Mad Mike Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I heard the 911 operator's tape. He literally said, "I'm going to kill them". Joe also refferenced the new "castle law" which was recently passed in Texas which allows one to use lethal force to defend one's home. Problem for joe is he wasn't a lawyer, and the castle law doesn't say you can use lethal force to defend your neighbors home.....On the other hand, I heard on CNN the author of the Castle law and state senator of Texas say that he believes other Texas laws will exhonerate Joe. After all he did a public service. He killed criminals, in the process of committing crime. Don't mess with Texas.. Those guys are crazy. I remember a few years back when Texas gave a man from Virginia life in prison for killing a tree..... Don't mess with Texas... ( the man in question threw a powerful herbicid on an Old Oak tree, which is/was a symbol of the state.. ) I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that the transcript would leave that little detail out. I find it hard to believe that that would not be the centerpiece of the articles I read about it, much less that it would be left out entirely. Transcript from a reputable source or it did not happen. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeySkin Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I understand where the guy was coming from, but like the operator said it's not worth freaking killing someone over some properties... It's wasn't right, but I do understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I guess my conservative leanings are coming out.. but I totally disagree with you and the majority of folks on the board. These guys were committing a crime and they outnumbered the guy with the gun. Joe had every right in the world to confront these criminals and try to stop the crime. He had every right in the world to use his gun to do so. If these criminals tried to come at Joe.. the shooting was justified. If these guys tried to run from Joe, the shooting was justified...The only way this to my mind is even questionable is if these guys threw up their hands and gave up, when Joe confronted them... then if Joe gunned them down anyway... Then maybe Joe is guilty of a crime... Maybe because it would depend upon whether Joe felt he was in danger and not on what we here after the fact feel. Looks like the criminals picked the wrong neighborhood to criminalize..... The guy with the gun could have stayed in house as he was instructed too. So running from a guy with a guy is a penalty deserving being shot in the back, I thought only cowards shoot others in the back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I think it was definitely legal in Texas to shoot, but I'm not sure it was legal to shoot to kill:§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or ( to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or ( the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Wow how about that! They are serious about allowing people to protect property down there... I really thought you could not legally initiate the use of deadly force anywhere in America, only respond with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 There was already a thread on it http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222212 JMS I'm surprised you support him as well,not a popular position. :cool: From my understanding he is justified under Texas law and obviously the police here agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurm Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Joe's actions are not covered by the Castle law. The Castle law justifies leathal force in defending one's own home, not one's neighbors home. I gotta be honest I didn't read this thread through entirely, but what I have seen in this thread is inaccurate accounts of the incident from the report I saw last night. The burglars were actually on Mr. Horn's property when he shot them. They were coming across his lawn. The legal analysts that were discussing this last night said his saving grace may be that he claimed fear for his safety in that tape several times. When the burglars came out the window is when he went outside. At the time he shot them, they were both on his property. He has not yet been charged with a crime which means they probably don't have a solid case against him for murder of any sort. I am not saying he was justified, but you guys don't know the law in this region of the country so stop acting like you do! When I have time later today after my final I will try to find the transcripts from the report I saw last night. This man will not go to jail for murder, maybe manslaughter, but not murder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 Transcript from a reputable source or it did not happen. :doh: I heard the conversation on CNN.. I don't have sound on this machine so I can't provide you with a coroberating link. Why don't you google it and find the link yourself I'm sure it will only take you 10 seconds... it was one of the last things Joe said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I saw on the news that in down in Texas they want him to run for govenor or President or something. This will have the race card all over it. Listening to the audio that was posted here about a week ago, I thought it was pretty gruesome. "hey you, your dead." I mean the police were gonna catch these guys and it was thanks to him when they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Good post bschurm. I also doubt they could find twelve jurors here that would convict him even if they find a charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I guess my conservative leanings are coming out.. but I totally disagree with you and the majority of folks on the board. These guys were committing a crime and they outnumbered the guy with the gun. Joe had every right in the world to confront these criminals and try to stop the crime. He had every right in the world to use his gun to do so. If these criminals tried to come at Joe.. the shooting was justified. If these guys tried to run from Joe, the shooting was justified...The only way this to my mind is even questionable is if these guys threw up their hands and gave up, when Joe confronted them... then if Joe gunned them down anyway... Then maybe Joe is guilty of a crime... Maybe because it would depend upon whether Joe felt he was in danger and not on what we here after the fact feel. Looks like the criminals picked the wrong neighborhood to criminalize..... Are you serious? His life was never in danger. He is the one that confronted these criminals when he didn't have to. He is not a law enforcement officer. He was repeatedly told by the 911 operator to stay away from these guys. He took the law into his own hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Have I mentioned how much I hate Texas lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jive_crankin Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 he definitely was wrong but perhaps he save lives by doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Can I shoot the repo man in Texas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 The guy with the gun could have stayed in house as he was instructed too.So running from a guy with a guy is a penalty deserving being shot in the back, I thought only cowards shoot others in the back Well guys who run away some times turn around and attack from another direction. Like I said, to my mind, it all depends on whether Joe felt he was in danger..... I give every benifit of the doubt to the non criminal. If he feared for his life or safety, fire away... And I don't have any doubt that confronting criminals stepping out of your neighbors home, Joes had every reason to fear for his saftey. The fact that he still chose to involve himself doesn't dismiss the danger and it doesn't make Joe responsible for that danger. The criminals are on the hook for both.. Again just my opinion... but I would rather live in a world were people did involve themselves in stopping crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Can I shoot the repo man in Texas? It's been done. http://www.google.com/search?q=Texas+Repo+shooting&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 Are you serious? His life was never in danger. He is the one that confronted these criminals when he didn't have to. Your right he didn't have to, but did he have the right too? Does a citizen have the right to try to stop a crime? Does a citizen have the legal responsibility to cower under his bed when a crime is being commited? If yes, then Joe is guilty. If no then Joe was justified in going out of his house. After Joe was out of his house the shooting was justified or not based upon whether Joe feared for his own safety. Confronting two criminals I could see Joe reasonable being afraid for his safety. Joes decision to involve himself doesn't make him responsible for the fear here. It doesn't make Joe legally oblicated to die or risk death. The criminals here are responsible for all acts that come from their crime. Including their deaths. He is not a law enforcement officer. He was repeatedly told by the 911 operator to stay away from these guys. He took the law into his own hands. Yeah, he did. He tried to stop a crime in progress. Let's throw the guy in jail... He must not have drank enough of the floride in the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 It's been done.http://www.google.com/search?q=Texas+Repo+shooting&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a Nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Your right he didn't have to, but did he have the right too? Does a citizen have the right to try to stop a crime? Does a citizen have the legal responsibility to cower under his bed when a crime is being commited? If yes, then Joe is guilty.If no then Joe was justified in going out of his house. After Joe was out of his house the shooting was justified or not based upon whether Joe feared for his own safety. Confronting two criminals I could see Joe reasonable being afraid for his safety. Joes decision to involve himself doesn't make him responsible for the fear here. It doesn't make Joe legally oblicated to die or risk death. The criminals here are responsible for all acts that come from their crime. Including their deaths. Yeah, he did. He tried to stop a crime in progress. Let's throw the guy in jail... He must not have drank enough of the floride in the water. I feel like its hard to tell what actually happened, that is, there seem to be several differing accounts. However, I think it should be pointed out that the shooter put himself in the position of danger. He did not have to go outside, and there was not indication that anyone was going to come after him. So, I don't think he was justified to shoot anyone based on fearing for his safety. Also, a citizen does not have the "right" to stop a crime. There are situations when a citizen may have a "qualified privilege" to do so, but that is very different than a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Nice well ya never know if it's a repo or a thief unless they follow the rules. There are many cars stolen with wreckers down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 However, I think it should be pointed out that the shooter put himself in the position of danger. He did not have to go outside, and there was not indication that anyone was going to come after him. So, I don't think he was justified to shoot anyone based on fearing for his safety. I don't think that's accurate. Joe had the right to involve himself in stopping a crime. Exersizing that right doesn't obsolve his right to protect himself. The folks committing the crime don't get special rights because they are committing a crime and this guy choose to get involved. Unfortunately for the criminals many states would say the Criminals are responsible because Joe woudln't be there with a gun if the Criminals weren't breaking the law in the first place. The Citizen has the right to have a gun to protect himself and his property. If he attempts to stop a crime and fears for his saftey, he still has the right to defend himself. Also, a citizen does not have the "right" to stop a crime. There are situations when a citizen may have a "qualified privilege" to do so, but that is very different than a right. And that would be state dependent perhaps. Although I doubt any southern state would agree with that including Virginia. Citizens always have the right to stop a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Your right he didn't have to, but did he have the right too? Does a citizen have the right to try to stop a crime? Does a citizen have the legal responsibility to cower under his bed when a crime is being commited? If yes, then Joe is guilty.If no then Joe was justified in going out of his house. So, in Texas, if I see somebody run a red light you think its just fine for me to chase them down, pull a gun on them, and, if they try to leave, shoot them???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 So, in Texas, if I see somebody run a red light you think its just fine for me to chase them down, pull a gun on them, and, if they try to leave, shoot them???? only if you suspect they are gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 only if you suspect they are gay. In Texas, if you're gay you don't even have to run a red light to be breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 And that would be state dependent perhaps. Although I doubt any southern state would agree with that including Virginia. Citizens always have the right to stop a crime. Hmm... I don't know of anything to support the idea that a "right" to arrest or stop or kill a criminal is state dependent. Although, I do know that there is a right in the Constitution to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So, I think you are wrong on that account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 So, in Texas, if I see somebody run a red light you think its just fine for me to chase them down, pull a gun on them, and, if they try to leave, shoot them???? Traffic offenses are not criminal offenses,unlike burglary which is a felony criminal act.. btw...pull a gun here and you better plan on using it if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.