Joe Horn going to Grand jury

[Venus Pax]

When is Q10 protesting at the courthouse?

Will there be a counter-protest?

[Liberty]

awe, i can't find it now either. they took it down. I guess they didn't like the lawyer on joe's side trouncing her opponent. Wish i could have saved it for you guys but their entire video widget is all in flash.

I don't understand .. What Lawyer is Joe's opponant? If The DA really wanted to he probably would have got an indictment..Ham sandwich and all that. I presumed the DA was on Joe's side. Am I wrong?

[LedJedi]

awe, i can't find it now either. they took it down. I guess they didn't like the lawyer on joe's side trouncing her opponent. Wish i could have saved it for you guys but their entire video widget is all in flash.

I don't understand .. What Lawyer is Joe's opponant? If The DA really wanted to he probably would have got an indictment..Ham sandwich and all that. I presumed the DA was on Joe's side. Am I wrong?

The lawyer i was talking about was the one in the interview.

[ttorion]

Joe Horn on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer

Also hit the poll.

[Pinkycatcher]

Joe Horn on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer

Also hit the poll.

What poll?

[HerbM]

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!

[03Lightningrocks]

Joe Horn needs to stay quiet about this whole thing. Doing interviews with the media is a good way to cause the grand jury to give in to political pressure and bring him to trial. Anyone remember Bernard Ghettes(sp?)? The last thing Joe Horn should be doing is making public statements about the situation. All it takes is one slip up in wording and he will go down.

I like the fact that he saved tax payers the expense of a trial and all. I even like the fact that maybe a few bad guys will think twice about the consequences of stealing. But I don't for one minute think he acted in a legal manor and I sure as heck wouldn't try to get away with the same thing. I can also tell you that he has done damage to the right to protect property. You mark my words, as the media works this thing over and turns Joe into the bad guy, the law will be worded in a way to make it much more difficult for the next guy who shoots the bad guy as he runs away. Like I said...Joe Horn needs to shut up and learn the words..."no comment".

[WarHawk-AVG]

Its sad how she just railroaded him

Didn't he learn anything from the 911 tape

SHUT YOUR MOUTH BEFORE IT GETS YOU INTO MASSIVE TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HerbM]

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.

[CompVest]

+1

[solaritx]

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

[HerbM]

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.)

[03Lightningrocks]

Posting long diatribes trying to make the point about how these two deserved what they got is preaching to the choir. The point is that if Joe Horn doesn't stop making public statements and interviews about what he did, the grand jury is going to be forced to reconsider it's ruling. The media is a powerful thing. It is also not beyond the scope of the Federal government to make a decision to investigate the case for any civil rights violations. Being right or wrong won't matter much. Most people that see these interviews hear two things. Unarmed and shot in the back. Even in the old west...it was not considered cricket for a man to shoot an unarmed man down in the back. I am actually surprised he didn't get charged with premeditated murder. He made tape recorded statements as to his intentions before he actually carried out his threat. Anyone who looks at this case and thinks they are going to get away with the same situation better reconsider. This is not a precedent setting case. The grand jury simply no-billed the case. This idea that the grand jury makes decisions based only on law is ludicrous. They make the decision based on additional information as well. Such as does the DA feel he can deliver a conviction. In this case I bet the fact that they don't think any 12 people from that area would return a guilty verdict in that case was a major deciding factor. Turn public opinion around just a little bit and the DA may start thinking he can find 12 to give him a conviction. A warning should be issued every time this storied is played on the news. "Warning . These tactics should not be tried by the average person. Your outcome may not be the same as the actors depicted here".

[solaritx]

I fully agree, posting here is preaching to the choir...but if you note, I said to post other places. Maybe one can point out enough facts that it might change a few opinions. With a few now, a few more later and maybe we can change alot?

I also agree that the best thing Mr. Horn could have done is report the problem to 911 and then hang up. The best thing he could have done is not give interviews or just learn the words "No Comment".

I also agree that if others follow suit, the outcome can/could be different.

But bottom line, none of the facts that I pointed out were false. The system is broken when the criminal's rights outweigh the rights of the victim, and people are getting more and more fed up. That is the reason that there is such a positive attitude for CHL in the vast majority of states. People realize that the government can not protect them or their loved ones from danger and that at least a portion of the responsibility for your and your family's well being is directly on YOUR shoulders. Some take that responsibility, some don't.....but from the response to CHL, it looks like more people are willing to stand up and defend themselves and others because the government will or can't.

(also, just because a threat turns it's back, doesn't change the fact that it can or still is a threat)

And what, no comment about the undercover police officer sitting in the car, taking no action? This is like the two officers at Columbine that saw and allowed the threats to enter the school. Here was an officer on site, took no action and took no blame. If the threats had not been there, no killing. If the officer had done his duty, no killing.

[03Lightningrocks]

I fully agree, posting here is preaching to the choir...but if you note, I said to post other places. Maybe one can point out enough facts that it might change a few opinions. With a few now, a few more later and maybe we can change alot?

I also agree that the best thing Mr. Horn could have done is report the problem to 911 and then hang up. The best thing he could have done is not give interviews or just learn the words "No Comment".

I also agree that if others follow suit, the outcome can/could be different.

But bottom line, none of the facts that I pointed out were false. The system is broken when the criminal's rights outweigh the rights of the victim, and people are getting more and more fed up. That is the reason that there is such a positive attitude for CHL in the vast majority of states. People realize that the government can not protect them or their loved ones from danger and that at least a portion of the responsibility for your and your family's well being is directly on YOUR shoulders. Some take that responsibility, some don't.....but from the response to CHL, it looks like more people are willing to stand up and defend themselves and others because the government will or can't.

(also, just because a threat turns it's back, doesn't change the fact that it can or still is a threat)

And what, no comment about the undercover police officer sitting in the car, taking no action? This is like the two officers at Columbine that saw and allowed the threats to enter the school. Here was an officer on site, took no action and took no blame. If the threats had not been there, no killing. If the officer had done his duty, no killing.

If the threat is a threat because you intentionally put yourself into position to make the threat a threat, you have now become the threat.... . Wow...figure that one out...LOL.
The usual thought process about shooting someone in the back is that it usually means they are trying to get away from you...which means they were no longer a threat. I will say this...I don't believe for one minute these two BG's charged a guy holding a shotgun on them. I believe they were trying to run away. I believe one tried to run to the left and go down the side of the house and the other tried to run straight away from Joe Horn. I believe the locals were sympathetic to Joe Horn because every darned one of us are sick and tired of criminals. The locals are trying real hard to help Joe Horn not go to jail. He should show his appreciation and stop running his mouth. In my heart I can't tell myself he did the right thing. Quite the opposite, I believe property is not worth human life. If I catch a guy in my house I will shoot to stop. I can't take the chance he might intend to kill me. If he dies...it is in Gods hands. If I go outside to play cop and throw down on a guy to keep him from getting away, I will only shoot him if he becomes a threat to my life. That means if he approaches me. If he turns around and runs away...I will scream curse words at him as he runs away.There will be no doubt he approached me because the rounds will be squarely in his front. No way in the world am I going to face my maker one day and try to explain why I shot a guy in the back and killed him over a stereo.
I have zero sympathy for those two pieces of garbage Joe Horn killed. That does not mean that I feel like Joe Horn did the right thing. Nothing about what he did was ethical or moral in any way what so ever...IMHO. I sure as heck don't want my neighbors shooting and killing someone stealing property from my house. That is why I have insurance.


By the way...I didn't say posting here was preaching to the choir. I am not sure how you got that from my post. My exact words were "Posting long diatribes trying to make the point about how these two deserved what they got is preaching to the choir".