TexasCHLforum.com

Was doing some research on the Joe Horn case, and I found this articel posted on the TIME website on Thursday July 3rd. The article was making reference to how our court system is sympathetic to people protecting themselves from intruders

As Shannon Edmonds, a lobbyist for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, put it: "There's an unwritten rule in Texas courthouses: It ain't against the law to kill a ("crook" profanity warning)."

I read that quote and just about spit Dr. Pepper out of my nose. It was priceless. The abrasiveness, blunt nature of the quote was quite humurous given the source. I'm so used to lawyers, or anyone attached to the legal profession to be reserved and cautious in their words being used in public print. We complain many times about the liberal prosecutors out that that want to disarm us, but seeing this quote would suggest that they are in the minority.

The original article is here

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... html?imw=Y Profanity Warning.

(PS I hope I'm not infringing on the profanity rules, as it was a quote from an article. I did mask out the questionable word)

(PS I hope I'm not infringing on the profanity rules, as it was a quote from an article. I did mask out the questionable word)

Yes sir but any lady or 10 yr old daughter knows the "fill in the blank" & when someone posts this way it still goes througe the mind & spirit just the same as if it were written. I will fix it for you.
LT

Interesting article in that the author is trying his best to look impartial but in places his bias shines through with subtle word choices he makes. So much of the actual content was lost on me because I'd read along thinking, "that looks fair... oh, wait, there's the bias."

I found the article to be pretty anti, and it seems that the quote that you pointed out was used in a disparaging sense. The bias was definitely not hard to see. And I'm still mad at the GJ that indicted Mr. Faust.

Twice I've caught spokesmen explaining the "He needed Killing" defense on the national media. Once on Fox News, the other was on some syndicated radio talkshow. Was funny to me because both times the term was presented matter of factly and not to get a laugh.

Shannon Edmunds and the TCDAA are not our friends. They both fought hard against the Castle Doctrine and the sworn testimony given in House and Senate committees was "questionable" at best. Almost the entire audience in these hearings were attorneys and when Shannon and the other ADAs were testifying, we were all looking at each other with that "did he/she really just say that" look.

They will be leading the charge to water down or repeal the "Motorist Protection Act" (i.e. car-carry) in 2009.

Chas.

The attitude expressed in the quote stems from Texas law enforcement, and has resulted in many civil rights violations in Texas over the years. The one that stands out the most for me is the case of Jose Campos Torres. Now, Torres was no saint, with a rap sheet five city blocks long. HPD cops threw a handcuffed Torres into Buffalo Bayou in May 1977 obstensibly to see if he could swim. Torres failed the test and drowned instead.

What were they thinking? Probably that it was OK.

casingpoint wrote:The attitude expressed in the quote stems from Texas law enforcement, and has resulted in many civil rights violations in Texas over the years. The one that stands out the most for me is the case of Jose Campos Torres. Now, Torres was no saint, with a rap sheet five city blocks long. HPD cops threw a handcuffed Torres into Buffalo Bayou in May 1977 obstensibly to see if he could swim. Torres failed the test and drowned instead.

What were they thinking? Probably that it was OK.

WOW

I never knew that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hourick/moodyparkriot

If it's OK to shoot a criminal, make him one. More outstanding casework by HPD:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A967948260
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &no=997550

Liberty wrote:Twice I've caught spokesmen explaining the "He needed Killing" defense on the national media. Once on Fox News, the other was on some syndicated radio talkshow. Was funny to me because both times the term was presented matter of factly and not to get a laugh.

too funny. I was just thinking about that old "he just needed killin" quote myself. Maybe I'm a little too backwoods for modern society but I tend to still think that way in terms of more felonious crimes such as rape, premeditated murder, extreme child abuse, etc.

Then again, if I was governor of Texas I'd install the electric couch and figure out a way to shorten death row stays to something closer to 30-60 days in cases where X number of people saw you do it or other evidence is equally pointed. I would also consider putting said events up on pay-per-view to repay the system for the cost of investigation, prosecution and incarceration.

but that's just me. maybe i've been listening to a little too much Charlie Daniels band lately. (see here for reference)

Two people were shot in their backs because they needed killing? A man needs killing and you think you're the one ordained to do it, you look him in the eye when you pull the trigger on him. Otherwise, you're a low down, spineless murderer.There is a horde of people giving lip service to justify the Joe Horn shootings. How may could really look 'em in the eye and make that call? Even Joe will tell you now, don't do it.

2 criminals off the street... well done, Joe.

Let's line the rest of 'em up...

Shame on anyone who feels the criminals didn't get what they deserved.

McKnife wrote:2 criminals off the street... well done, Joe.

Let's line the rest of 'em up...

Shame on anyone who feels the criminals didn't get what they deserved.

AMEN

casingpoint wrote:There is a horde of people giving lip service to justify the Joe Horn shootings.

And your statements are all well thought out, logical, and reasoned beyond reproach?

I think the grand jury justified it. If the Pasadena Police Department and Harris County District Attorney could not produce sufficient evidence to indict in a shooting that was witnessed by a detective then I would say it is pretty much resolved. What you would do in your own situation is your business, but the fact that you state you would handle the situation any better is absurd because we really do not know how you would react in any given situation.

Using the facts to support an argument is far and away not lip service. All we have is your statements that you think Mr. Horn should have been tried, convicted, and sentenced. The only thing I can be sure of is that I would not like to have you on a grand jury examining any shooting I am ever involved in and Ihave no doubt whatsoever that I would not want you on a jury where I am a defendant because you seem to have the habit of convicting people without a trial.

Anygunanywhere