He Got Away With It!!!!!! (Texas Shooting)

Hotwire

Dealin' W/ Demons
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
15,809
Reaction score
360
Points
73
Just read this and laughed my ass off. Not at the actual story, but at his lawyers deffence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_re_us/burglary_shooting;_ylt=AnzKzRyyh.dzZKHmIW9rWaKs0NUE


Yahoo! News said:
HOUSTON - Ever since he fatally shot two men he suspected of burglarizing his next-door neighbor's home, 62-year-old Joe Horn has been both praised and vilified for his actions. Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the intruders. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but a defiant Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.
Some community activists wanted Horn to face charges for the deaths. Supporters of the retired grandfather said what he did was justified under the law.
After listening to evidence in the case, including testimony from Horn himself, a grand jury on Monday cleared him of the shootings.
"He wasn't acting like a vigilante. He didn't want to do it," said Tom Lambright, Horn's attorney.
Lambright said Horn was not a "wild cowboy" who took the law into his own hands after he saw the two suspected burglars, with bags in hand, crawling out of windows from his neighbor's home on Nov. 14 in the Houston suburb of Pasadena. The neighbor was out of town at the time.
Instead, Horn was a frightened retiree who tried to defend his neighbor's property and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn defended himself, Lambright said.
"He was scared. He was in fear of his life," he said.
Grand jurors had to consider two issues in the case: the intentional killing of another person and whether the killing was justified either by self-defense or the defense of property, Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters.
"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town. It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.
Frank Ortiz, a member of the local League of United Latin American Citizens chapter, said he hopes federal authorities investigate the case further.
"That's amazing that they would no-bill him with so much evidence against him," Ortiz told the Houston Chronicle in Monday's online edition. "This was no more than a vigilante."
Horn did not speak with reporters on Monday.
A large red sign with the words "No Trespass" on it blocked the path to his front door and a handwritten sign on the door said "Please no media," "No Trespassing" and "Do not knock or ring bell." A couple of neighbors also had signs on their doors asking media to leave them alone.
A few police cars patrolled the area near Horn's home.
The two suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The city of Pasadena, where protesters and defenders of Horn engaged in counter-demonstrations, pledged to keep its police force staffed enough to protect its citizens.
Keith Hampton, a Houston attorney not connected with the case, said he didn't expect Horn to be indicted. "This is a real conservative county," he said. "A lot of folks in Houston and Harris County are saying this man was doing a good thing."
In the 911 call, a dispatcher urges Horn to stay inside his house and not risk lives.
"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."
"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."
After the shooting, he redialed 911. "I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."
 
Good. I'm glad he was cleared and there are 2 less POS's in the world.
 
being 62 probably went in his favour, old people usually get treated differently
 
It also helps that there is a law in Texas that supports his actions. You know, laws, things we follow. He acted well under the rights granted to him by Texas law.
 
It also helps that there is a law in Texas that supports his actions. You know, laws, things we follow. He acted well under the rights granted to him by Texas law.
How do you convince someone that you were defending yourself by shooting someone, who wasn't attacking you, in the back?!?! He shot them in the back! That is not self-defense.
 
If someone ever broke into my home and I was there...hell yes I would shoot to kill those idiots.
 
If someone ever broke into my home and I was there...hell yes I would shoot to kill those idiots.
The problem is, the guy saw the preps breaking into his neighbor's house. He thenn called 911 and told them that he was going to go over and shoot the two men. The men he killed were not threatening him, nor where they breaking into his house. On top of that, he shot them in the back! That would mean they were fleeing. If a cop had done that, he would have been in a s***load of trouble.
 
The problem is, the guy saw the preps breaking into his neighbor's house. He thenn called 911 and told them that he was going to go over and shoot the two men. The men he killed were not threatening him, nor where they breaking into his house. On top of that, he shot them in the back! That would mean they were fleeing. If a cop had done that, he would have been in a s***load of trouble.

Or they were turned around busy robbing his neighbor? And he didn't want to be like "Excuse me, could you two turn around so I can shoot you... that is if you don't have any guns yourselves and would take the time I wait for you to turn around and shoot me."

:whatever:
 
Or they were turned around busy robbing his neighbor? And he didn't want to be like "Excuse me, could you two turn around so I can shoot you... that is if you don't have any guns yourselves and would take the time I wait for you to turn around and shoot me."

:whatever:
So, you feel he was right in witnessing a break in, calling the police to tell them that he was going to go take care of it himself, sneaking up on them, and shooting them both dead.

Oh, and keep in mind, both were shot in the back. If he had snuck up on them, and shot one, wouldn't the otned around?
 
How do you convince someone that you were defending yourself by shooting someone, who wasn't attacking you, in the back?!?! He shot them in the back! That is not self-defense.

Under texas law it is. It specifically states you can use lethal force on someone that is fleeing a crime scene. So yes, it was self defense, also, he didn't shoot them until they ran into his yard.
 
So, you feel he was right in witnessing a break in, calling the police to tell them that he was going to go take care of it himself, sneaking up on them, and shooting them both dead.

Oh, and keep in mind, both were shot in the back. If he had snuck up on them, and shot one, wouldn't the otned around?

But that's not what happened, so there's no point in asking hypothetical questions. I mean, I feel there is something more to your outrage other than the fact they got shot in the back.
 
But that's not what happened, so there's no point in asking hypothetical questions. I mean, I feel there is something more to your outrage other than the fact they got shot in the back.

You'd think that from his reaction that illegal immigrants had the right to break into houses and steal people's belongings.
 
You'd think that from his reaction that illegal immigrants had the right to break into houses and steal people's belongings.

Well that's really not comparable and a completely different discussion.
 
Let's clear this up right now. The two men who broke in were wrong, they were commiting a crime. The deserved to go to jail. What happened was, the man in question, witnessed the break in, called 911 and told them he was going to leave his house, walk next door, and kill the two men. He was advised by the 911 operator not to do this. He did it anyway. He set out from his own home to kill two men breaking into his neighbor's house. When he witnessed the crime, he was not being threatened, nor was it his home that was being broken into. This is where I have a problem. The man took the law into his own hands, left his home, and shot the two men in the back. This, to me, is premeditated murder.

Is that clear enough?
 
Let's clear this up right now. The two men who broke in were wrong, they were commiting a crime. The deserved to go to jail. What happened was, the man in question, witnessed the break in, called 911 and told them he was going to leave his house, walk next door, and kill the two men. He was advised by the 911 operator not to do this. He did it anyway. He set out from his own home to kill two men breaking into his neighbor's house. When he witnessed the crime, he was not being threatened, nor was it his home that was being broken into. This is where I have a problem. The man took the law into his own hands, left his home, and shot the two men in the back. This, to me, is premeditated murder.

Is that clear enough?

It's not. Had he known the two criminals earlier? Had he then set it up so they would rob his neighbors and he could shoot them both?

Nope... in the moment, he decided to take a gun he had and go shoot them.
 
It's not. Had he known the two criminals earlier? Had he then set it up so they would rob his neighbors and he could shoot them both?

Nope... in the moment, he decided to take a gun he had and go shoot them.
When it was not a nesecarry thing to do. Justifing this is the same as justifing vigilante justice. Any citizen who witnesses a crime, would then have the right to kill the person commiting the crime. This is not a good idea.
 
Do you have Darth on ignore or something?

He's told you why the whole thing was legal.
 
Let's clear this up right now. The two men who broke in were wrong, they were commiting a crime. The deserved to go to jail. What happened was, the man in question, witnessed the break in, called 911 and told them he was going to leave his house, walk next door, and kill the two men. He was advised by the 911 operator not to do this. He did it anyway. He set out from his own home to kill two men breaking into his neighbor's house. When he witnessed the crime, he was not being threatened, nor was it his home that was being broken into. This is where I have a problem. The man took the law into his own hands, left his home, and shot the two men in the back. This, to me, is premeditated murder.

Is that clear enough?

Again, he shot them when they crossed into HIS yard.

For god's sake you can still hear him on the phone when he shot them. Unless he can hold a phone a cock and shoot a shotgun there is no way he walked next door and shot the dudes.
 
Texas justice...'Don't Mess With Texas'.

Yehaw.
 
Do you have Darth on ignore or something?

He's told you why the whole thing was legal.
No, I've been reading Dath's as well. But you are all missing my point. He should have simply stayed inside and waited for the cops, but instead, as he was recorded saying, "Going to go shoot them." He went out with the intentions of shooting them, while they were still on his neighbors property.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"