TexasCHLforum.com

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...

I must ask just what this statement has to do with this incident, when Joe Horn had no idea who these two men were? That is, its legality or illegality, or even its rightness or wrongness?

I must stress that this is a question, and I am not expressing an opinion as to what the answer to the question might be.

Jim

EDIT: Sorry, KB. I hadn't seen your note.

KBCraig wrote:

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.

In other words, that's as relevant as the things the media focused on. Were the criminals on Joe Horn's property? Did he shoot them in the back? Why didn't he stay in the house? Was he in fear? If the media had time to talk about those irrelevant things, they had time to talk about the gang and how Mr. Horn helped make the neighborhood safer.

boomerang wrote:...Were the criminals on Joe Horn's property? Did he shoot them in the back? Why didn't he stay in the house? Was he in fear? If the media had time to talk about those irrelevant things, they had time to talk about the gang and how Mr. Horn helped make the neighborhood safer.

In my view the answer to each and every question which you label as irrelevant was, and, I must say, still is, relevant to the question of whether Mr. Horn was justified in firing. Those answers may not have been decisive, but they definitely were relevant.

With respect,

Jim

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

I don't think that ABC News pays for interviews. Maybe they are trying to set the stage for a book and/or movie deal.

WildBill wrote:

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

I don't think that ABC News pays for interviews. Maybe they are trying to set the stage for a book and/or movie deal.

I don't know about ABC news in particular, but I do know of stories in the past where different news outlets have paid for exclusives or firsts. I wouldn't completely discount it.

Molon_labe wrote:

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

This doesn't seem to register with most people. I don't understand how she hasn't already been prosecuted for this, considering that the police had been investigating this particular crime ring prior to Joe Horn's incident.

I also don't understand how she could personally collect from Joe Horn since she isn't legally a relative of one of these men. She might be able to collect on behalf of their child, but that might even be a stretch.

Here's the page describing the police interview with Joe Horn and the link to the raw footage of that interview/walk-through the scene. It starts inside Joe Horn's house and walks through his actions, on out into the yard and the shooting. http://www.click2houston.com/news/16784608/detail.html

I would very much like to see the tape (if one exists) of the interview with the police investigator who witnessed the incident.

If you believe Joe Horn, and the investigator reportedly bears out his account, he committed no crime here. He perceived a deadly threat; in his own yard, he feared for his life; he defended himself.

Now we know where everyone was, when Joe Horn came out the door and found himself within the Tueller distance of two approaching criminals who did NOT stop despite his orders and despite he was pointing a shotgun at them.

Interesting short read on the Tueller drill (which we all know by now but take a look) -- the first half is more about defense against a knife etc, if you have a gun...

The second half is the REALLY interesting and important part about home invasions:

http://defendyourself101.ca/articles/hi ... ller-drill

Venus Pax wrote:

Molon_labe wrote:a. she is harboring a fugitive

This doesn't seem to register with most people. I don't understand how she hasn't already been prosecuted for this, considering that the police had been investigating this particular crime ring prior to Joe Horn's incident.

Well, technically, we do not have a harboring a fugitive charge in Texas. Also technically, these two were not fugitives at the time. The charge is hindering apprehension or prosecution. A fugitive is someone who has been indicted already.

The charge of hindering apprehension requires her to hide or conceal the suspect, provide a means of escape, or provide a warning that the police are coming. The mere fact she is dating him, or even living with him is not enough for the hindering charge.

If we could prove that she knew he was committing robberies or burglaries, we could make a conspiracy charge stick. It only takes two people to discuss it and one person to take action. I sincerely doubt we could prove the case though.

srothstein,
I was thinking of the fact that he had already committed at least one crime in the U.S. and was deported back to Columbia. Wouldn't his willful return make him a fugitive? It seems that there would be only a slim chance that she wouldn't know about this.

Also, he was part of a crime ring. I don't see how she couldn't know about this. I guess the difficult part would be proving it. Is that what you were saying? Or is it simply that living with a criminal and having knowledge of their activities and not reporting them is not a crime?

I'm just wanting to clarify.

I have no use for Diane Sawyer. She is no suprise.

Venus Pax wrote:srothstein,
I was thinking of the fact that he had already committed at least one crime in the U.S. and was deported back to Columbia. Wouldn't his willful return make him a fugitive? It seems that there would be only a slim chance that she wouldn't know about this.

Also, he was part of a crime ring. I don't see how she couldn't know about this. I guess the difficult part would be proving it. Is that what you were saying? Or is it simply that living with a criminal and having knowledge of their activities and not reporting them is not a crime?

I'm just wanting to clarify.

MIght find her somehow complicit under the RICO act. Knowledge of or involvement in a criminal gang or enterprise. That's federal though. I'm not sure any state agency even goes there. course, I'm not Steve either.

It looks like there's more cause for a RICO lawsuit against someone commingling funds with a criminal's ill gotten gains than any lawsuit against someone who kills a felon in the act.

Venus Pax wrote:srothstein,
I was thinking of the fact that he had already committed at least one crime in the U.S. and was deported back to Columbia. Wouldn't his willful return make him a fugitive? It seems that there would be only a slim chance that she wouldn't know about this.

In normal usage yes it makes him a fugitive. We tend to think of any criminal who is hiding as a fugitive. But in the eyes of the law, who had not yet indicted him for the illegal re-entry, he is not considered a fugitive. In other words, teh cops were not actively looking specifically for him, so this law would not come into play.

Also, he was part of a crime ring. I don't see how she couldn't know about this. I guess the difficult part would be proving it. Is that what you were saying? Or is it simply that living with a criminal and having knowledge of their activities and not reporting them is not a crime?

I'm just wanting to clarify.

You have it right. I know she had to have known as there is no way she could not have known. But we cannot prove it. To make this case, we would have to prove that on a specific occasion they talked about it and what was said.

Consider it like the old cases of the wives of mafia members. They had to have known, but the husbaands kept their work lives separate from their family lives and never ever discussed business with the wives. Thus the wives were legally not part of the conspiracy and could not be charged.

srothstein wrote:Consider it like the old cases of the wives of mafia members. They had to have known, but the husbaands kept their work lives separate from their family lives and never ever discussed business with the wives. Thus the wives were legally not part of the conspiracy and could not be charged.

Thank you for the clarification.

Joe’s mouth got him in this trouble, now it’s getting him undue attention.

IMHO, all he did wrong was talk, then and now. He was clearly with in the law and justified (although I would have stayed in my house). Had he not spewed from the mouth he would have not made national news.


+1 on not being on the GJ, that would have been hard for me.