New Pasadena, Tx shooting Info.

This is a discussion on New Pasadena, Tx shooting Info. within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; (1) Horn witnessed the burglary of his neighbors home. (2) The perps were on Horns property. (3) The perps were armed(center punch). (4) Horn warned ...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 97

Thread: New Pasadena, Tx shooting Info.

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member Array coffeecup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cadiz,Ky
    Posts
    1,219
    (1) Horn witnessed the burglary of his neighbors home.

    (2) The perps were on Horns property.

    (3) The perps were armed(center punch).

    (4) Horn warned them to stop.

    (5) Perps ignored the warning and at least one of them advanced toward Horn.

    (6) A local LEO, that has to deal with street scum like this on a daily basis, witnessed the shooting.

    (7) If this case reaches a grand jury I will be surprised, after all this is TEXAS. In any case, Horn will walk and the natives will riot and burn down their own homes and stores.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    The center punch was in a pocket - Horn didn't know it was there.

    Hord said, on tape, several times, that he was going to "shoot" or "kill" these guys. Not detain them, not arrest them, not anything less than shoot and kill. He PUT himself in the situation, with the STATED INTENT to kill. That, boys and girls, is a BAD THING.

    Now, cops aren't allowed to shoot fleeing felons who don't pose an immediate threat to life (which these guys obviously didn't), but this guy can? How does that work? Why did I go through six months of training to learn how to be a cop if Joe Blow (or should I say Joe Bang, Bang........Bang) can enforce the laws all fine and dandy just by himself?

    This is a bad shoot, getting worse. Defend the IDEA of helping your neighbor, standing up to criminals, and all of that (which, obviously, I myself support), but do not defend this guy, in this case, based on the evidence we've seen so far. It's murder - just because the victims weren't choir boys doesn't make it less so.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,409
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Hord said, on tape, several times, that he was going to "shoot" or "kill" these guys. Not detain them, not arrest them, not anything less than shoot and kill. He PUT himself in the situation, with the STATED INTENT to kill. That, boys and girls, is a BAD THING.
    .
    Yes...Of course this guy is going to hang and his words and subsequent actions will serve as more ammunition for the antis to argue that Americans are too irresponsible and trigger happy to be allowed to protect their homes and properties. In spite of the fact that two bad guys got their justs, I see this as a very unfortunate incident.

  5. #34
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Heck, this guy IS too irresponsible and trigger happy... I hate that I will be painted with the same brush as he, but there it is...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  6. #35
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    The center punch was in a pocket - Horn didn't know it was there.

    Hord said, on tape, several times, that he was going to "shoot" or "kill" these guys. Not detain them, not arrest them, not anything less than shoot and kill. He PUT himself in the situation, with the STATED INTENT to kill. That, boys and girls, is a BAD THING.

    Now, cops aren't allowed to shoot fleeing felons who don't pose an immediate threat to life (which these guys obviously didn't), but this guy can? How does that work? Why did I go through six months of training to learn how to be a cop if Joe Blow (or should I say Joe Bang, Bang........Bang) can enforce the laws all fine and dandy just by himself?

    This is a bad shoot, getting worse. Defend the IDEA of helping your neighbor, standing up to criminals, and all of that (which, obviously, I myself support), but do not defend this guy, in this case, based on the evidence we've seen so far. It's murder - just because the victims weren't choir boys doesn't make it less so.
    Well stated...I am a bit amazed that some defend his actions based solely (or a significant part) on the scum bag theory...they had it coming mentality. I think his actions and others views paint a disturbing view of CCW.

    Rick

  7. #36
    Member Array abuttermilk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lubbock,TX
    Posts
    228
    Go back to #30 and read the law.
    "It does not take a majority to prevail,,,,,,but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array raevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    4,849
    If he had not stated his intent to kill, I believe the law would set him free, but his word are going to Damm him. This is another example of 'watch what you say'. It is better top be a good witness, then a vigilante.

    Now if he had waited as the 911 operator had asked him to, and they had decided to break into his house too, his shooting would be seen in a different light.

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array TX-JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    Posts
    5,738
    Nothing new today, so far.

    BTW, all shootings go to a Grand Jury in Texas, it just depends on whether or not there are recommended charges from the DA. And if he is "no billed" by this grand jury, it doesn't mean that a new new grand jury, starting shortly after the beginning of the new year, won't indict him.
    "Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas!".... Sam Houston

    Retired LEO
    Firearms Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  10. #39
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,695
    Autopsy reports ...it's how I like to read about BG's...

    The shooter could have some difficulties...'the devil is in the details here'...we'll see...hope he gets a medal not jail time!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  11. #40
    Member Array libertarian5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    4 Corners
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    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.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
    1994.
    Wow! Maybe there's hope. I wish we had a law like that here.

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by libertarian5 View Post
    While I agree with you about being neighborly, I would point out that "erred or over reacted" is not a very good legal defense.
    Please quote me in context. your reference is not what I said or meant. I said
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    I mistook
    Quote Originally Posted by dang.45 View Post
    he didn't even give them a chance to stop, let alone have them prove whether or not they were in the country illegally...
    to mean that he erred or over reacted.
    Meaning that I misunderstood dang.45's post to mean that she thought Mr Horn erred or over reacted. An opinion I disagree with. IMO he neither erred or over reacted. Further I never proposed Mr Horn use that he erred or over reacted as a defense. Mr Horn's defense is not an issue I have not commented on it anyway. Your responce to my post is a responce to something was never said about a topic I never discussed. Please share your thoughts and opinions I look forward to reading them, but don't fabricate post by me to respond to.

    To be clear my opinion is: Excluding the phone call and statements to 911 I believe that Mr Horn's action's were proper and correct. He did the only thing that an honorable man could do under the circumstances.

    A) He stepped out to stop his neighbor from being robbed.
    B) The morons than forced him to shoot them, by attacking him

    According to the detective who witnessed the shooting they turned and starting running towards him. He shot them from 15 feet away in a another few seconds they would have been on top of him. What would any reasonable person do if two armed criminals started charging them? The 911 operator had already increased Mr Horns fear by repeatedly telling him the criminals would kill him if he tried to stop them. Which BTW is the only time Mr Horn said he would kill them. In responce to the 911 operator saying they would kill him he said no they won't he will kill them instead. Again comments need to taken in context. He said and did what anyone would say. If his comment constitutes premeditation than everyone on this board is guilty of premeditating murder. Why do we all carry guns? What do we intend to do if some one tries to kill us? Well, isn't that exactly what Mr Horn said?

    I believe in time Mr Horn will prove that
    A) He was stopping the commission of a felony in the only reasonable way he could
    B) That based on the professional opinion of the 911 operator that the criminal would kill him and from the criminals charging him he was in reasonable fear of his life when he fired in self defense

    It's a damn shame that he made the 911 call. If not for that call this would all be a non issue. The officers on site said it was a good shoot without the call it would have been left at that.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  13. #42
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    To be clear my opinion is: Excluding the phone call and statements to 911 I believe that Mr Horn's action's were proper and correct. He did the only thing that an honorable man could do under the circumstances.

    A) He stepped out to stop his neighbor from being robbed.
    B) The morons than forced him to shoot them, by attacking him

    According to the detective who witnessed the shooting they turned and starting running towards him. He shot them from 15 feet away in a another few seconds they would have been on top of him. What would any reasonable person do if two armed criminals started charging them?
    In a court of law...not sure how you can just "exclude" the 911 calls...because I think his state of mind is very relevent.

    As for "running towards"...not sure if you meant towards the detective or Horn...but regardless, according to the autopsy...they were shot in the back. Soooo, I think intent is very relevent...without putting words in your mouth.

    Rick

  14. #43
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659
    A non legal view might be obtained by asking, are we (society) better off with this outcome than the possible other outcomes.

    I don't particularly want my tax dollars spent prosecuting this guy. I do think he used really bad judgment. That doesn't a murder make.

    Score, good guy 2; bg 0. Leave the man alone.

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    The center punch was in a pocket - Horn didn't know it was there..
    According to the 911 tape he did

    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Hord said, on tape, several times, that he was going to "shoot" or "kill" these guys. Not detain them, not arrest them, not anything less than shoot and kill. He PUT himself in the situation, with the STATED INTENT to kill. That, boys and girls, is a BAD THING.
    See above he only said so in responce to the 911 operator saying the criminals would kill him. Prior to that Mr Horn said should I "stop" them. Still a bad thing to say but in context not premeditation in my lay opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Now, cops aren't allowed to shoot fleeing felons who don't pose an immediate threat to life (which these guys obviously didn't), but this guy can? How does that work? Why did I go through six months of training to learn how to be a cop
    A) Police are held to a higher standard that we simple citizens. We do not have the training police officers do, so we poor citizens may react based on fear rather than training The law acknowledges that so that the standard is would a reasonable person have been in fear of their life if two armed criminals came charging at them. The professional opinion of the 911 operator was that the criminals would kill Mr Horn, the operator said so several times. That alone would put me in fear of my life, not to mention to angry junkies charging onto my property at me

    B) The detective on site who witnessed the shooting apparently thought Mr Horn shot in self defense. The detectives testimony is that the criminals were charging Mr Horn. Based on what he saw he released Mr Horn. But hey he is just a detective that saw what happened maybe he is an idiot. Personally I doubt he is an idiot
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit383 View Post
    In a court of law...not sure how you can just "exclude" the 911 calls...because I think his state of mind is very relevent.

    As for "running towards"...not sure if you meant towards the detective or Horn...but regardless, according to the autopsy...they were shot in the back. Soooo, I think intent is very relevent...without putting words in your mouth.

    Rick
    Again please read what I said.

    I said nothing about excluding the 911 call in a court of law.

    I said in my opinion except for the call to 911 Mr Horn did nothing wrong. Two different things entirely

    Again please don't make up stuff to respond too

    According to the detective they ran towards Mr Horn onto Mr Horns property.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Road rage leads to shooting outside Palms of Pasadena Hospital
    By DAtrigger in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 6th, 2009, 03:15 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 7th, 2009, 10:57 PM
  3. Robber Beats Man, 84, Woman, 63: Pasadena, Texas
    By SYKO in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 10th, 2009, 05:56 AM
  4. Man Shoots Burglars: PASADENA, TX: MERGED
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: December 11th, 2007, 03:40 PM
  5. Great Info on WW2 Combatives/Shooting
    By Matthew Temkin in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 04:26 AM

Search tags for this page

1993 shooting in pasadena texas
,
case horn lubbock tx case horn
,

concealed carry pasadena tx

,
danny trejo pasadena tx
,
psadena texas shooting 1993
Click on a term to search for related topics.