TexasCHLforum.com

Murder is with malice & forethought
Manslaughter is recklessness with unintentional consequences
Justifiable Homicide is murder with an good excuse

Molon_labe wrote:committing a burglary of a habitation he was requested to watch out for

When the operator asked him if he knew them, he said, "No I really don't know these neighbors"

Seems like it'd been a good time to tell them he was watching their house for them, don't 'ya think?

Exodus 22:2-3 KJV

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."
"If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

The "blood" being talked about here (for anyone without a Bible) is the sacrifice required to pay for the sin committed. Not for the theft, but for the killing of the thief. The Bible makes a huge difference in killing a thief in the night or during the day.

cxm wrote:Texas PC 9.42 and 9.43 are pretty clear... please educate me... WHY would a grand jury have indited Mr. Horn? What would be the basis?

Letter of the law? Maybe? Mr Horn was looking to stop the burglary from the beginning. And if he would have went outside at earlier and met the two coming out of the home, then I'd have a very different view of what happened. But he didn't. He was talking to the 911 operator for 6 minutes when the operator tells Mr Horn if he goes outside he could get himself shot. Mr Horn says, "You wanna make a bet, I'm gonna kill 'em"

There's a huge difference in protecting yourself (or your neighbor) and the intent to kill.

I don't agree with the crooks getting away with a crime, but it is also very scary to think that the next person will decide to take a life based on this example. And in doing so, wind up behind bars with a murder charge.

It also concerns me that shootings like this will push the legislature to narrow the scope of the law.

flb_78 wrote:Because he did nothing wrong. He stopped a burglary in process.

This is where we would have to agree to disagree. Listening to the 911 call, it appears the Mr Horn intended from the beginning of the call to shoot the two men. And that makes a HUGE difference. In his case, it has cost him the past six months of his life to keep himself from being prosecuted at this time. But I doubt this will end here.

The 911 tapes are going to be the issue here.

0:20 - Do you want me to stop them?
3:09 - I'm going to shoot, I'm going to shoot
6:07 - I'm gonna kill 'em
6:50 - Move, you're dead
6:52 - 1st shot
6:53 - 2nd shot
7:01 - 3rd shot

The timeline shows Mr Horn making his decision to shoot long before he goes outside. And he makes the statement, "If I go outside... I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot" a full three minutes before he goes outside.

I feel for Mr Horn, but I don't understand why the GJ didn't indict him.

“A mistake from a legal standpoint, no. A mistake in terms of his life, yes. It has affected him terribly. And if he had it to do all over again, he would stay inside,� Lambright said. < Mr Horn's attorney

He'd have been better off with a camera and a good zoom.