New Pasadena, Tx shooting Info.

[coffeecup]

(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.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[OPFOR]

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.

[wmhawth]

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.

[OPFOR]

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...

[bandit383]

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

[abuttermilk]

Go back to #30 and read the law.

[raevan]

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.

[TX-JB]

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.

[retsupt99]

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!

[libertarian5]

§ 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.

[LongRider]

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

I mistook

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.

[bandit383]

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

[Hopyard]

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.

[LongRider]

The center punch was in a pocket - Horn didn't know it was there..

According to the 911 tape he did

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.

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

[LongRider]

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.