Joe Horn Vigilantee Criminal or Justified?

[Predicto]

He's a criminal because he chased them out of the house. If he had shot them in the house, I have no problem with it. But when a criminal leaves your house without harming anyway, frankly, I see no reason to take a life.

No. The criminals were never in his house at all. They were in someone else's house. He went outside and shot them on the lawn as they ran off.

[Predicto]

A danger to others?

Funny ,Joe has lived a long productive life and the only ones I know he has endangered were criminals.

I'll accept the risk and extend benefit of doubt.

Fair enough. It's your neighborhood. I just hope the guns don't come out too often, for your sake.

[trio]

whoops....

evenso, I fail to see the right of citizens to enforce the law anywhere.

And I'm pretty sure that there are fundamental right to life, liberty, and property established in the Constitution. The quote may not be accurate, but the substance of it is.

aaah! now that would depend on who you ask...but that is a conversation for another day...a strict interpretationalist would say you were wrong, because it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution...

others (including me) would argue that what you describe, as well as a right to privacy, etc., are inherrent in things like the Bill of Rights, the 14th..etc. etc.

but, having forwarded that argument, it is pretty clear that the criminals in question were also impeding upon another's right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.....

i havent listened to the 911 tape...

personally i am a big fan of the common law rule:

that deadly force is permissible when faced with deadly force, or the possibility of deadly harm, etc..

whereas, at common law, use of deadly force is not permissible simply to defend property...

the general assumption, (simplified) at common law, was if someone was coming into your house they were coming to hurt you....basically...if someone breaks into your house, you are allowed to used deadly force because you are defending yourself and your family.....not your stuff....

some states like Texas and Florida have obviously gone farther....

[twa]

No. The criminals were never in his house at all. They were in someone else's house. He went outside and shot them on the lawn as they ran off.

Ran off?...not the way I hear it.

""Fair enough. It's your neighborhood. I just hope the guns don't come out too often, for your sake.""

Thanks for caring , but my neighborhood is less refined than Joe's(they move out there to get away from crime here) and I manage well enough.

[joe gibbs is back again]

I think the perps got what they had coming to them. if they dont brake into the neighbors home they dont get shot......GAME OVER

[jpillian]

I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, human life is certainly more precious than property. Citizens should not be encouraged to take human life just to protect their own property, let alone someone else's property. If there is an imminent threat to their safety, that's another matter completely.

On the other hand, perhaps the threat of well-healed citizenry given more liberal rights to protect themselves on their property would deter more would be criminals. Last week, someone kicked in the door to our neighbors house(60 yr old couple) at 3 in the morning. Luckily, my neighbor was able to scare away the would be invaders and no one was hurt. However, now I go to bed at night knowing that there are criminals ballsey enough to employ such tactics -- and I the peaceable citizen am the one made to suffer (i.e., wonder if criminial will come back and target my house when my wife and kids are at home w/o me, etc.). Definitely gives me a different perspective on what Joe Horn did in Pasadena.

[bschurm]

Here's another interesting tidbit that should crank up the heat on this one. It turns out that these two were illegal aliens.

[PleaseBlitz]

Here's another interesting tidbit that should crank up the heat on this one. It turns out that these two were illegal aliens.

Then the NRA is going to make this guy their new Jesus.

[JMS]

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????

Well a few years back in Texas something like that happenned. A van driven by a young guy ran a red light or cut off an older dude in a pick up. The old dude took out a pen and coppied the guys liscense plate down. The young dude went bezerk and followed the older guy in the pickup for a number of blocks. Then at a stop light the young dude jumped out of his car and tried to reach through the window and grab at the older guy. Older guy pulled out his gun and shot the younger guy dead.

Some publisized the event as a reason to outlaw guns. Some publisized it as a reason to keep carrying permits availible. I happen to agree with the ones who thought it was a good thing. No reason for that old man to take a beating in order to save the life of the agressor.

I believe the texas courts agreed with me. Happenned a few years back.

[JMS]

In Texas, if you're gay you don't even have to run a red light to be breaking the law.

That's true in Virginia too.

[JMS]

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.

Murder, Man Slaughter is a state crime, not a federal crime. And if this guy Horn gets off it will be because of Texas state laws which side with him in this case. If this happenned in Ma, or in Ca, Joe would certainly be in jail.

This case is definitely a state dependent one, as only state statutes are involved.

[JMS]

Does anyone know if other states have these laws? I tried to search Virginia but couldn't easily find it for free ...

I believe there are several states which have castle laws. I don't believe Virginia is one.

[JMS]

JMS puts no restrictions on the size of the law broken. I think this type of thinking leads to the law on the books in Texas that will eventually lead to even looser laws that lead to vigilantism.

That's not true. That was not my intent at all. I specifically said what made Joe justified here was whether or not he feared for his life. It's reasonable to fear for your life confronting two burgulars climbing out of your neighbors window. IT's not reasonable to fear for your life repromanding a kid stealing candy....

I think the reality of what joe did is controversial enough without blatantly making things up and putting words in other peoples mouths.

[JMS]

Material possessions > the value of human life. Yeeehaw! :dunce:

Correction there MJ.. There is no doubt that Material possessions are more important than some humans lives. If you doubt that go down to your bank tomorrow and check out the smoke wagon on the guard or wait for the next Wells Fargo truck and try to snatch one of their bags of money. Hell even the security gaurds at the movie theatres here carry weapons.

What you find amazing isn't that Material possessions > human life, frankly that's a given. what you find amaizing is that private citizens have the same rights to set the value of their possessions which you grant to corporations.

[JMS]

You want to scare a criminal and send them running, just shout hey you, and watch them run, I know I have done when people have creeped around a neighbours house.

Well you obviously don't live in a very dangerous neighborhood. Criminals don't always run away when startled by someone. Ask Shaun Taylor... Burgulars cary weapons and they can certainly be agressive.

[JMS]

No, anyone who goes out of his way to shoot people after he has already called the cops and been told by law enforcement not to go outside - that guy is a danger to others.

Predicto, I think you live in a world where you believe the cops care. Fact is most crime in this country goes un punished. That goes for most violent crime too. Call the police while a crime is being committed and you will be lucky not to be put on hold. Call the police when a crime is just been committed and you will be lucky if the police show up in hours.. rather than minutes.

Police are a last line of defense, not a first line. Not if you want the criminals caught.

Least that's true here in the peoples republic of fairfax county.

Anyone who can stop a crime easily just by yelling out his window but no - he has run out there and whip out the heat - that guy is a danger to others.

He certainly was a danger to the criminals.

[LoveDaSkins172645]

Texas? Need we say more, Texas doesn't play they just assune kill first and ask questions later! I think they are on to something and Joe Horn should be set free, if those asses weren't robbing this wouldn't be a story. Too bad Joe Horn wasn't in Florida last week and a neighbor of Sean Taylor, he might still be alive. I hope more and more people take the law into thier own hands, these watered down laws and crap are ridiculous. It's time to send a message commit a serious crime and die.

[Midnight Judges]

Correction there MJ.. There is no doubt that Material possessions are more important than some humans lives. If you doubt that go down to your bank tomorrow and check out the smoke wagon on the guard or wait for the next Wells Fargo truck and try to snatch one of their bags of money. Hell even the security gaurds at the movie theatres here carry weapons.

.

They have weapons to protect from armed robbery. In those instances armed robbery is the most frequent kind of robbery. If I just walk up and try to snatch something out of their hands with no weapons, chances are they are not going to shoot me, and they shouldn't cause I'm not a threat.

What you find amazing isn't that Material possessions > human life, frankly that's a given. what you find amaizing is that private citizens have the same rights to set the value of their possessions which you grant to corporations

If you read my answer above, I do not grant corporations the right to kill people over theft. It's the threat of murder/violence that gives them the right to shoot.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Murder, Man Slaughter is a state crime, not a federal crime. And if this guy Horn gets off it will be because of Texas state laws which side with him in this case. If this happenned in Ma, or in Ca, Joe would certainly be in jail.

This case is definitely a state dependent one, as only state statutes are involved.

You are missing the point entirely.

It is not a RIGHT. No civilian has a "right" to enforce the law as they see fit. That's why you have to be trained to be a police officer.

Put it this way, if you kill someone who you believe is committing a crime, and you get charged with manslaughter, you can't walk into court and say its your right to stop crime. What you can do is argue that under the circumstances you were PRIVILEGED to do certain things. In order to gain that privilege however, you must show the circumstances afforded them to you. It would be your burden to prove it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

aaah! now that would depend on who you ask...but that is a conversation for another day...a strict interpretationalist would say you were wrong, because it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution...

others (including me) would argue that what you describe, as well as a right to privacy, etc., are inherrent in things like the Bill of Rights, the 14th..etc. etc.

but, having forwarded that argument, it is pretty clear that the criminals in question were also impeding upon another's right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.....

i havent listened to the 911 tape...

personally i am a big fan of the common law rule:

that deadly force is permissible when faced with deadly force, or the possibility of deadly harm, etc..

whereas, at common law, use of deadly force is not permissible simply to defend property...

the general assumption, (simplified) at common law, was if someone was coming into your house they were coming to hurt you....basically...if someone breaks into your house, you are allowed to used deadly force because you are defending yourself and your family.....not your stuff....

some states like Texas and Florida have obviously gone farther....

Ok, first of all, I have a law degree as I'm assuming you do... I don't practice constitutional law, nor teach it, but I'm probably as aware of your lesson there as you are. I know the difference between strict constructionist interpretations and interpretive reading.

However, you are failing to understand the difference between a right and a privilege as well. There is NO RIGHT to kill a criminal given to a civilian. NONE. It is a privilege. AND if a civilian did kill a criminal, the burden would be on him to show that the event gave rise to this privilege.

That is my point, and that is all that is my point. There is no "right" of a civilian to kill someone he suspects - even correctly suspects - is committing a crime.

[JMS]

They have weapons to protect from armed robbery. In those instances armed robbery is the most frequent kind of robbery. If I just walk up and try to snatch something out of their hands with no weapons, chances are they are not going to shoot me, and they shouldn't cause I'm not a threat.

They have weapons to shoot dead people trying to take their stuff. Many of those armed guards are old guys. Guys who would not stand much of a chance in a pugalistic demonstration. You think their training says if the guy doesn't have a gun don't pull your weapon.

Fact is society does value material possessions more than some human life. Specifically the lives of humans trying to take those possessions.

If you read my answer above, I do not grant corporations the right to kill people over theft. It's the threat of murder/violence that gives them the right to shoot.

First off, I sincerely believe you here. But whether you grant corporations, or government employees the right to take life to protect their stuff isn't really applicable. The fact is that this is common in the society which we live in. If if you are right and that those agents will only use their weapons if the bad guy have weapons, it still demonstrates my point. Fact is if the folks paying the guards with weapons valued human life more than their possessions the guards wouldn't be there. Fact is if society didn't agree with that value equation, it wouldn't allow those guards to be there with instriments of deadly force.

[JMS]

You are missing the point entirely.

Sorry I do that.

It is not a RIGHT. No civilian has a "right" to enforce the law as they see fit. That's why you have to be trained to be a police officer.

I'm sorry, you stated that this wasn't a states issue. That is the topic I was responding too.

Put it this way, if you kill someone who you believe is committing a crime, and you get charged with manslaughter, you can't walk into court and say its your right to stop crime. What you can do is argue that under the circumstances you were PRIVILEGED to do certain things. In order to gain that privilege however, you must show the circumstances afforded them to you. It would be your burden to prove it.

I agree with the logic you layed out there nobody has a right to kill criminals without good cause. Where we disagree is what good cause is. What you describe is not what happenned here. Joe attempted to stop a felony crime in progress. He did so brandishing a weapon. That is all within Joe's right, and any citizens right; IN TEXAS. While doing so, if those guys came at Joe, or caused Joe to fear for his life; then Joe had the right to use deadly force.

Suggesting that Joe didn't even have the right to go out and try to stop the crime as you contend is I guess our main disagreement. You seem to think citizens have a legal responsibility to cower under their beds when crime is being committed. Saddly I don't think you are completely wrong. I believe you are even correct. Only not in Texas.

[tomgraham]

not a criminal

[twa]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5355866.html

'Things are different here'

As my colleagues Matt Stiles and Mike Glenn reported in October, the rate of all violent crimes — murders, rapes, aggravated assaults and robberies — decreased 20 percent from 1990 to 2006. The drop in the nonviolent crime rate, such as burglaries, thefts and stolen vehicles, is even more dramatic: about 42 percent.

That said, I suppose I could keep trying to roll my Sisyphean rock up the hill and keep insisting that it's a bad thing to kill other people when we don't have to.

But maybe I'd be better off leaving you with the comments of Patrick McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

"At the risk of being quoted, I'm not going to weep for those two," he said of the burglars. "I guess what this comes down to, was this good judgment? No. Was it legal? Probably. Is it something that anyone is going to indict him for? Probably not.

"We are in Texas. Things are different here."

And someones jumping the gun

http://joehornformyneighbor.com/

[Predicto]

'Things are different here'

As my colleagues Matt Stiles and Mike Glenn reported in October, the rate of all violent crimes — murders, rapes, aggravated assaults and robberies — decreased 20 percent from 1990 to 2006.

Anyone want to hazard a guess on what the violent crime rate has done in pacifist gun hating San Francisco between 1990 and 2006? Or New York? Or Boston? Or Chicago? Or nationally?

The NATIONAL violent crime rate dropped by 50 percent between 1993 and 2002.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-09-crime_x.htm

Texas only managed to drop their violent crime rate 20 percent? What the hell is Texas doing wrong?

Maybe it's too many guns.