TexasCHLforum.com

Check http://www.Khou.com


Video

http://www.khou.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=259128

YES YES YES YES. I'm happy for Him, no Sympathy for the thugs.

Maybe just a fine point, but no billed is not the same as acquitted. A no bill can be readdressed if additional information is acquired. An acquittal is a free pass from that point on for that particular event.

Fantastic News!

Congrads Mr. Horn!

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

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

Joe Horn was nobilled by the grand jury, not "acquitted." He is "innocent," as he has been presumed all along, since he has not been convicted of anything, but, again, he has not been acquitted. A grand jury has no power to acquit someone.

I don't mean to be nitpicking, but a statement like this in the subject line can zoom around the Internet at a gillion miles an hour, adding more heat than light.

Jim

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

According to the article:

Horn testified before the jurors for about 90 minutes on Friday...

And:

community activist Quanell X (said) wrote: "The message that the grand jury sent today is frightening

Also, the article KHOU is still repeating the "shot in the back" thing without putting it in context: Once deadly force is justified (and the Grand Jury has ruled) then it doesn't legally matter which end you shoot.

great to see a man of honor and respect for the law being backed up by the people of the state of texas for doing the right thing and protecting himself and his neighbors. a big win!!

The DA rather intentionally waited 8 months to do this. The Pasadena PD are largely supporting Horn as well. I would be more inclined to expect to win 100 grand on a scratch off tonight than to see Joe Horn go back in front of a GJ regarding anything related to this case. Glad to see Texas still has its wits. We can look forward to Quannel Akbar Snackbar the 10th in the media for the next week.

So we will assume that further criminal action is not in view as the prosecutor and grand jury have been looking at this exhaustively for eight months. At this point, it doesn't seem likely that new material facts will pop up.

For you lawyer types out there: What are the chances of someone bringing civil action, for example for wrongful death? (God forbid.)

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

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

HerbM wrote: Also, the article KHOU is still repeating the "shot in the back" thing without putting it in context: Once deadly force is justified (and the Grand Jury has ruled) then it doesn't legally matter which end you shoot.

I agree, and have thought/said so since day one.

KJV wrote:

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

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Explain?

Doesn't that mean if you see a badguy and DON'T tell him to repent of his bad ways, that when he dies, his blood is on your hand?
and if you do talk to him about his bad ways, if he doesn't stop at least you tried?

Oh and the KHOU thing says "You're Dead" then gunshots..but the left out the important part where he says "MOVE, You're Dead" Like he walked out and shot them down with no warning