TX man shoots men robbing his neighbors
- Thread starter DrDavidM
- Start date
PascalFleischman
New member
No doubt blocking access to the turn signal.....blinking "Left turn" for 10 miles.
HA!
HA!
Tarzan1888
New member
All well and good if he takes your money and runs, as long as he doesn't stop and realize that you can identify him and slip that blade between your ribs.
Tarzan
cedar hill67
New member
i think that he should have shouted to them first,then take action from there,in which way they would have responded,i feel that it was not warranted to shot at this time,i understand that no weapon was seen and that there was no life or death threat to him,as we all know there is no such thing as firing in the air as a warning,i think this was a instant reaction before he grasped the whole situation,thus adding more fuel onto the anti-gun problems,i think that he should have viewed them closely and called in their profiles and what they had in their arms.
Wow!
I just listened to the dispatch tape of the shooting. I gotta say, I would not want Horn as my neighbor, he is a nut! Part of being a gun owner is being level headed. Being able to judge a situation and determine the most prudent course of action. In times of real danger, you are not given that opportunity; you simply just have to react to save your life. This was not that time for him. He was in an ideal place where he could evaluate a situation: in his home away from the danger posed by the crimminals. He would of been an ideal witness if he remained calm and recorded as much information about the crimminals as he could. It was "stuff" they were taking, not a life. You can tell his anger at the robbery led to his shooting those crimminals. It was not out of self defense or to save someone's life, it was just because he was pi$$ed at the robbery. The violation he felt of his neighbor being robbed is not reason enough to shoot someone.
He has done a great diservice to all firearm holders. He will forever be cited in the media as "typical gun owner". I hope he goes to jail for murder.
I just listened to the dispatch tape of the shooting. I gotta say, I would not want Horn as my neighbor, he is a nut! Part of being a gun owner is being level headed. Being able to judge a situation and determine the most prudent course of action. In times of real danger, you are not given that opportunity; you simply just have to react to save your life. This was not that time for him. He was in an ideal place where he could evaluate a situation: in his home away from the danger posed by the crimminals. He would of been an ideal witness if he remained calm and recorded as much information about the crimminals as he could. It was "stuff" they were taking, not a life. You can tell his anger at the robbery led to his shooting those crimminals. It was not out of self defense or to save someone's life, it was just because he was pi$$ed at the robbery. The violation he felt of his neighbor being robbed is not reason enough to shoot someone.
He has done a great diservice to all firearm holders. He will forever be cited in the media as "typical gun owner". I hope he goes to jail for murder.
+ 1 Exactly. I read all the posts from (obviously) younger guys and their hand combat skills and think back to when I studied Karate and Aikido. Now with severe arthritis of the spine, and age 72 I can pretty much forget that stuff, not to mention hitting the dirt and rolling while pulling my gun and all that running and movement training. (and if I did hit the dirt I'd hope someone other than the dirt bag was around since someone might have to help me get back on my feet.
) I go to the range with a buddy because I can't bend over to pick up my brass other than just a few times. It's he ll to get old but the alternative isn't attractive either. While I agree Horn is an imbecile I still note the the drive by media only plays the worst parts of the tape, (which are bad enough.) They leave out the part about one of the pukes coming into his yard headed towards his house and the part where he said he was frightened when that happened.
HK4U
New member
Getting older
I am 58 and can tell a big difference just in the last 4 or five years. Also I took martial arts for a couple years. I always thought of it as something to use to get the BG off of me long enough to get to my gun.
+ 1 Exactly. I read all the posts from (obviously) younger guys and their hand combat skills and think back to when I studied Karate and Aikido. Now with severe arthritis of the spine, and age 72 I can pretty much forget that stuff, not to mention hitting the dirt and rolling while pulling my gun and all that running and movement training. (and if I did hit the dirt I'd hope someone other than the dirt bag was around since someone might have to help me get back on my feet.
I am 58 and can tell a big difference just in the last 4 or five years. Also I took martial arts for a couple years. I always thought of it as something to use to get the BG off of me long enough to get to my gun.
Fallguy
Citizen
While you may agree or disagree with what this guy did...or would or would not do it yourself (been in a long thread on another forum about the "morality" of it...and don't want to do it here) it looks like according to Texas law he may be within the law.
Link Removed allows for deadly force to protect the property of a third person.
§ 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.
For refrene 9.41 & 9.42
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
§ 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.
Link Removed allows for deadly force to protect the property of a third person.
§ 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.
For refrene 9.41 & 9.42
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
§ 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.
Red Hat
New member
It turns out that the two he killed were Illegal aliens with criminal records. Bill was talking about it on the O'Reilly Factor. Two dope dealers that were looking for some fast money.
Bill's talking points. Click on 12-5 http://www.foxnews.com/video2/playe...ft&acc&Bill O'Reilly&-1&Opinion&198&&&new
Bill's talking points. Click on 12-5 http://www.foxnews.com/video2/playe...ft&acc&Bill O'Reilly&-1&Opinion&198&&&new
Last edited:
I gotta say "Wow" again! By reading the law, I think he will get off. I wonder if that law was written in a time when Texas was a little more than a frontier and urban centers were really nonexistant? That would make things a little different. Also, I am surprised that, due to the open nature of this law, there are not more shootings of this nature in Texas.
Red Hat
New member
That is the new Castle Doctrine law that was just signed by the Governor last March.
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/03/27/castle-doctrine-signed-into-law/ Several states have signed a version of of this into law including my state SC. It gives us a lot more latitude in self protection and protecting private property. In my state and some others we have a clause that protects us from being sued in civil court also.
HK4U
New member
Illegals
Isn't that a supprise. Our government can spend trillions in Iraq but they can not do anything to stop the influx of criminals into our country.
Isn't that a supprise. Our government can spend trillions in Iraq but they can not do anything to stop the influx of criminals into our country.
Tarzan1888
New member
What?
And Joe Horn and these two Columbian criminals have What
to do with the war on Terror?
Come on and stay on topic.
Tarzan
HK4U
New member
Terror
Silly me for thinking that a wide open border where anyone could come across day our night without impunity could have an affect on terrorists being able to get into our country.
Silly me for thinking that a wide open border where anyone could come across day our night without impunity could have an affect on terrorists being able to get into our country.
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.