Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars

That question has been answered many times by his actions. It is really pretty sad. Made more so by his total blindness to how thin his "points" are.

 

He did not have a direct feed Grim. When 911 dispatches us they actually tell us whats going on and if weapons are involved and who has them.

browntwn not sad. You have won me over with your great points. I see clear now. He should be charged to the fullest extent of the law.

 

I have seen stranger things happen

 

Good job!

Sheriff Joe would get my vote!

 

They state what is known at the point, which what was known is the dispatcher was telling the guy to stay in his house.

For you to state he knows everything going on he would need a direct feed, without it he only knows a fraction, he does not know that Horn is going to disobey the dispatchers orders to stay in the house, come outside and shoot the two guys in the back.

 

And your point is.

 

This discussion could go on forever. The State of Texas has cleared Joe Horn of any and all charges. I think that I am correct in stating that now we are debating whether it is ethically and/or morally right.

I applaud the actions that Joe Horn took. Some of you do not. I doubt that you will ever convince me to change my mind. I doubt that I would change yours.

Is there anything else we need to talk about?

 

We are back to where we started. Oh well, atleast HBS saw the "light".

 

You stated he knew exactly what was going on, obviously he did not.



Do you like throwing items out there as fact that are 'not fact?'

Actually the debate going on from my end is that he was not correct under the law, regardless of a Grand Jury refusal to indict or not.

Do any of you who think he did the right thing have any real facts to bring to the table?

 

now your a police officer?

did i miss something here somewhere in your ranting and raving?

or am i misreading this?

 

We're not soft on criminals. Our penal system is designed(I don't mean by way of conspiracy) to keep people in the system. I think like 20% of prison admissions in a year is parole violation, and many of those are trivial violations. You can't send someone to a violent, rigidly structured institutions for years and then expect them to get out and do everything perfectly. The way we think about punishing criminals is what is broken.

 

Yes it is clear. You are correct. This is a fairy tale discussion. That will go on forever. We can "what if it?" Twist the facts and interpete the laws to our own accord. Joe Horn is not being prosecuted due to the Grand Jury reading the law like you and I and most people in the state of Texas would. The facts in the case are simple but yet not good enough to use in a discussion. It is a never ending "what if" discussion.

 

You miss the point. Many of us have no problem with someone using lethal force to defend their home. Nor do I have a problem if Mr. Horn is not prosecuted by the Federal government in this case.

What I have a problem with is people like you who think people should not even discuss whether the law as written allows this type of action. My God man, the author of the law says this is not what it was intended to cover. But not you, you take a position that is neither based on legal principles or morals. The sum of your argument is that the Grand Jury did not indict so he was right to kill the two thieves.

Heck there are others here think the shooting was legal, but are smart enough not to go overboard like you and try to spin the lack of an indictment into some imprimatur of righteousness.

 

I have not missed the point.

He shot 2 people in the back.
He would not have been in danger if he would have stayed inside.
He was not defending his home.
When the robbers crossed his property they appear to be fleeing.
He stated he was going to kill them
He was asked by 911 to stay inside.
The Grand Jury read the law different that some people in the forum read it and the person that wrote the law.


Are these statements correct?

 

You miss the point of the discussion on DP.

The facts are not really in dispute.

 

Was in the proper thing to do? yes

 

you did not answer so i ask again...whats wrong with shooting them in the legs? or a warning shot?

others people lives seem to mean nothing to some people...just give them a legal loophole to off other people and they will...crazy...

 

He used buck shot. There is no telling where the shots would land. A warning shot would have been better. I agree with part of browntwn quote. "I would be much more impressed if he had been able to hold them". But he didn’t. He took the shot and I would bet he wishes he could have pulled that shot back in that gun. He will think about taking those lives for the rest of his days on earth. He will replay it forever. I think all citizens that own guns should take the concealed weapons training class. It does not bother me that he took the shot and knew he could or hit them in the back. Would I have shot the men? Probably not. They would most likely be alive and awaiting trial from the safety of jail or their homes. What bothers me about this more than anything is that a cop was sitting in his car in the driveway doing nothing. The cop could have been waiting at the back of the house and told the robbers to get down. If the police officer would have shot them or arrested them there would not be a discussion on this at all.

 

he did not seem to bothered when he said he was going to kill them...something tells me he wont be losing too much sleep....

 

you've had a comeback for everything else, no comeback for this?

answer here in the forum, are you a police officer?