Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars

the crazy old man with the shotgun did not give a rats ass about the theft or the stuff being stolen just like he did not care to shoot lower and maybe wound the burglars in the legs instead of plain executing them wild west style...

its plain murder no doubt about it...im not defending anybody who steals but if they do it in a non violent way it is my opinion that they do not deserve to be murdered by the first trigger happy insecure psycho 2nd amendment abuser...

is the world safer? NO! crooks/illegals/the poor still NEED TO EAT...sure they should go get a job and i dont defend crime...

but i guess the real question is next time when some crook goes to "work" will he bring only a crowbar or will he take along something to defend himself from crazy old men with shotguns and maybe do some shooting on his own?

 

JkJazz, what are you talking about? The "what if" precisely applies, and I changed nothing. That you seem to have difficulty reading, while regretful, doesn't change the fact that there is a very good chance any number of like scenarios will now be played out, given the pass this thug got for his actions. He himself, with premeditated intent and itchy desire, told the police dispatch he was familiar with the law and, in so many words, he "was a gonna git sum."

You and Homebiz have yet to present a single, logical point that aids your contention. Simply repeating the mantra "it's Texas" does not address the host of well-reasoned counterarguments you have been presented with.

 

and don't forget,
The jury has spoken and
Justice Has Prevailed

i've seen that about 20 or 30 times.
like a broken record, if you guys even know what a record is.

 

Those would make good one liners for a movie where arnold schwarzzeneger plays a cop, lawyer or a judge.

 

If an asshole is on your property, and poses a lethal threat to you or yours, it is never immoral to do what you need to do to protect your family.

To take that notion and initiate a lethal action over another's property is, in even my read of the Texas law, illegal, and it is immoral. Why stop at the neighbor? Why not go to all of Pasadena, Texas? Texas itself? Why not, in fact, seek out criminals everywhere, and peremptorily shoot 'em down, saying the child's line "boom - you're dead" before unloading? As a comment on a site said:

http://migramatters.blogspot.com/2007/11/boomyoure-dead.html

And I agree. Beyond, to nail a guy in the back - a guy fleeing - betrays every commonly accepted notion of equivalent force known to civil society. When I call Horn a pinhead, I mean a man possessed of little more than a primitive's mind, as betrayed by his own words.

This is vigilantism, and the Grand Jury no-bill in effect abrogates everything that civil society represents, if we have before us the facts of the case as we all think we do. It was a woefully stupid, shortsighted, irresponsible, and unjust decision.

 

I find it funny someone who continues to say this guy was well within his rights would use this link.

One would think the legislator who 'authored' the bill would know what it's intent was, and what powers it would grant.

Guess I was wrong.

 

You are wrong again.

Child molesters and other criminals get off because of TECHNICALITIES all the time, you have watched criminal cases unfold before have you not?

You know all Texas citizens now do you? I surely see many who do not support him in Texas, including the author of the bill stating it was not intended for this situation.

You still fail to see simply because a grand jury does not indict does not make one within his 'rights' lack of evidence is often the case in a grand jury not indicting, that is far from being able to claim 'within his rights' far, far from it.

Wrong I'm the guy who would go out and confront the people, make a rationale decision before acting. Not going out and almost without warning shoot 2 guys in the back.

 

oh there was a warning, that trigger happy old bastard told the dispatcher that the bad guys were black and later said he was going to kill them.

and he did just that.
premeditated murder.
capital offense. and in Texas they execute for shit like that.

this ain't over, nowhere near it. the Feds will get involved.

 

I think Texas should get rid of the Grand Jury and the trial system in place and hire you guys. You all could decide each case not based on facts and the law but on how you felt that day. You could set free robbers and put in jail law abiding citizens. If anyone disagrees you could give them the death penalty that day. That system would be better because the system they have in place, even though it works and most folks agree with by a 2 to 1 margin, you guys are upset that two thieving drug addicts were killed. Maybe the feds, Russians or tooth fairy can get involved and provide a predetermined outcome that will bring pleasure to you.

 

Homebiz, what you are missing is that it is to the concept of law - and not caprice - that we are all speaking. It is precisely because we have an issue with the notion of one's feelings guiding what amounts to a completely arbitrary death penalty, on the streets of Texas, that we are speaking to it.

 

I'm sad?

What's funny is we are discussing the facts at hand, so you agree that the author of the bill does not know what it was intended for and that you in fact know more about it's intent?

Again just because a Grand Jury does not indict does not equate to someone being within their rights.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/p...n=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

BTW you're correct, even the author of the bill does not know what he speaks of and should shut the hell up!

Just because a grand jury does not indict does not even remotely prove the man was within his rights.

 

I'm sorry you are Sad.

The Author of the bill should have written it different. They also should not have stood up on TV bragging about how citizens can use lethal force protecting their neighborhood.

 

I'm not sad #1

#2 it is clear the law is not intended in this situation.

What is 'sad' is that people in this day in age do not realize a Grand Jury does not decide what is law, that there are other reasons for a Grand Jury not to indict other than believing the law was followed, including lack of evidence.

The author of the law, a simple reading of the law, listening to the tape it's easy to see the law does not apply in this situation.

BTW where is it stated that the 2 men were 'drug addicts'?

 

so whats wrong with shooting them in the legs or, god forbid, a warning shot? stop or ill shoot??

just shooting somebody in the back who is running away is just plain wrong...

 

Text of SB 378. (warning PDF). Please provide any text of this Act that justifies the use of force as it was used in this instance. To wit:

 

I guess he should have stayed in his house and cooked dinner. Why should he care its not his house. The cop outside sure did not care. Maybe he will get the death penalty or life and that will be justice.

 

So, let's understand, that you have consistently accused those of us taking issue with Horn's actions of "not using logic" to assess this matter.

You have been presented with a number of logical reasons why this is troublesome, not the least of which is the very text of the law cited as a justification for Horn's action.

And now you again rely on everything but logic to support your contentions.

Do you honestly not see the trouble here, both with Horn's actions, and your line of argument?

 

Do you have any facts to bring to the discussion?

Even one, or are you only capable of chanting nonsense over and over?

There was no 'imminent' threat, the cop outside was obviously following his training waiting for backup. But I guess again you know more than the law enforcement official, so much to say he 'did not care'

Obviously the cop sitting out side watching must not have felt the two robbers were a serious 'imminent' threat

If anything that proves the situation that much more.

 

You are write[sic] no imminent threat cowbar in hand and crossing the property. The cop cared and knew that everthing was fine even though Mr. Horn had a weapon and sounded like he was deranged on the 911 tape.(Training in SC states you exit the car.)

Maybe Horn will get whats[sic] coming.

 

He shot the guys IN THE BACK, obviously they were not facing him.
You know for a fact the crow bar was in hand? The audio surely sounds like he goes outside, says a few words and bam bam, there was no time for an 'imminent' threat ESPECIALLY when he SHOT THEM IN THE BACK!

Training in 'SC' is different than other states I'm sure, PLUS it is not uncommon for cops 'via training' to observe while waiting for backup.

So the cop has a feed to his car from 9/11? If he 'knew everything' he also 'knew' that Horn was told to stay in the house AND NOT to go outside.

You state he sounds 'deranged' yet you still feel he was 'in his right' to go outside and shoot the two.

My god man, he said over and over he was going to shoot them, he goes outside and in a matter of seconds shoots them in the BACK.