Just realized you're in Houston, you guys have had huge organic market growth recently.
Austin's liberalism is spilling over and pushing away the Dallas conservatives. 8-)
Actually, we're making enough money now that we can afford to care about that kind of thing. Also, the demographics of the place have changed a lot in the last 10~15 years. We're pretty metropolitan now, at least compared to the way we used to be. The city is still kind of ghettoized, but people are milling about more and having more to do with each other.
Yeah - we're infested with hippies. I'm curious how the Joe Horn decision would have gone in Travis county. I think he would have been indicted but cleared eventually.
I dunno. I honestly wonder if the perpetrators hadn't been illegals if the whole tone of the case would have been so "they needed killing" as it was. Because, every time... every time... they went through the "they needed killing" spiel around here, the immigrant status was trumpeted.
There's going to be another spate of it pretty soon, too. A police officer (not sure if one of the sheriff's deputies or HPD) was killed by an illegal alien who hit him in an underpass that was under construction. They've already started talking about "those dirty illegals" again, though they add, "oh, he's not hispanic" as an afterthought.
I dunno. I honestly wonder if the perpetrators hadn't been illegals if the whole tone of the case would have been so "they needed killing" as it was. Because, every time... every time... they went through the "they needed killing" spiel around here, the immigrant status was trumpeted.
There's going to be another spate of it pretty soon, too. A police officer (not sure if one of the sheriff's deputies or HPD) was killed by an illegal alien who hit him in an underpass that was under construction. They've already started talking about "those dirty illegals" again, though they add, "oh, he's not hispanic" as an afterthought.
Irish? (second largest group. I would laugh if they raided Dobbs and O'Reilly)
I dunno. I honestly wonder if the perpetrators hadn't been illegals if the whole tone of the case would have been so "they needed killing" as it was. Because, every time... every time... they went through the "they needed killing" spiel around here, the immigrant status was trumpeted.
There's going to be another spate of it pretty soon, too. A police officer (not sure if one of the sheriff's deputies or HPD) was killed by an illegal alien who hit him in an underpass that was under construction. They've already started talking about "those dirty illegals" again, though they add, "oh, he's not hispanic" as an afterthought.
I think the tone of the case would have obviously changed. It was fueled on both sides by racists like Quanell X and some of those bikers that went down to the neighborhood. I do think the end result would have been the same regardless of skin color though.
In regards to Austin being a happy medium, I think it is. I mean, it is still Texas so we haven't bowed to the ignorant majority, but Austin retains the good of both sides.
As I understand the situation, there were two men. One may have been running towards Horn. The other was definitely running away. Even if he may have been justified in shooting the former, isn't he pretty clearly not justified in shooting the latter? Legality aside, I mean. We already know that Crazy Texas Law allows you to shoot people at random for looking at you funny.
They were both in the street when they were shot, so I'd say that he wasn't justified in doing it at all, and he deliberately went out and put himself into a confrontation, per his 911 call. The confrontation was over as soon as they saw the shotgun and fled.
Though, I could see that if the other guy was far enough away in the dark that you might not know which direction he was facing. Though, him getting "smaller" would be a clue.
According to the police officer who witnessed the incident, this is false. At the very least, the man who ran at Horn was shot on his property and closer to Horn than when the confrontation began. Also remember that reasonable use of force isn't judged by what we, sitting behind our keyboards, find acceptable several months after the fact; the whole confrontation was over in a matter of seconds.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
As I understand the situation, there were two men. One may have been running towards Horn. The other was definitely running away. Even if he may have been justified in shooting the former, isn't he pretty clearly not justified in shooting the latter? Legality aside, I mean. We already know that Crazy Texas Law allows you to shoot people at random for looking at you funny.
They were both in the street when they were shot, so I'd say that he wasn't justified in doing it at all, and he deliberately went out and put himself into a confrontation, per his 911 call. The confrontation was over as soon as they saw the shotgun and fled.
Though, I could see that if the other guy was far enough away in the dark that you might not know which direction he was facing. Though, him getting "smaller" would be a clue.
According to the police officer who witnessed the incident, this is false. At the very least, the man who ran at Horn was shot on his property and closer to Horn than when the confrontation began. Also remember that reasonable use of force isn't judged by what we, sitting behind our keyboards, find acceptable several months after the fact; the whole confrontation was over in a matter of seconds.
A matter of seconds, after a first matter of seconds on the phone with a dispatcher deliberating vocally about whether he was going to go out and shoot them or not. This wasn't quite some surprise situation with a knee-jerk reaction; the guy clearly had the time to think about his choices.
A matter of seconds, after a first matter of seconds on the phone with a dispatcher deliberating vocally about whether he was going to go out and shoot them or not. This wasn't quite some surprise situation with a knee-jerk reaction; the guy clearly had the time to think about his choices.
Exactly. The fact the the guy clearly had the option to simply stay inside suggests that this is not "self-defense" by any reasonable person's definition of the word, and the conversation with the 911 operator made it pretty clear that his intent was to go out there and shoot these guys so they wouldn't get away with what they were doing. If it wasn't for Texas's incredibly liberal defense-of-property laws, he'd probably be warming a prison bed right about now.
This is well beyond "stand your ground" laws...those I can almost get behind, because there are probably far too many people in cemeteries who tried to get away first and failed. But this guy had the option to completely avoid the confrontation altogether, and instead decided it was his job to stop these burglars that were robbing somebody else's house.
According to the police officer who witnessed the incident, this is false. At the very least, the man who ran at Horn was shot on his property and closer to Horn than when the confrontation began. Also remember that reasonable use of force isn't judged by what we, sitting behind our keyboards, find acceptable several months after the fact; the whole confrontation was over in a matter of seconds.
Sorry. I must have been confused. I know nothing at all about what's been reported on this case, especially with me living so far away from it. It's a whole two miles away from me, so stuff does get convoluted through the grapevine.
By the way, the guy was on the radio yesterday talking to one of those "needed killing guys" (Michael Berry) saying he wished he wouldn't have done it and would take it all back if he had to do it over again. Which is exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone who was in fear of their life.
Then again, the radio signals could have been distorted over those two miles.
My opinion on this is as follows, I've already been lambasted at a couple of other forums for saying Horn should've at least been brought up on charges and not indemnified like he was. (Seriously, the families can't even sue him now).
Anyway, what he did does not meet the basic tenants of self defense. Even in Texas.
(1) Justified Self-Defense
A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:
(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND
(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND
(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND
(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."
He clearly fails to meet criterias (c) simply due to the fact that he went outside and entered a confrontation. I would suggest that he fails to meet (b) but that is far more arguable.
The laws used to defend him before the grand jury were Texas statutes 9.42 and 9.43
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
(B) 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
(B) 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.
9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Now he already got off, but I'm just going to say, again, that I don't think self-defense applies here. Also, the crime took place around noon, so the whole nighttime thing doesn't really fly with me.
However, it would've been PR suicide for the DA to actually press charges, and he's a good ole hometown hero in Texas now so he wouldn't have been convicted anyway.
Horn killed two people, and is now free, and there is no legal recourse that can be taken against him.
All this is going to blow up in somebody's face pretty soon, and it's going to make headlines.
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
So now they need to be a danger? And not just a theif?
I'm not speaking in the context of this case. I'm talking in general regarding the insanity plea being used to get cleared of charges. I don't require danger in this case - neither does Texas.
So a mentally unstable man grabbing your sandwich and running off should be shot in the back?
That's up to the victim to decide.
Look unless the victim is a cop or a judge, no it is not.
Posts
Actually, we're making enough money now that we can afford to care about that kind of thing. Also, the demographics of the place have changed a lot in the last 10~15 years. We're pretty metropolitan now, at least compared to the way we used to be. The city is still kind of ghettoized, but people are milling about more and having more to do with each other.
There's going to be another spate of it pretty soon, too. A police officer (not sure if one of the sheriff's deputies or HPD) was killed by an illegal alien who hit him in an underpass that was under construction. They've already started talking about "those dirty illegals" again, though they add, "oh, he's not hispanic" as an afterthought.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Irish? (second largest group. I would laugh if they raided Dobbs and O'Reilly)
I think the tone of the case would have obviously changed. It was fueled on both sides by racists like Quanell X and some of those bikers that went down to the neighborhood. I do think the end result would have been the same regardless of skin color though.
In regards to Austin being a happy medium, I think it is. I mean, it is still Texas so we haven't bowed to the ignorant majority, but Austin retains the good of both sides.
According to the police officer who witnessed the incident, this is false. At the very least, the man who ran at Horn was shot on his property and closer to Horn than when the confrontation began. Also remember that reasonable use of force isn't judged by what we, sitting behind our keyboards, find acceptable several months after the fact; the whole confrontation was over in a matter of seconds.
- John Stuart Mill
Exactly. The fact the the guy clearly had the option to simply stay inside suggests that this is not "self-defense" by any reasonable person's definition of the word, and the conversation with the 911 operator made it pretty clear that his intent was to go out there and shoot these guys so they wouldn't get away with what they were doing. If it wasn't for Texas's incredibly liberal defense-of-property laws, he'd probably be warming a prison bed right about now.
This is well beyond "stand your ground" laws...those I can almost get behind, because there are probably far too many people in cemeteries who tried to get away first and failed. But this guy had the option to completely avoid the confrontation altogether, and instead decided it was his job to stop these burglars that were robbing somebody else's house.
By the way, the guy was on the radio yesterday talking to one of those "needed killing guys" (Michael Berry) saying he wished he wouldn't have done it and would take it all back if he had to do it over again. Which is exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone who was in fear of their life.
Then again, the radio signals could have been distorted over those two miles.
Anyway, what he did does not meet the basic tenants of self defense. Even in Texas.
He clearly fails to meet criterias (c) simply due to the fact that he went outside and entered a confrontation. I would suggest that he fails to meet (b) but that is far more arguable.
The laws used to defend him before the grand jury were Texas statutes 9.42 and 9.43
Now he already got off, but I'm just going to say, again, that I don't think self-defense applies here. Also, the crime took place around noon, so the whole nighttime thing doesn't really fly with me.
However, it would've been PR suicide for the DA to actually press charges, and he's a good ole hometown hero in Texas now so he wouldn't have been convicted anyway.
Horn killed two people, and is now free, and there is no legal recourse that can be taken against him.
All this is going to blow up in somebody's face pretty soon, and it's going to make headlines.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube