TexasCHLforum.com

cxm wrote:Texas PC 9.42 and 9.43 are pretty clear... please educate me... WHY would a grand jury have indited Mr. Horn? What would be the basis?

Letter of the law? Maybe? Mr Horn was looking to stop the burglary from the beginning. And if he would have went outside at earlier and met the two coming out of the home, then I'd have a very different view of what happened. But he didn't. He was talking to the 911 operator for 6 minutes when the operator tells Mr Horn if he goes outside he could get himself shot. Mr Horn says, "You wanna make a bet, I'm gonna kill 'em"

There's a huge difference in protecting yourself (or your neighbor) and the intent to kill.

I don't agree with the crooks getting away with a crime, but it is also very scary to think that the next person will decide to take a life based on this example. And in doing so, wind up behind bars with a murder charge.

It also concerns me that shootings like this will push the legislature to narrow the scope of the law.

SCone wrote:It also concerns me that shootings like this will push the legislature to narrow the scope of the law.

I don't think that's likely to happen. PC 9.33 and 9.43 are exactly the same laws that justify use of deadly force by the police to prevent -- or rather terminate the commission of -- burglary and robbery.

Mr. Horn took two huge risks: (1) that the burglars might have the means to do him harm; (2) that they were not in fact burglars. He was vindicated in this case, but anyone considering similar action needs to keep those risks in mind.

- Jim

Points to ponder as some position themselves for posturing post grand jury no-bill:

1. The 911 tape is really irrelevant and is mainly inflamatory as you do not have to obey a dispatcher's request.

2. None of us were there so we will never know exactly what happened.

3. Eyewitness testimony can be and is often flawed.

4. The media reports are mostly emotional with the intent to stir controversy and are not intended to state the facts.

5. We can always learn something from these events and we can always plan and train for what we will do should this ever happen to us.

6. Should this ever happen to us, we must sincerely hope that the police, the DA, the media, the grand jury, our friends, our brothers and sisters with common beliefs in the right to keep and bear arms and self defense do not hammer us for what they PERCEIVE is a mistake on our part and use their EMOTIONS to call us a murderer on what for all intensive purposes will be the worst day of our life.

I, for one, am glad Mr. Horn was no-billed. The system worked exactly the way it was intended. If anyone here cares to remove the race baiting, emotions, bigotry (From all sides), speculation, and chest thumping we can possibly learn from someone else's mistake.

Justice has been duly served. This is Texas, Texas law was followed, a free man is still free, and two individuals learned exactly what consequences of their actions was all about.

Anygunanywhere

I've just been lucky, I've been okayed by my neighbors, granted they said it in a mostly joking way, they still said if you see someone you can shoot! It clears things up for me

In my opinion I just think people are tired of criminals getting away with whatever they do. Police cant catch them so it's up to the people to stop them whenever possible. If they are stupid to run when someone draws down on them so be it. Criminals arent the smartest people out there, just watch "Cops".

CHL/LEO wrote:Isn't part of the Castle Doctrine that it provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill?

Didn't I say that, like, a page ago????

HerbM wrote: The detective testified that he was in his yard, and they move towards him, at least one entering his yard, he was in fear of his life, he was authorized to be there.

I've said that from the beginning, too.

DoubleJ wrote:

HerbM wrote: The detective testified that he was in his yard, and they move towards him, at least one entering his yard, he was in fear of his life, he was authorized to be there.

I've said that from the beginning, too.

I feel obligated in the sorely missed absence of txinvesigator to point out that the above highlighted text is irrelevant within the confines of the law as far as justification of DF. However, the fact that the testimony implies that the burglars were in his yard and moving toward him is absolutely relevant :)

sorry, not really adding much to the discussion here, but i was compelled to point that out if for nothing other than the memory of TXI :)

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.

LedJedi wrote:I feel obligated in the sorely missed absence of txinvesigator to point out that the above highlighted text is irrelevant within the confines of the law as far as justification of DF. However, the fact that the testimony implies that the burglars were in his yard and moving toward him is absolutely relevant :)

It's true that fear is irrelevant. If he reasonably believed the known criminals would attempt to use unlawful deadly force against him, he was justified in using deadly force to protect himself.

I heard that there was some yelling about it. The problem is that Mr. horn did not commi tthe violations under color of law. He was not acting in any offical capacity, so it is much harder to make any civil rights issue of it.

It would be the same as trying to file a civil rights case against a criminal. Just because they don't like the outcome, they try to see it changed. Too bad.

Walker wrote: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.

I wonder if the NRA would step up if that comes to pass.

I'm surprised that the portion of the code that is actually applicable to Horn's case keeps being overlooked. Molon_labe cited the correct statute section, but highlighted the wrong portions. Here is the one that matters:

§ 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.

man, i've been preachin that since day one. I have several youtube videos over 9.43 as it relates to joe horn. I suppose it's easier to sell a jury on self defense if they were coming toward him though. Sounds like maybe he was justified both ways.

LedJedi wrote:man, i've been preachin that since day one. I have several youtube videos over 9.43 as it relates to joe horn. I suppose it's easier to sell a jury on self defense if they were coming toward him though. Sounds like maybe he was justified both ways.

I've maintained from the beginning that 9.43(1) was his only real solid defense, and that even though he might get lucky and draw a sympathetic jury, the 911 tape made self-defense a long-shot at best.

DParker wrote:

LedJedi wrote:man, i've been preachin that since day one. I have several youtube videos over 9.43 as it relates to joe horn. I suppose it's easier to sell a jury on self defense if they were coming toward him though. Sounds like maybe he was justified both ways.

I've maintained from the beginning that 9.43(1) was his only real solid defense, and that even though he might get lucky and draw a sympathetic jury, the 911 tape made self-defense a long-shot at best.

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. 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.

That being said. 9.43 is where i would have put my $ in any case. it's clear cut.