raising a shotgun to shoot escaping thieves through the glass on my Model 70, I’d be morally constrained to target his knee cap and drop him to the floor after the first shot at the very least–just as I wouldn’t even wait for the shot if he was aiming his gun at a cop caught unaware.

Citizens killing people simply to protect property is unacceptable; not only in America but the human race.

I loved the remark made at J. Toobin on CNN when he said it is apparently ok in Texas to break the law when defending one’s home.

Another person on the panel remarked “Jeff, you aren’t listening; the people of Texas said no crime has been committed by not indicting Mr. Horn”. Toobin looked shocked at that revelation.

Mr. toobin also remarked how dangerous it was to fire a shotgun in a residential area and that the jury should have taken this under advisement. Another person on the panel asked Toogin “Jeff, have you even ever fired a shotgun to know what you are talking about?”. jeff’s response was a weak “No, I haven’t”.

I wonder if the estates of the deceased would have standing to sue the State of Texas for violating the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; i.e. challenging the statute on the grounds that it legalizes summary executions by citizen witnesses of theft of property.

You’re right; I was thinking of the common law rules of murder and defense of self and property; not to mention a few “Good Christian” rules.

But let’s look at “Texas Law” in light of the man being on the phone with 911 and officers en route….

§ 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.

Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?