1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by GRIM, Jun 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #381
    Pluto, it's my opinion you're missing the point. The issue isn't one of some kind of false martyrdom for two miscreants. The issue is one of the rule of law, regardless of how we feel about the people falling afoul to a misapplication of the law. No one here has spoken out of love for the two dead. Those of us who find this troubling are justifiably concerned for many other reasons, all of them gone over now in dozens of posts.
    SEMrush
    From my read of this law, I did not see anything in there justifying Horn's actions. As Grim has said, many times now, the Senator who authored the "Castle Doctrine" law has disavowed Horn's actions, and does not believe Horn's actions are within the scope of the law he brought forward.
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 21, 2008 IP
    SEMrush
  2. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #382
    OK, just went to the Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9 (the relevant chapter). The Senator's "Castle Doctrine" law notwithstanding, here is what I see, and following, what I think this means:

    So, my read:

    9.41: For one's own property, simple force is justifiable if a "reasonable standard" assessment leads one to reasonably conclude the force is necessary to prevent the trespass or immediate "interference" with one's own property;

    9.42: Wraps 9.41 (For one's own property, deadly force is justifiable so long as the conditions in 9.41 are met); a reasonable standard leads one to conclude the deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent loss or damage to property, or any "mischief" at night; or the deadly force was necessary to prevent the perp's getting away, having committed the alleged property theft, damage, arson, "mischief," etc. Additionally, the actor "defending" must reasonably believe no other options are available, either to stop the alleged crime, or believes that anything less than deadly force would result in the defending actor's injury or lethal harm.

    9.43: wraps 9.42 (itself, wrapping 9.41), force or deadly force for third-parties. Additionally, it includes a reasonable standard belief that the alleged interference to a third-party property would result in theft or criminal mischief, or a reasonable standard applies, such that the actor believes he has the right to act as a "steward" of the third-party property, by express request by that third party, or a legal duty to defend that property, or the third party is kin to the actor.

    Horrible law. All else aside, as Grim, myself, Browntown (others? Sorry - long thread) have said, this notion of "nighttime mischief" is egregiously vague, and can wrap up anything from kids hoping to get home before mom and dad find out at night, to actual criminals creating murderous mayhem. Growing up, "TP'ing" a house was a pain in the ass, and something stupid kids - myself included - did. This law allows a dangerous window of "reasonable persons concluding" the blowing away of such kids, with impunity, is allowable.***

    That said, on the surface, by this law, it does appear Horn was legal in his action. However, and this is a big however: The uses of "ands" and "ors" in the above statute and its subsections are critical. For the "ands," if every condition isn't met, the whole house of card collapses. Additionally, if 9.41 isn't met, necessarily, 9.42 isn't met, and if 9.42 isn't met, necessarily, 9.43, the "third party force," isn't met. By my read, the whole thing falls apart at 9.42 (3) (A) & (B), both.:

    Under (A), there is nothing suggesting that one could reasonably conclude this property could not be recovered by other means - not the least of which is fact of the police in the vicinity. An accurate description of the two perps, and immediate patrol in the area, is a first-line option towards "reasonable" presumption of recovery. In fact, Horn was apprised the "ultras" were imminently arriving, and to stay put. Horn preemptively leapt to the infinity-degree and closed down all other options relevant to this subsection. The reasonable standards test fails utterly.

    Under (B), there is nothing suggesting that Horn's deliberate killing was the only option reasonably available to him to prevent serious or lethal injury. A blast to the legs - might have slowed them down a bit? Instead, by premeditated intent, Horn decided he was going to decapitate at least one of them with a goose magnum load. The reasonable standards test fails - utterly.

    It is very important to note, that because 9.42 fails, 9.43 necessarily fails. The grand jury decision notwithstanding, I would say this action fell afoul of the relevant law. Texas grand juries apparently routinely no-bill these kinds of actions. It doesn't make it right, or even legal, by Texas's own statutes. By my informed layman's read, I'd have to say Horn broke even this broadest of laws.

    Beyond, for reasons already stated, the Texas jurisdiction may be trumped by a higher jurisdiction.



    *** though the same "reasonable" standard failure on 9.42 (3) (A) & (B) should take place, i.e., "but officer, I thought for sure those kids throwing TP on my house were for sure dangerous" should fall flat - after Horn, not all sure, to be honest.
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 21, 2008 IP
  3. homebizseo

    homebizseo Peon

    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    56
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #383
    Pizza delivery guys never go to the wrong house or are late in Texas. According to Pizza inc.
     
    homebizseo, Jul 21, 2008 IP
  4. jkjazz

    jkjazz Peon

    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #384
    Hey Pluto,

    I know you live there and watch the whole story unfold on TV for months, but what is wrong with you? Can't you see we have a couple of guys here that looked it up in GOOGLE? Come on, man. To hell with the Grand Jury's findings. WAKE UP!!!

    These guys looked it up on the internet, and they don't agree because THEY KNOW THE RULE OF LAW better than the presiding judge and the Grand Jury.

    Sorry Pluto. Even though Joe Horn is a free man and praised by his neighbors and peers, these guys just won't let up.

    Save your breath. :rolleyes:
     
    jkjazz, Jul 21, 2008 IP
  5. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #385
    Jazz, what should give you pause - should give you pause - is that the actual, applicable laws have been posted. With my last post, I posted not the Senator's Castle Doctrine law, but the relevant section of the Texas Penal Code - what is on the books, here and now.

    I then went point by point, showing where, it seems to me, this case should have tripped the wire.

    That a layperson or laypersons on DP came to the same conclusions, presumably, as the district attorney should bring you to think there is something more, perhaps, than propaganda and agenda at play. Your response - in essence, plugging your ears and treating with contempt the honest appraisal of the issue and the relevant law - only furthers the sense among some of us that you aren't interested in anything approaching a reasonable discussion.

    Your reference to "google research" falls flat, as this is your Texas Penal Code statutes, verbatim. I invite you to look at the sections posted in the above post, and please indicate where the reasoning is flawed.
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 21, 2008 IP
  6. Boogie Nights

    Boogie Nights Banned

    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #386
    I remember a cop telling my dad (they knew each other) that if he ever shot someone in his yard to drag him into his house. This was Florida.
     
    Boogie Nights, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  7. jkjazz

    jkjazz Peon

    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #387

    Sorry NorthPoint, I will admit freely that I do not know more about Texas law than any of the Judges in Texas.

    Do you not think that the prosecution argued every point that you have detailed? Didn't work.

    I guess you missed your calling.
     
    jkjazz, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  8. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #388
    What do you not get about a grand jury can choose not to indict based on many things other than the actual rule of law, including lack of evidence?

    Texas is known to let these cases off even before the new laws existed, does not make it 'legal' or 'right'

    So no argument at all against the author of the law even stating the law was not intended for this reason. That simply takes the cake, yet you have the balls to post about people on a forum using Google.

    No actually I used the words of your very own government official who wrote the law. :rolleyes:
     
    GRIM, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  9. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #389
    Jazz, the law is posted. The relevant law is contained to 3 paragraphs, written in English, and simple enough language. I am posting from a layperson's perspective my appraisal of those paragraphs, and though you continue to play strawmen attempts, you, too, are free to use the text of the law to justify Horn's actions. That a grand jury no-billed, as they apparently routinely do in Texas, says zero in response to the actual law.

    I'm not a lawyer, though I have worked within corporate law firms for many years. I have also acted pro se in my own defense, and defeated opposing counsel, to include showing that counsel's client to commit perjury before open court in cross examination, unwittingly.

    Two things at play.

    On the one hand, you have accused those of us taking issue with this as playing an emotionality card, refusing to deal with the law of the land; and, now, on the other hand, relying on the law, specifically, and in a detailed fashion, you abandon the reliance on the law, and you appeal to emotion and flawed rhetorical tools to aid your contention.

    Which is it? Which line would you rely on in discussing this issue?
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  10. jkjazz

    jkjazz Peon

    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #390
    While you both make valid points, you fail to understand that the judge and jury in this case does not agree with you.

    We've been arguing this case for three weeks now. I don't have anything new to bring to the table and neither do you. I agree with the ruling and you don't. Isn't that what this is all about?
     
    jkjazz, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  11. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #391
    There was a judge and a 'jury' that decided this?

    Really, I thought it was a GRAND JURY. You do understand the difference do you not?

    You in reality have nothing to bring to the table as you can not dispute the law, the law maker, all you can say is that you support it.
     
    GRIM, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  12. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #392
    First of all, I couldn't care less who agrees, or disagrees with me. Easy enough to say, "they said it, I believe it, that finishes it." Three paragraphs are three paragraphs, and, beyond, obviously, the DA disagreed, and as my read of Chapter 9 is open to all, this is called "discussion," because it sure as hell seems something is rotten in the state of Denmark - based on the law you claimed for support over those 3 weeks.

    Do not claim none of us are relying on the law, and then run for rhetorical cover once we squarely focus on that law.

    I don't know what you mean when you refer to "judge." This was a grand jury decision, and as has been said, now, many, many times, it is entirely possible (and, it seems, quite frequently possible) that the grand jury may improperly no-bill a bona fide case. I'd suggest you take a look at Chapter 20 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

    Edited to add, posted before seeing Grim's post. Yes, right. Jazz, it appears you don't understand the structure and function of a grand jury. Yet you have claimed a reliance on law throughout.
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  13. jkjazz

    jkjazz Peon

    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #393
    Wow Northpointe, your arguments are all over the place. Two weeks ago you were sprouting "what ifs" as if they were weeds. After telling us all about your expierience as a "tactitian" for some police department somewhere, you then make up stories that do not include the facts of the case, and create fictitious scenarios where trick-or-treaters are executed by an insane Joe Horn with bloodshot eyes and blood dripping from his fangs. Then you play the sympathy card stating that one of the criminals had a 9 month old baby, so don't get all high and mighty accusing me of "running for rhetorical cover" just because you have finally discovered the non-fiction section at the library.

    But I will grant you that I thought that there was a judge. I learned something today. Thanks.

    So, now that I understand the Grand Jusy system a little better, I would still have to say that there must not have been enough evidence to bring it to trial. Remember that there was an undercover cop as a witness to the entire event. I will not believe that a jury of 18 to 23 citizens unanamously plotted, conspired or otherwise agreed to let Joe Horn off because he was a nice guy.
     
    jkjazz, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  14. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #394
    Jk, please feel free to keep trying every tactic in the book, though none of it helps to dispel the notion you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

    I am not "all over the place," and have been consistently appealing to reason throughout this exchange. The "what ifs" are based on scenarios that are quite likely, in the real world, to happen - as any cursory evaluation of "perception of nighttime mischief" will ably tell. That you don't like to deal with that potentiality, and you wish to continue to dive under cover of your lack of knowledge of your own state law, or even general principles of any grand jury system, while regrettable, is not something I can, or want, to help you with, particularly when you have spent dozens of posts accusing many of us with appeals to everything but the law.

    The "rhetorical cover" is again exemplified by your choosing to leap to crap like:

    Instead of doing more than plugging your ears and shouting "nahnahnahnahnahnah." The only "non-fiction" I refer to are the literal texts of Texas State Law. This seems to bring you to flounder aimlessly.

    Have no idea what you are talking about regarding one of the perps having a nine month old baby. Again, my issue has never been one of a love for these two dead, though you would apparently like to keep trying to paint it so to make up for the sheer weakness of your arguments, on points of law, or on points of logic. To be truthful, I take no pleasure in anyone's death, as it represents a life lost to what could have been a better contribution to this world - these two perps threw away their life, and I find the waste sad, as I find the crimes they committed or may have committed a deep wrong. But this is a separate topic.

    I am not a tactitian for any police department. I live many lives, and one of them is a martial arts instructor, with one element of the training being tactical applications for public and military personnel, as well as specialized needs for women in assault awareness and prevention. Your rant is lost to me as to its import or relevance.
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 22, 2008 IP
  15. jkjazz

    jkjazz Peon

    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #395
    NorthPoint,

    1) Your ad nauseam use of "what ifs" is the fiction that I am referring to. The omission of pertinent facts in your endless tirade of "what ifs" makes this fiction and not applicable. All you needed to to was include the facts of the case so we could compare apples to apples.

    2) I am not from Texas. Not sure where you got that, but I forgive you.

    3) Sorry you couldn't keep up with my rant. Let me simplify my previous post. Your earlier post was correct in that my idea of a Grand Jury was flawed. (did you catch that?) I went on to say:

     
    jkjazz, Jul 23, 2008 IP
  16. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #396
    Sounds a lot like what I have been trying to say for some time now ;)
     
    GRIM, Jul 23, 2008 IP
  17. Boogie Nights

    Boogie Nights Banned

    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #397
    I think we are missing the point: if some douche bag illegals are robbing your neighbors and you do NOT shoot them you are a coward. I had to defend myself with a gun before and will tell you it is better than being a coward.
     
    Boogie Nights, Jul 23, 2008 IP
  18. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #398
    Yeah because shooting two unarmed men in the back that are posing absolutely no threat to you as they run away makes someone not a coward.

    :rolleyes:
     
    GRIM, Jul 23, 2008 IP
  19. Boogie Nights

    Boogie Nights Banned

    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #399
    They are ROBBING your neighbor, dude... are you not a man? Did you not have a father who taught you to be a MAN?
     
    Boogie Nights, Jul 23, 2008 IP
  20. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #400
    Jazz, to go back over an repeat what has been said many times, but lost on you, is an exercise in futility. Across many different criteria - commonsense, commonly accepted notions of moral conduct, Texas statutory law itself, you have been provided with a surfeit of reasons why at least many find this action and its outcome troubling, and, from what I can tell, the only consistency in your posts is your refusal to do more than rant on a foundation of air.

    Useless. All the best.
     
    northpointaiki, Jul 23, 2008 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.