TexasCHLforum.com

Skiprr wrote:Ya know, G.C., I knew there were more than just three reasons we valued having you around these parts.

Aww shucks, you're making me blush And here I thought you guys just liked having me available to provide cover, supppressing fire and tell you what guns I haven't been able to break yet.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

SCone wrote:Remember, OJ was found innocent and still lost his civil suit

But OJ wasn't no-billed. He was actually tried and found innocent. The trial was a sham because of incompetent prosecution, a judge with his head in the clouds (who was a member of my former church), and the defense's use of the race card. Even after it was over, there remained a lot of compelling evidence to support a conclusion of guilt. The threshold of proof in California for a civil trial to obtain a guilty verdict is lower than for a criminal trial.

Joe Horn was no-billed, meaning that the prosecution did not think they could charge him and make it stick. Since it he was never tried and either acquitted or convicted, it would be fairly difficult for plaintiffs to prove guilt. ...at least that's how it seems to me.

BTW, it is my personal opinion that Horn made a terrible mistake by going outside that day.

I hate to kick dead horse but OJ was found "not guilty" which is very different from "innocent." I can't remember the last time a jury found someone "innocent" in a criminal case. Innocent implies there is no way the accused could have committed or otherwise been responsible for the criminal act in question. “Not guilty” is nothing more than a declaration the case was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Having said all that, I respect your opinion and I agree there was strong evidence to suggest guilt in the OJ case but, I don't think the trial was a sham…A shame and circus, definitely. I also think it’s fair to say the trial was mishandled by the judge and prosecutors. I wouldn’t call it a sham but, I’m not going to hijack this thread by arguing this issue further.

With respect to Joe Horn, there is no question that two homicides were committed by Horn. That fact has never been disputed. Being no billed is not an indicator of whether or not the DA’s office felt they could make a charge “stick.” The DA’s office turned the facts of the case over to a grand jury and it was the grand jury who decided the facts of the case did not rise to the level of a criminal act and that Horn’s actions were justified under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code.

The families of the burglars in this case are likely attempting to sue for “wrongful death.” Guilt or innocence with respect to actually causing the deaths of the burglars is not an issue. The question would be whether or not the majority of the jury believes Horn’s actions were unjustified and whether he should compensate the families for the deaths of the burglars. You are correct in that the burden of proof for civil torts is lower than in a criminal trial.

As Charles mentioned, the Castle Doctrine should protect Horn in this case. The reason goes back to the fact Horn’s actions were basically ruled as justified by the grand jury. Specifically, the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 83 states, “A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendants use of force or deadly force, as applicable.” I don’t know of the statute prevents the decedents families from filing suit but, it pretty much guarantees they’ll lose.