J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

[DParker]

no, now i disagree with that.

He was under no legal obligation to stay inside his home during the event and he could be as thrilled to pieces or excited as he wanted to be over shooting those guys. The law does not say you have to be remorseful and he has every right to be on his property, especially if crimes are being commited in the immediate vicinity and he feels he might be at risk.

That's all true. However...

If he stepped outside and they came toward him he then had every right to shoot per self defense too in how i read the law. I (and my cracker jack law degree) would say there was definitely a threat present if they were on his property and coming toward him and he's not required to use lesser measures of force.

Someone simply approaching you on your property is not sufficient cause for concluding a threat sufficient to warrant the use of deadly force. If it were they'd be stacking up salesmen, girl scouts and Jehovah's Witnesses like cord wood at the local morgues. For purposes of establishing self-defense, the exhuberance Horn displayed on the 911 call is relevant because we have no other real evidence regarding the circumstances that would establish a "reasonable belief" that there was such a threat. Horn established well before the BGs even knew he was there that he wasn't "gonna' let them get away with it" and that he intended to "kill 'em". While we can't know that he ulitimately didn't have reason to perceive a threat to himself, he certainly tossed away any presumption that such a perception must have been there in order for him to pull the trigger.

That's why I don't claim that there was no self-defense involved. We really have no way of knowing one way or the other for sure. I'm only saying that it was his weakest legal defense.

[DParker]

Holy moly! Back the truck up!! I really messed up on this one. In interpreting 9.43 I neglected to review 9.42 (the conditions of which must be satisfied for 9.43 to apply). As it turns out, 9.42 requires that the incident occur "during the nighttime" in order for force to be justified...

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So much for my brilliant analysis

[boomerang]

Horn established well before the BGs even knew he was there that he wasn't "gonna' let them get away with it" and that he intended to "kill 'em".

Good for him! He performed a public service and should be rewarded not punished.

The law (9.42) says he was "justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property" "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary" "from escaping with the property"

If a police officer enjoys catching criminals, that doesn't nullify his power to arrest them.

[LedJedi]

no, now i disagree with that.

He was under no legal obligation to stay inside his home during the event and he could be as thrilled to pieces or excited as he wanted to be over shooting those guys. The law does not say you have to be remorseful and he has every right to be on his property, especially if crimes are being commited in the immediate vicinity and he feels he might be at risk.

That's all true. However...

If he stepped outside and they came toward him he then had every right to shoot per self defense too in how i read the law. I (and my cracker jack law degree) would say there was definitely a threat present if they were on his property and coming toward him and he's not required to use lesser measures of force.

Someone simply approaching you on your property is not sufficient cause for concluding a threat sufficient to warrant the use of deadly force. If it were they'd be stacking up salesmen, girl scouts and Jehovah's Witnesses like cord wood at the local morgues. For purposes of establishing self-defense, the exhuberance Horn displayed on the 911 call is relevant because we have no other real evidence regarding the circumstances that would establish a "reasonable belief" that there was such a threat. Horn established well before the BGs even knew he was there that he wasn't "gonna' let them get away with it" and that he intended to "kill 'em". While we can't know that he ulitimately didn't have reason to perceive a threat to himself, he certainly tossed away any presumption that such a perception must have been there in order for him to pull the trigger.

That's why I don't claim that there was no self-defense involved. We really have no way of knowing one way or the other for sure. I'm only saying that it was his weakest legal defense.

disagree (for what it's worth)

Just as one can assume that burglar in your home is there to do you harm even if you don't see them holding your stuff you're still authorized in DF. Mr. Horn witnessed these folks break into and then leave his neighbor's residence and were obviously committing a burglary. I believe it's very reasonable to assume DF is authorized were he to meet them on the front lawn instead of inside his neighbor's house. I see your argument and it has merit but i believe a jury would be inclined to believe a burglar represents an immediate threat if they are on your property, especially if you just witnessed them burglarize a neighboring residence. I could certainly be wrong. My X wife will testify it wouldn't be the first time but that's just how i read the situation.

[LedJedi]

Holy moly! Back the truck up!! I really messed up on this one. In interpreting 9.43 I neglected to review 9.42 (the conditions of which must be satisfied for 9.43 to apply). As it turns out, 9.42 requires that the incident occur "during the nighttime" in order for force to be justified...

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So much for my brilliant analysis

I believe the "in the night time" only applies to simple theft. I do not believe it was intended to have the night time requirement attached to arson, burglary, robbery, or agg robbery. At least that's always the way i've seen it interpreted. You're authorized for DF in burglary in daytime as well. Simple theft requires night time though.

[DParker]

Horn established well before the BGs even knew he was there that he wasn't "gonna' let them get away with it" and that he intended to "kill 'em".

Good for him! He performed a public service and should be rewarded not punished.

You're confusing my opinion on the legal merits of the defense with an assessment of the non-legal justifications for his actions.

The law (9.42) says he was "justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property" "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary" "from escaping with the property"

See my post above. I got this one wrong too.

If a police officer enjoys catching criminals, that doesn't nullify his power to arrest them.

He's not allowed to shoot them just because he wants to, either.

[boomerang]

Holy moly! Back the truck up!! I really messed up on this one. In interpreting 9.43 I neglected to review 9.42 (the conditions of which must be satisfied for 9.43 to apply). As it turns out, 9.42 requires that the incident occur "during the nighttime" in order for force to be justified...

Only for theft or criminal mischief.

Code: Select all

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of 
     arson, 
     burglary, 
     robbery, 
     aggravated robbery, 
     theft during the nighttime, 
     or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  
or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing 
     burglary, 
     robbery, 
     aggravated robbery, 
     or theft during the nighttime 
from escaping with the property

[austin]

Quannel Said he was gonna burn the city down, ha ha. What a Joke. Wonder if he got any Matches?...
----------

Good news for Mr. Horn. I look forward to Quanell the 10th's comments.

What's his address? Let's mail him some.

[DParker]

I believe the "in the night time" only applies to simple theft. I do not believe it was intended to have the night time requirement attached to arson, burglary, robbery, or agg robbery.

Unfortunately, (2)(A) and (2)(B) both explicitely list "burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery" in their "during the nighttime" requirements. (2)(A) lists "arson" as well.

The preceding is left as evidence of my error, but is acknowledged as being incorrect and should be ignored as such.

[austin]

I hate to even mention this, but this morning there is buzz on the radio of hauling in the feds on this.

Violation of the civil rights on Torres and Ortiz & so forth.

I'd hoped that we could put this thing to bed. The antis are smarting this week and might be in a mood to tangle at a higher level. I'm sure that they know how to find the dough and pull the strings.

This would backfire on the feds.

[DParker]

Holy moly! Back the truck up!! I really messed up on this one. In interpreting 9.43 I neglected to review 9.42 (the conditions of which must be satisfied for 9.43 to apply). As it turns out, 9.42 requires that the incident occur "during the nighttime" in order for force to be justified...

Only for theft or criminal mischief.

LOL @ myself! You're right, I've screwed up evaluating my own screw-up In fact, I now recall doing this same thing months ago in another discussion.

Time to take a break and get some more coffee.

[boomerang]

Time to take a break and get some more coffee

[WarHawk-AVG]

Actually here is what saved him...printed in black and white

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm

Once the bad guys have met the criteria to use deadly force it doesn't matter if you shoot them front to back or put 50 in their back (one the threat is stopped you stop..if you walk up and put one in the head of a badguy laying down you go to prison for murder)...you must realize the occupational hazard of being a scumbag thief/rapist/badguy is death, if they are lucky the guys in blue will showup and give them some nice bracelets and save them from the good guy that is sick and tired of being the victim and turning said badguy into a leaky walking gazebo

[barres]

Actually here is what saved him...printed in black and white

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm

He was actually golden without his neighbor asking his to keep an eye on his property, because of the "or" at the end of (1), but the request for protection didn't hurt him any, either.

[Keith B]

Actually here is what saved him...printed in black and white

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm

Once the bad guys have met the criteria to use deadly force it doesn't matter if you shoot them front to back or put 50 in their back (one the threat is stopped you stop..if you walk up and put one in the head of a badguy laying down you go to prison for murder)...you must realize the occupational hazard of being a scumbag thief/rapist/badguy is death, if they are lucky the guys in blue will showup and give them some nice bracelets and save them from the good guy that is sick and tired of being the victim and turning said badguy into a leaky walking gazebo

§ 9.42 does not apply because it was not nighttime.