Burglary is a risky business....

Sami

ohskigod wrote: »

And your absolutly sure of that judgement call sitting from your keyboard and typing? honestly?

How can you not to? The guy had enough time to pick up a phone, call 911, have a conversation with them and tell he was going in to shoot them. His actions clearly tell he was not in danger. If he was, he wouldn't have been on the phone talking.

What have the criminals learned from this? If you're going to rob an empty place, you still need to bring guns. Unfortunately this incident isn't going to stop them.

sucks2beme

This case, as far as I'm concerned, turned out the way it should have.
The real point is, is that always going to be the result?
When you decide to start extending the range of home defense to your
neighbor's house, things can get ugly pretty fast. It's real easy
for the next time you read of this that someone shoots a family member
of a neighbor.
The person most likely to die by a gun owner's gun isn't the bad guy,
It's the gun owner or their own family member. There's an ugly statistic
that stands out. I'm all for the bad guy getting waxed. It the other
cases that I'm worried about.

bobman1235

He shot them in the back as they were running away from him and his neighbors house. I know you're just trying to see it from his point of view, but c'mon. You and I both know that when you shoot someone in the back as they're running away, you're not in any danger. If he had shot them as they were running towards his house, maybe I'd be a little more forgiving there, but... I'm sorry, it just doesn't fly.

As I said before, I'm glad there's two less scumbags on the street, but you can listen to the 911 tape; the guy was in no danger and just seemed to want someone to shoot.

shack

ohskigod wrote: »

And your absolutly sure of that judgement call sitting from your keyboard and typing? honestly?

you knew EXACTLY what was going through his head, every minutia of detail that hapenned that night to make that much of a judgement call? Wow man, just wow.

We may not know exactly what was going through his head...but we know what he said...and we know he went chasing after them...even though the 911 dispatcher told him to stay put. HE DECIDED to take the law in his own hands. HE SAID he was going to kill them.

Horn called 911 first, and told a police dispatcher that he planned to kill the two men -- just moments before he opened fire. "I'm not going to let them go. I'm not going to let them get away with this," Joe Horn tells the dispatcher.

Moments later, Horn tells the operator: "I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there," the dispatcher tells Horn in a calm, measured voice. "I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting someone over this."

The neighbors, who Horn told the dispatcher he did not know well, were not at home.

During the 911 call, which runs about six minutes, the dispatcher repeatedly tells Horn not to go outside or use his shotgun.

"Mr. Horn, I want you to listen to me carefully, OK? I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house and I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when the officers are poking around out there."

But Horn, who tells the operator that he is upset by a robbery happening in daylight, seems to brush those instructions aside, telling the dispatcher:

"I have a right to protect myself. And a shotgun is a legal weapon. It's not an illegal weapon."

Again I think criminals should be punished for their crimes...but the punishment should fit the crime. The last time I checked...we don't kill thieves or robbers.

candyliquor35m

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/5865286.html

I know this info was already post but posting it again in case anyone missed it.

ohskigod

If I thought someone was still a threat, and that my life was in danger in a stressful situation, I can see how I would shoot someone in the back.

If you genuinly think in your mind someone means to do you harm, as I genuinly think this guy did(right or wrong), does it really matter which was he is facing? You mistakenly think that a person who genuinly wants to kill you no longer wants to kill you if he happens to face the other way. granted, you acting toward him in a harmful way might be dicey from a legal standpoint if he is running away from you, but if fear of my life outweighs those concerns out of genuine concern for my (or my loved ones) well beings, well, your gonna get shot/stabbed/punched/whatever.....in the back

the grand jury had to be shown, or believe, that the shooter genuinly feared for his life when he acted. this is one of those cases where I will just defer to their judgement, since all of the facts in hand were diplayed during that proceeding, not in this forum.

again, I am not arguing he made some poor decisions, but he was pushed into a situation where making poor decisions is a distinct possibility. dont want anyone to make poor decisions that effect you?, then dont put them in that situation.

the 2 burglers, by virtue of breaking into a home in what seemed to be a very protective neighborhood did just that, and I tend to give ALOT of leeway to the shooter since I place more of the blame for the bad situation overall to the invaders. thats my position and I am sticking to it.

ohskigod

shack wrote: »

We may not know exactly ..but we know what he said....

and should we always take exactly what is said to the letter by people pushed to a breaking point, thrust into a very stressful situation such as....say......dangerous criminals close enough to take his life at a whim if they so chose? Cmon shackdaddy

again, we are making judgements from our keyboards when we were not in the situation he was in. I certainly will not judge him by what he said in a 911 tape during what I hope we can agree was VERY heavy duress.

this is a reasom why a very intelligent lesson in life is to avoid, whenever possible, placing people in extreme stressful situations, they might do something stupid......to you.

it's something at least every home invader should know, it affects the sactity of whole neighborhoods too, not just the home being invaded at the time

engtaz

Not a judgment either side but, there are people who are scare to go to place because of what they believe to be threats. Everybody has a distance they are comfortable with a people. Some are comfortable with 1 inch others with much greater distances. Ask a cop what distance he or she is comfortable with. You will be surprised.

FWIW
engtaz

steveinaz

While I doubt any of us will miss 2 less miscreants in the world, I have to agree with Shack that this is a poor example of how you "defend" yourself. The guy was wrong in every way I can think of, tactically and legally. It's a miracle he got off...

Having said that, criminals in Texas may want to consider a regular job--or maybe not. I refuse to defend a "perp"; they choose to break into peoples homes, they assume the risks involved with such poor decisions. If someone breaks into my house, I'm not going to ask them if they are going to just take stuff, or kill me. I'm going to shoot them if they don't exit immediately.

It's really very simple, if you don't want to be dead, don't break into peoples home. Victims have no way of knowing what the "intentions" are of the criminal, and the burden shouldn't be on the victim to analyze it.

There's another "detail" that is being ignored too; the man gave them a chance to "stop" they chose not to, another poor decision--especially with a 12ga pointed at you.

This isn't over for the shooter, wrongful death civil suits are sure to follow...

ohskigod

steveinaz wrote: »

.

This isn't over for the shooter, wrongful death civil suits are sure to follow...

normally this is a worry, however, this guy is
a) possible exempt or shielded from a well versed castle doctrine
b) dead illegal aliens with possibly no family in the area.

Demiurge

ohskigod wrote: »

And your absolutly sure of that judgement call sitting from your keyboard and typing? honestly?

you knew EXACTLY what was going through his head, every minutia of detail that hapenned that night to make that much of a judgement call? Wow man, just wow.

Judgement?

It's not a judgement call, it's a fact. The facts show he wasn't in any danger until he loaded his gun and charged out of his house to gun down 2 people in the back. The only reason he's not in jail is because he did all of this in Texas, a point that seems to escape all of his defenders. Anywhere else and he's rotting in jail -- no doubt. I'm sure he's thanking his lucky stars for that.

With the SCOTUS ruling last week we finally have traction for gun rights in this country. The last thing we need is jackasses like Mr. Horn being the torch bearer of vigialante justice. He does nothing but destroy the cause. He is exactly what the anti-gun movement sees as the reason why guns need to be banned. Whether that's right or not, it's more ammo for them because in this case it's a real example.

To add, as cute as some in this thread (not you) think waxing people is -- most don't have any idea what it's like to be put in the position of doing it.

This guy wanted to kill these 2. I say wanted rather than chose because he wasn't in a life and death situation and had the time to listen to someone tell him not to before he went off and did it anway. No harm was going to come to him while he was on the phone with 9/11.

There's a guy here locally who went out to investigate a noise outside of his house. Two kids, whom he ultimately shot dead, were breaking into his car. One had a gun on him, but hadn't pulled it out. The homeowner was convicted is sitting in jail right now and he shouldn't be.

Mr. Horn should be. He created a dangerous situation for himself and other neighbors around him that the police could have taken care of on their own.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote: »

Mr. Horn should be. He created a dangerous situation for himself and other neighbors around him that the police could have taken care of on their own.

Precisely. This guy was playing cowboys & indians--stupid and irresponsible.

Sami

bobman1235 wrote: »

Several times. The Hispanics seem to outnumber the Caucasians. If they think they're oh so discriminated against and life is so horrible for them here, you'd think they'd stop filing in.

I agree with you that the race card is overplayed in many situations, but in this case more than likely it played a part. Their resident status should have as much relevance to the case as what colour **** pope had that day, and I'm sure that's not the case here.

steveinaz

Folk's, get some proper training--both tactical and legal. Learn the laws of your state, what you can and cannot do in defense of your home/family. Then of course decide for yourself those rules that you can live with, and those that you can't. You know the old saying "better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6." I can tell you 2 that apply almost universally--1) NEVER PERSUE anyone. 2) Never shoot someone attempting to EXIT. Let'm leave, don't chase down anyone. The big thing is to get them out of your home. The threat is then nuetralized, let the police handle it from there. Have a plan and PRACTICE it. Tell your children what they need to do, where they need to go, and how things will be handled. Secure your home, first and foremost. Have a cell phone on your nightstand, landlines can be cut and you'll have no way to call 911. DO NOT HANG UP with 911 until the police arrive and secure the area.

sucks2beme

Bottom line, he was pushing the envelope, even for Texas.
The only reason they didn't push for charges was in that smaller
town enviroment and the history of the perps, no jury of locals
would convict. Kinda like OJ in LA. The same type of situation here in
Dallas area wouldn't fly. The DA would charge, and most likely the
jury would convict, or at best split. I would sit tight and let the cops
handle it here. That would be the case in 99% of the country.

Polk user

If those 2 POS had the wherewithal to rob a gun free school zone none of this would have happened!!!!!!!

Conceal permits for everyone.(Except for the criminals since they already carry)

hockeyboy

bobman1235 wrote: »

He shot them in the back as they were running away from him and his neighbors house. I know you're just trying to see it from his point of view, but c'mon. You and I both know that when you shoot someone in the back as they're running away, you're not in any danger. If he had shot them as they were running towards his house, maybe I'd be a little more forgiving there, but... I'm sorry, it just doesn't fly.

As I said before, I'm glad there's two less scumbags on the street, but you can listen to the 911 tape; the guy was in no danger and just seemed to want someone to shoot.

The real question is did he say "DROP THE CHALUPA!"?

JohnLocke88

honda cber wrote: »

i feel this way too.
in my house? you had better be a fast MF.
running away from my house? i dunno--- depends on what you did before you started running (definitely against the law in my state).
running away from the NEIGHBOR'S house? gee... "do nothing" is the only *legal* answer around here.

i missed this story the first time around, but i read and listened, etc today.

would some of your opinions be changed if he had first yelled "stop thief!"?
a

In the tape, he yells "Move and you're dead!" To me, that's a pretty clear statement. Perhaps they didn't speak fluent English; I guess it would have been better had he said it in their native tongue.

JohnLocke88

sucks2beme wrote: »

The person most likely to die by a gun owner's gun isn't the bad guy,
It's the gun owner or their own family member. There's an ugly statistic
that stands out.

Please quote your sources for this argument.

JohnLocke88

bobman1235 wrote: »

He shot them in the back as they were running away from him and his neighbors house. I know you're just trying to see it from his point of view, but c'mon. You and I both know that when you shoot someone in the back as they're running away, you're not in any danger. If he had shot them as they were running towards his house, maybe I'd be a little more forgiving there, but... I'm sorry, it just doesn't fly.

As I said before, I'm glad there's two less scumbags on the street, but you can listen to the 911 tape; the guy was in no danger and just seemed to want someone to shoot.

And what would you say had he said nothing, they had gotten away before the cops got there, and returned later to burglarize someone else's house, who was home, and got killed in the defense of their home? The same thing?

sucks2beme

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Please quote your sources for this argument.

Various. Most list suicide at about half of all gun deaths. Add
accidents on to the total, and that pretty much calls it as "most" in my book.
Go google and check the numbers. The exact numbers seem to dance around
depending on who's doing the counting. Seems also, the results skew
on child deaths depending on what age you call a child. The 18-20 year
old bracket has a lot of gun deaths involving drugs. Yet it is added to
the "child" death statistics to pad the numbers for gun control.
The wierd thing is that in concealed carry states like Texas, both sides predicted
all sorts of results, like a drop in crime or a big increase in shootings. Net result:no
real change either way. Seems both gun control and pro gun groups called it wrong.
A local tv staion did a big story on it
one year after the law was passed in Texas.

bobman1235

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

And what would you say had he said nothing, they had gotten away before the cops got there, and returned later to burglarize someone else's house, who was home, and got killed in the defense of their home? The same thing?

Your argument is completely irrelevant, and designed just to elicit some emotional response. You could say the same for any number of criminals who "get away" every single day. You can't go around gunning people down that you see performing crimes that are not a direct threat. If I see some kid spray painting a wall in the alley behind my house (if I had an alley behind my house) should I shoot him because chances are he'll also burgle me someday? He's breaking the law, he's near my property.

Deadly force is reserved for situations when you're directly threatened. If the guy wanted to be a hero and try detaining the guys with non-lethal force, more power to him (though he's likely to get himself killed). Even cops aren't allowed to just shoot people running away from a non-violent crime, why should citizens be any different?

bobman1235

sucks2beme wrote: »

Various. Most list suicide at about half of all gun deaths. Add
accidents on to the total, and that pretty much calls it as "most" in my book.
Go google and check the numbers. The exact numbers seem to dance around
depending on who's doing the counting. Seems also, the results skew
on child deaths depending on what age you call a child. The 18-20 year
old bracket has a lot of gun deaths involving drugs. Yet it is added to
the "child" death statistics to pad the numbers for gun control.
The wierd thing is that in concealed carry states like Texas, both sides predicted
all sorts of results, like a drop in crime or a big increase in shootings. Net result:no
real change either way. Seems both gun control and pro gun groups called it wrong.
A local tv staion did a big story on it
one year after the law was passed in Texas.

Can we stick to discussing this specific incident rather than gun laws in general so this thread can not get locked down for a little longer? Please?

sucks2beme

The thread should die off, anyway. Either you get it or you don't.
Bad guys are dead, good. Good guy got off, good.
This result is the exception rather than the rule.
Most of the time that senerio would end unhappily.

Demiurge

bobman1235 wrote: »

Even cops aren't allowed to just shoot people running away from a non-violent crime, why should citizens be any different?

/end thread on that point.

candyliquor35m

be verwy verwy careful when hunting wabbits or breaking into someone's house.

ohskigod

bobman1235 wrote: »

Even cops aren't allowed to just shoot people running away from a non-violent crime, why should citizens be any different?

there's validity in this argument, heck, i acknowlege the guy's decision making skills were lacking that evening.

I do disagree from a moral standpoint that home invasion is not a violent crime. truth be told, I'm not 100% sure from the legal angle....but if texas passed the castle doctrine, they might view home invasion as violent crime across the board regardless of there goal.

who knows, this is a dynamic situation that will warrant different opinions from different people, I certainly bear no ill will to those who disagree with me and am pretty sure its tru right back at me.

I do place an unusually high disdain on home invasion even if it is a burglary thing only. if this situation took place defending a car, my opinion would probably be different.

steveinaz

There lies the problem. Civilians don't have "rules of engagement" that are outlined and preached on a daily basis like police. Another "oh yeah" moment for would-be criminals to think about, Junior might just shoot you in the ****, where a police officer's wont--and miscreants exploit this fact. Why do think we have these 5 hour long car chases? The little SOB's know the cops won't just simply pull up and shoot them dead at the wheel. Be warned bad guys--we don't know any better...

I'm sure Darla could vent some serious frustration about how limited the police are in dealing with situations, that in the old days got you a bullet in your ****, or a knock on the head with a night stick. Hell, when I was 18 (1980) I saw cop slap the living **** out of a smart-mouth punk at a local McDonald's, when he started running his mouth after the cop asked him a simple question.