TexasCHLforum.com

Well, I agree. The Sawywer interview was a bad idea, and the Michael Barry interview was a good one.

I think that from this point on we should let this lie as much as is possible, and so should Mr. Horn's attorney.

We should thank God that this turned out as well as it did for gunowners and homeowners and anyone else who might be a victim to crime.

Let's preserve our energies for the next fight. And in the unlikely event that certain forces find a way to keep lawyers further employed in this matter, let's give generously.

Like it or not (for all the personal errors that may be due to action or words of the protagonist) this case has drawn a line in the sand from which we may not retreat.

I am actually surprised that he was no-billed in the first place. But as mentioned before, a grand jury is about the law. I won't argue their decision, since I was not there to hear what they heard.

I do question Horn's (and his attorney's) decision to go on national TV to talk about this. "No-bill" does not equal "Acquital". I would just rather shut up and try to get on with my life. If I were him, I would be wondering if a target was etched on my back after this.

He may have to watch his back for a long time. I'd be willing to bet that this is just the beginning for him.

pedalman wrote:I am actually surprised that he was no-billed in the first place. But as mentioned before, a grand jury is about the law. I won't argue their decision, since I was not there to hear what they heard.

I do question Horn's (and his attorney's) decision to go on national TV to talk about this. "No-bill" does not equal "Acquital". I would just rather shut up and try to get on with my life. If I were him, I would be wondering if a target was etched on my back after this.

He may have to watch his back for a long time. I'd be willing to bet that this is just the beginning for him.

He strongly implied this last in the Sawyer interview -- although he went on to say he wasn't sure what people who recognized him might think of him -- there was still a strong implication that he fears confrontation (large and small) every time he ventures out in public.

As to speaking out, his lawyer was there, and presumably he will say nothing he hasn't already said for the Grand Jury.

Sawyer tried to bias the interview by stating JUST before brining Horn on: (words to the effect but very close)

We should point out. The burglars were unarmed. One of the burglars had a tire iron, but that was their only weapon.

Unarmed does NOT equal having an "only weapon". Not even competent at being biased.

Robber was 10-15 from horn, coming on, then turned as Horn shot the first time.

The coroner "diagram" having only a FRONT or BACK view shows the burglar as "shot in the back" -- turns out it is the "back of the side". The shot went behaind the shoulder but the angle is from just behind side on -- robber turning away.

He got over his point in the final statement: He was indeed afraid for his life and had no choice but to shoot.

(The police witness testimony confirms the details.)

The woman who planned to marry one of the burglars has indicated that she is at least looking at the possibility of a civil suit against Horn.

KC5AV wrote:The woman who planned to marry one of the burglars has indicated that she is at least looking at the possibility of a civil suit against Horn.

Good luck with that one her BF was killed in the commission of a felony

I think that Joe Horn is doing the interviews in preparation for the pending civil lawsuit. If I was in his in shoes I would ask for donations, take the money, and move to a remote island somewhere. If he decides to stay here I am really worried about the civil case

dukalmighty wrote:

KC5AV wrote:The woman who planned to marry one of the burglars has indicated that she is at least looking at the possibility of a civil suit against Horn.

Good luck with that one her BF was killed in the commission of a felony

Lawyers, would a girl friend even have standing?

Once it was self-defense in Horn's yard it should come under Castle Doctrine for that purpose. Horn doesn't need this defense for the criminal trial but they initiated an attack on him (crow bar, two men, commission of a crime) in his yard.

nedmoore wrote:I think that Joe Horn is doing the interviews in preparation for the pending civil lawsuit. If I was in his in shoes I would ask for donations, take the money, and move to a remote island somewhere. If he decides to stay here I am really worried about the civil case

No, if I were him I'd use the money from interviews and buy a handgun for every room and a handgun for my person, load each one, make sure you have your CHL, and keep a shotgun under the bed. That way the repurcussion wont come without a return

KC5AV wrote:The woman who planned to marry one of the burglars has indicated that she is at least looking at the possibility of a civil suit against Horn.

I'd like to see her prosecuted for aiding and abetting.

boomerang wrote:

KC5AV wrote:The woman who planned to marry one of the burglars has indicated that she is at least looking at the possibility of a civil suit against Horn.

I'd like to see her prosecuted for aiding and abetting.

a. she is harboring a fugitive
b. Joe was no billed (wasn't something written in the law about justifiable or something)
c. Trial couldnt be held in TX, the prosecuting attorney would go thru 12million people to find one that didn't want to pat Joe on the back

Diane really railroaded Joe...

I offer one piece of advice Joe..SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't you learn your lesson that running your mouth can cause massive trouble...just zip it and carry on

anygunanywhere wrote:Mr. Horn is proving to be more irresponsible (stupid?) than I thought with all of these interviews.

I suspect his relief at being no-billed has greatly loosened his tongue.

austin wrote:NOTHING on any program about how these guys were illegals who were committing 1-2 robberies a night, whose robbery gang had murdered and raped people, and how their killings led to capture of the whole gang.

Joe Horn didn't know any of that. It isn't relevant to whether or not Horn was justified in shooting them.

Texan wrote:I think the Media slants towards the Anti-gun crowd.

No. Really?

LedJedi wrote:The thing that gets me here is is the change in Horn's attitude from the tape to now. He's completely backpedaling. If the law is behind him I don't think he should really have any reason to play the "old man, give me sympathy, i was scared" card. The law was on his side and he had the right perspective to begin with. You don't tolerate that kind of stuff in your neighborhood. You stand up to evil.

WildBill wrote:While I am glad that Joe Horn did not get indicted, I believe that Mr. Horn and his lawyer are both fools for having an interview with Diane Sawyer. IMO his lawyer should have told him to keep his mouth shut, and both he and Mr. Horn should have refused the interview. It seems like Joe Horn is daring the DA to file charges. Both Mr. Horn and his lawyer have had their 15 minutes of fame and they should gracefully fade away.

I suspect he was compensated by the interview, thereby defraying the cost of his legal defense.

How is it that Diane Sawyer, a woman who has naked pictures of herself on the internet, qualified to challenge anyone on moral issues.