TexasCHLforum.com

solaritx wrote:As posted above, the link to the Horn interview is there. I suggests that individuals go there and post comments. Let others know what and how you feel. Posting here is fine, but maybe your words can make others think in a new way.

Here is what I posted:

First, the 911 dispatcher is NOT a policeman/policewoman and has no more influence than you or me telling Mr. Horn not to do something. Thus, it was not the police that was instructing him
Second: There was a policeman (undercover) sitting in a car in the road near his home and heard and saw what was going on, and did nothing. He never left his car.
Third: Once again, individuals are trying to point out that our society and court system is more about protecting the rights of the criminal than the victim. Maybe (or maybe not) Mr Horn was a victim, but sure as the sun comes up, the neighbor was and two individuals violated these peoples rights.
Fourth: The law in Texas clearly indicated that Mr. Horn was within his rights under the law to do what he did. Personally, you can be against it, but he was within his rights under our law.
Fifth and bottom line:: Mr Horn was in his home, in his neighborhood, in a country where he legally resided. These two other individuals were illegally in a country they did not belong in, had a long history of illegal activity in the country they were illegally in, and on this day were illegally breaking into someone home and illegally stealing property that didn't belong to them. If these two individuals were not illegally here, not illegally violating the rights of other legal individuals.......they would be alive today. Who put themselves in the place and time of conflict? Maybe Mr. Horn did, but the greater burden is on the individuals that were not suppose to be in this country, not suppose to be on that street, not suppose to be in that home, not suppose to rob the individuals, and not suppose to be on Mr. Horn's property

And they moved onto had property and to attack Joe Horn. (The police investigator confirmed this.)

It's true Joe horn did a terrible job on the 911 call.

But most people are only hearing THAT and how the press twist it even more grotesquely.

Joe Horn isn't saying anything that he didn't already say to the Grand Jury or worse to 911.

He needs this to rehabilitate himself (maybe only in his own eyes, maybe to avoid or setup for some type of civil suit.)

Now, I suppose it isn't safe to assume that his lawyer who sits buy him is totally competent to keep him on the right track, by he did great with Sawyer -- most of us could probably have done it slicker, but he came across as so genuinely honest and almost without guile so not being "slick" may have helped him even more.

Sawyer was either incompetent or evil (yes, you can pick two, its a nonexclusive or), but at the end she pushed Joe Horn into making just about the best defense he could, seeming to come almost by accident, when she ask how he felt. He manage to say and make it sound accidental almost, (words to the effect) "I feel awful, no one would want to feel as badly as I do -- to have to defend one's life this way." He didn't sound a bit like he was spinning; we all see the Republicans spin the Democratic attacks and the Dems spin those from the GOP; that was NOT what Joe Horn's simple honest was.

I have a great deal of sympathy for him. If he's acting, then he is a magnificent actor. The detective witness confirms his story so we can be assured that he committed no crime no matter how much we might criticize his good judgment or prefer that he had made some different choices at different points.

But he was the only one there; he is the man he is. As far as I know he is just a retired gentleman with a computer, a home, and a shotgun -- no CHL. He does strategize CHL and home defense scenarios ever day. He just didn't want to see a neighbor robbed. And he didn't know quite how to stop it once he realized that 911 wasn't going to get him help very quickly.

One thing no one has even mentioned nor asked -- not the press -- not anyone here AFAIK or on any other forum or blog -- not me either: IF the detective was ALREADY parked in front of the house WATCHING then why didn't 911 tell Joe Horn an officer was on scene?

What difference do you folks think that would have made when Joe Horn was thinking about opening that door to go out...?

He just wanted the robbery stopped -- he did NOT want to be a hero. His frustration grew from watching the criminals, watching them prepare to leave, and knowing 911 had not gotten any LEOs on scene yet.

Pinkycatcher wrote:

ttorion wrote:Joe Horn on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer

Also hit the poll.

What poll?

To the right. It asks a WEIRD question considering this case -- tries to bias it I think then offers TWO good answers:

Should people be allowed to use deadly force to protect property?

• Yes. Citizens have a right to defend themselves and their property by any means necessary. 122

• It depends. Deadly force should be used only in certain circumstances. 24

• No. Homeowners should not risk killing an intruder, especially at a neighbor's home. 10

Weird thing is that "Yes" is winning (and I voted for it) -- But YES, the right is good (especially since they included "defend...themselves", and YES it depends on the circumstances.

Of course the right is good, especially when NECESSARY to defend yourself, and of course the BEST action depends on the situation.

Gosh!

But the video is STILL the talking head replacement for the one we were recommended to view with Horn's lawyer (and/or Horn).

The anti-Horn lawyer (in admitting what Horn did was legal): "but you know there is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law"


...or my favorite: "We all know that Joe Horn went out there with but one intent...[pause, and I though he would say "murder"]...and that is to make residential burglary a capitol offense."


(not true but) Ok. So?


And please hit this poll on MSNBC while we're at it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25480902

NOTICE: the poll is about UNSECURED areas of the airport even though they try to mislead on this.

LedJedi wrote:You guys really need to watch this video. You have to navigate to it, there's no way to link to it but trust me, it's worth watching.

go to http://www.msnbc.com
click on the Videos link on the left navigation
click on any video link to launch the video window
go to US News Category and look for the joe horn video titled "Man cleared in burglar's death"

The attorney speaking for joe's side really put the other attorney in his place. I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

I believe you but couldn't get there with Firefox (It is MSnbc ugh!)

Internet Explorer (7.0)
http://www.msnbc.com
BROWSE->Videos link on the left navigation
Fly out works now (not in Firefox) -> (pick any video, e.g., Israeli bulldozer rampage)
Video windows opens (I got here before -- another way with Firefox BUT...)
NOW on left of Video window there are more menus (briefly) then replaced by adverisement
Ad video runs, ad on left is replaced by Menus again
Select USNew (fly out) -> Crime and courts
Scroll WAY down list of videos to "Man cleared in burglar's death" (picture: Joe Horn, not in cavalry hat)

Video of Abrams interviewing two random lawyers -- some of the facts are correct.
the anti-Horn guy admits its legal but then runs a bunch of games about it not being
in the "spirit of the law", "should have been decided by trail jury which has cross examination",
"what happens next time when he shoot kid getting off school bus" (really!)

No Joe Horn and his lawyer did not appear. A woman lawyer appeared 'pro-Horn'

I think you are right; they didn't like getting trounced on their anti-gun piece so they replaced
it with a plain talking head legal pundit piece using the SAME TITLE.

casingpoint wrote:The decision to no bill Joe Horn in the shooting deaths of two burglars is as illogical as the law against open carry in Texas, the one state in the nation you would expect some semblance of stereotypical frontier customs to hang on. The no bill was anticipated, however, in light of the sterotypical frontier sentiment "They needed killing," which lingers deep within the public body of the Lone Star State and shows no signs of abating.

Why is it illogical to no bill a many who committed no crime as is the case with Joe Horn?

(We all have varying opinions on the degree to which Joe Horn acted rashly but everything he did was legal -- according to all the published reports we have available, and the result of the Grand Jury. Saying that a Grand Jury acted wrongly or that the DA somehow manipulated them without providing the evidence is not sufficient.)

DParker wrote:...Interstingly, they allowed through all of the mindless, simplistic rants on both sides of the issue ("He's a hero!" "No, he's a murderer!"), but my factual correction of their error was disallowed.

I've always chalked up inaccuracies in broadcast news to simple incompetence and laziness. Now I'm not so inclined to give them that benefit of the doubt.

It's both. Most news people are technically incompetent, even to report what they actually witness live or see on tape.

90% lean (way) left. The bias and the incompetence fuels the mistakes, errors, and lies more than either alone would do.

LedJedi wrote:I can't tell ya how pleased i am with this. This sends a very clear message to everyone that this type of behavior (burglary) will not be tolerated and will be met with force with the law against the burglars.

Tajovo wrote:

HerbM wrote: While there is NO DUTY to police, watching out for your neighbor is an admirable thing.

Watching out for your neighbors is one thing (and a very admirable thing these days), but putting yourself in danger is another thing.

My personal opinions aside, I pray that Mr. Horn is no-billed and I pray for his family to get safely through this mess.

Putting himself in danger was his, adult choice to make -- Horn agrees with you, he wishes he had acted otherwise.

None of this, has anything to do with the simple fact that (according to the reports) he has committed no crime, but rather a public service (That service is not the death of the criminals, but is rather the stopping of the crime.)

We agree on this.

I probably would not have gone outside -- I certainly would never have argued with a 911 operator about it. The 911 call seems to indicate that he was overwrought by the situation even before he went out.

KBCraig wrote:I heard a news blurb about it this week on TSRN News, that made my blood boil. Their summary of the case was --as exactly as I can quote from memory-- "When he saw two men breaking into his neighbor's home, he blasted them."

I'm 100% certain of my memory on the bold part. That's really what the news reader said.

And many want to make something of the fact that the 911 operator told him "not to". Even a police officer can't give such instructions with legal force over the PHONE.

He has a perfect right to go out. He had a justificat to prevent a serious crime. He only fired when he realized that he had become the target of the attack. (According to the LEO witness.)

Sir Robert Peel (founder of modern policing) wrote: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in
the interests of community welfare and existence."

While there is NO DUTY to police, watching out for your neighbor is an admirable thing.

WildBill wrote:

Xander wrote:Shoot...You get a free helicopter ride? Being a grand juror in Harris County is a pretty sweet gig.

Police ride-alongs and free ham sandwiches too!

Seriously, I think [and hope] that Joe Horn is no-billed.

From the report he committed NO CRIME. He was under attack (according to the responding LEO reports I saw) when he fired -- that the perps might have turned away seeing him raise the gun is not relevant -- once deadly force is authorized you don't have to shoot in the front.

That's without the Castle Doctrine. Just stopping a serious felony should have been enough, but they were in his yard and charging.

Might have been wiser to let them go, but he did nothing legally or morally wrong.

Sounds like Grand Jury is going on this week -- might be decided this week or by end of the month (June 08)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hot ... 40087.html