No Charges For Man Who Killed Burglars

By markwolfe
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Posted
Posted
Here's an idea: Don't break into houses. Had they thought before they broke into that house, they would be still be alive.

Whilst I doubt I would have the power to pull the trigger myself I do sort of agree with you. Death is a bit too harsh but I am glad to read these sorts of stories. My house was recently broken into whilst I was away with my wife on our honeymoon. They stole a brand new TV which was a wedding present from my work. They also stole my car which has caused great expense. I would like to hear these people get found one day. Sadly if they did this country would give them a slap on the back of the hand and released.

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Castle Doctrine

Completely legal to kill anyone who might be a threat to your property.

Where does it say that? The bill you linked to specifically states in self defense, not defense of property.

Grand Master

+Gary7 Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
Where does it say that? The bill you linked to specifically states in self defense, not defense of property.
BILL ANALYSIS

Senate Research Center S.B. 378

80R664 RMB-F By: Wentworth et al.

Jurisprudence

2/26/2007

As Filed

AUTHOR'S / SPONSOR'S STATEMENT OF INTENT

In 1973, the 63rd Texas Legislature imposed a duty to retreat in the face of a criminal attack, permitting the use of deadly force only if a reasonable person in the situation would not have retreated. This, in effect, placed the burden on the victim to retreat in the face of an impending lethal attack and reversed what had been the longstanding practice of recognizing the right of a person to stand his or her ground in the face of an attack. In 1995, the 74th Texas Legislature created an exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly force in response to an unlawful entry into the habitation of the actor, but the duty still applied in any other location where a lethal attack might occur.

Under Chapter 9, Penal Code, a person is justified in using force and, in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor. In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the exercise of unlawful deadly force by the aggressor or to prevent the imminent commission of an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Current law provides an affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an attacker for damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force, but only in cases involving home invasions. As a result, a person who justifiably uses force or deadly force outside of the home and is not guilty of any crime may still be open to a civil action filed by the criminal or the criminal's family.

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Ah, I missed that part.

I completely disagree with that law. Self defense resulting in death should only be valid when somebody's life is being threatened. It sucks to have property stolen, but it certainly isn't a threat to your life if it happens.

Grand Master

azcodemonkey

Posted
Posted
Ah, I missed that part.

I completely disagree with that law. Self defense resulting in death should only be valid when somebody's life is being threatened. It sucks to have property stolen, but it certainly isn't a threat to your life if it happens.

I think the key to that law is the "aggravated" part, which means that the robbers are armed in some way and threatening.

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted

That says "aggravated robbery", which means a deadly weapon was being used.

In any effect, this is vigilante justice. Not due process. The only reason that Joe Horn was "threatened" by robbers running toward & away (past) him was because he went out there with the stated intent to kill them.

Grand Master

+Gary7 Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
Ah, I missed that part.

I completely disagree with that law. Self defense resulting in death should only be valid when somebody's life is being threatened. It sucks to have property stolen, but it certainly isn't a threat to your life if it happens.

Aggravated Robbery usually involves a weapon being used by the bad guys. But with these guys shot in the back, there is either something that we don't know or it is just a bad verdict.

Veteran

megamanXplosion

Posted
Posted
Not according to Mr. Horn, and the grand jury. According to the grand jury, there wasn't even enough evidence to support a claim that he broke the law. The grand jury is a hearing to determine if there's evidence to support the claim that he broke the law, not to determine if he's guilty or not. It's much more broad than that. In this case, there was not enough evidence to say he broke he broke any law. Even if you listen to his 911 tape, it seems pretty open and shut. Yet the grand jury still didn't indict him, so the other evidence must have been able to show, overwhelmingly, that what he did was not illegal.

I'm glad we have such astute lawyers on this forum.

Don't pretend to lecture me on the purpose of a grand jury or about the intellectual capacities of its members—I've been on a grand jury, so I know the procedure and naivety of associating grand juries with high intellectual capacities. Very little of a grand jury meeting concerns a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and circumstances. The jury members, comprised of practically anyone who managed to make it through highschool, either honestly or by cheating, and they hear one side of the story for five to ten minutes, they pose emotional arguments toward one another for five minutes rather than ones about evidence and circumstance and jurisprudence, they vote for the position they support based on their prejudices, then they talk for ten minutes about work or make fun of the person caught by police while masturbating. That's the typical grand jury. Their verdicts are not beyond reproach as seem to imply with your argument, my astute lawyer friend.

Grand Master

+Gary7 Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
It also simply states "robbery" right before that.

But, as markjensen said, this is vigilante justice and should not be tolerated.

Yes and I missed that and I agree unless the purps did something and then turned and ran. Something just doesn't seem right here though. Texas does have a strange justice system.

Grand Master

Matt

Posted
Posted
I don't see how he suspected them as robbers, if they climbed out a window at night full of the neighbors possessions lol, but yeah, at least he's cleaning up the town!

thats what pretty much happened but it was during the day time. although i agree with the right to protect your own property shooting someone in the back while they are of no direct harm to you doesnt seem right. if he made an attempt to make a citizen's arrest and the perps confronted the man on his own property then, by all means, they deserved to get shot.

other than that, i cant comment on much since i wasnt on the jury and dont have sufficient knowledge of the incident.

Community Regular

Demersynth

Posted
Posted

This is a tough one. Over here, he would most definitely be put in prison for a very long time and the victims families compensated for a huge amount of money (it seems criminals and their families get rewarded if a crime is committed against them whilst they are committing a crime, but hey, that's how things are). The guys were breaking the law in more than one way, and to me it feels like he doesn't have much faith in the law enforcement agencies (I know I feel the same way). Not saying what this guy did was right, but at the same time he is just trying to protect himself and his livelihood as well as his neighbours, and these people who aren't even legally allowed in the country come and smash into their world and disrupt it with no right to.

I think we have to face it...**** is getting worse, there are more people around who will **** you over, and you have to learn to defend yourself and your loved ones. If that involves taking a life to project...Well...Maybe that's the way it'll be...Because I don't see any sign of people stopping...

Collaborator

ambushed

Posted
Posted

**** there would seem to be no two ways about this. He was never in danger himself. The recording makes it clear he went out with his shotgun with the intent to kill because he doesnt want them to get away with burglary, not because he thinks hes in any danger. He states that several times. "You hear the shotgun clicking and im going"?????? The guy that ran slightly towards him may well have been trying to defend HIMSELF from someone that has come out of nowhere and pointed a shotgun at him without provocation. Several shot go off without any hint of panic or fear. First degree murder anyone??

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.