Louis Farrakhan writes about Joe Horn

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Photoman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:21 pm

#106

Post by Photoman »

pt145ss wrote:One thing this attorney did not mention, which was mentioned in news reports is that one of the suspects had a tire iron which was used to break the glass. If this is fact, and the one who supposedly came at Horn in the front yard was the who had the tire iron, I would believe he feared for his life. I also believe that because he was on his own porch he had no duty to retreat…just my 2 cents.
Ok...I'll take this one TXI. :lol:

Being in "fear for your life" is not justification for use of deadly force.

Being "on your own porch" etc. etc... You have no duty to retreat if you are ~anywhere~ you are legally allowed to be.

zigzag
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 17
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:32 am
Location: Hot Houston, Tx

#107

Post by zigzag »

With that crowbar alone, I think HOrn has a good defense that he was in fear of his life. The sight of that plus the two burglars can be really scary. Kudos to Horn.

pt145ss
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Austin, TX

#108

Post by pt145ss »

Photoman wrote:
pt145ss wrote:One thing this attorney did not mention, which was mentioned in news reports is that one of the suspects had a tire iron which was used to break the glass. If this is fact, and the one who supposedly came at Horn in the front yard was the who had the tire iron, I would believe he feared for his life. I also believe that because he was on his own porch he had no duty to retreat…just my 2 cents.
Ok...I'll take this one TXI. :lol:

Being in "fear for your life" is not justification for use of deadly force.

Being "on your own porch" etc. etc... You have no duty to retreat if you are ~anywhere~ you are legally allowed to be.
I would disagree…I think coming at someone with a weapon in hand that could cause serious bodily injury or death would justify the use of deadly force. The code specifically says attempted. If the BG has a tire iron in hand, and is within 15 feet as purported, and the BG just got busted for burglary, then I would say there is reasonable fear and belief that the bad guy is there to do harm. One, motive, not wanting to go to jail could make one want to use deadly force to neutralize a witness. Two, means, a tire iron could most definitely cause serious bodily injury or death. Three, means, the BG was within 15 feet of the victim it would only take a second or two to cover that ground, to close the gap to within striking distance. Four, intent, the BG lunged towards the victim even though they had a shotgun pointed at them, the BG obviously wants to eliminate the threat of going to jail even if it puts himself at risk of death.

Many court cases have proven that one does not need to wait for something to happen in order to respond. For example, an officer, has his weapon pointed at a suspect, the suspect reaches for a weapon of his own in his waist band, does the officer have to wait for the BG to shoot first before he responds…No. The BG has motive, means, intent, and opportunity. The officer is not required to wait. Does it matter that the BG was possibly pulling out the weapon to drop it on the ground in order to be weapon free before being arrested...No, at the time, the officer has reason believe that if he does not act, that he or someone else is in immediate danger of serous bodily injury or death.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
Edited because I wanted to add examples...i know this one was in SC but the theory still applies. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/stra ... ryid=93647 The officer shot first...and here is a quote from the DA.
Wilson said, "I have found Officer Brown acted reasonably and lawfully." Wilson said South Carolina's Castle Doctrine justified Officer Brown's actions.

She said, "A person is not required to wait till his assailant gets the drop on him." That's what Wilson says Antonio Rivers, who appears in a green striped shirt in the video, tried to do.
Also, I can;t remember the name...trying to find it now, the CHLr in Austin, TX caught a BG breaking into his girlfiends vehicle, followed him at gun point, when the BG turned around the CHLr shot and killed the BG. It was justified because at the time he feard for his life.
User avatar

DoubleJ
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

#109

Post by DoubleJ »

:willynilly:
NOT THE "FEAR OF MAH LIFE" THING AGAIN!!!!!!

Fear, is an emotion. emotions have no place in PenalCode.
Facts, however do. they (they being those quoted) say "fur of mah lahf," because saying, "I witnessed an attempted illegal use of deadly force against myself." just wouldn't "pop" right :lol: :cool:
the justification has NO bearing on fear. it has to do with what a "reasonable person" perceived at the time.
I'm full aware that saying "Ah wuz scurred" will play well with the Police, as well as the Grand Jury, but it is not part of the justification.

call it extenuating circumstances, or some such nonsense.

pt145ss
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Austin, TX

#110

Post by pt145ss »

DoubleJ wrote::willynilly:
NOT THE "FEAR OF MAH LIFE" THING AGAIN!!!!!!

Fear, is an emotion. emotions have no place in PenalCode.
Facts, however do. they (they being those quoted) say "fur of mah lahf," because saying, "I witnessed an attempted illegal use of deadly force against myself." just wouldn't "pop" right :lol: :cool:
the justification has NO bearing on fear. it has to do with what a "reasonable person" perceived at the time.
I'm full aware that saying "Ah wuz scurred" will play well with the Police, as well as the Grand Jury, but it is not part of the justification.

call it extenuating circumstances, or some such nonsense.
I will replace fear and instead say I had reason to believe I was at immediate risk of serious bodily injury and/or death because the BG had a Tire Iron...had motive because he did not want to go to jail...had the oprotunity to as he was only seconds away from being in striking distance...and showed intent by lunging at me. Had I not acted, i would either be seriously injured or dead now.

Is that better? At that second in time as the BG is lunging at you with a tire iron, is it "reasonable" to believe you are in imediate danger of serious bodily injury and/or death? Would a reasonable person feel the need to take a defensive posture i.e. arms in front to protect oneself from a strike or defensive action to thwart serious bodily injury and/or death? The second he lunges...is he in the act of "attempting" to cause serious bodily injury and/or death? Is it reasonable to assume that? Would it make a differense if the BG had the tire iron raised in a stiking manner as he was lunging?

In the video of Officer Brown...the BG did not have a weapon pointed at Brown...he simply had it in his hands behind his leg. Brown jumped out and fired the first shot...at which point the BG raised his weapon.
User avatar

DoubleJ
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

#111

Post by DoubleJ »

:cheers2: :smash: :hurry: :iagree: :woohoo :anamatedbanana :thumbsup:
there was a 43 page thread a long while ago about this very subject.
you get the point, and that's what's ultimately important.

doejohn
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:25 pm

#112

Post by doejohn »

On Drudge right now

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5359290.html

2 shot in Pasadena here illegally
1 man had been deported in '99; officials looking at possible ties to a burglary ring


By ROBERT CROWE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
Comments (1126) Recommend (8)

RESOURCES

Pasadena protests collide Two burglary suspects shot by a Pasadena homeowner last month were illegal immigrants from Colombia, and one man had been deported nearly 10 years ago, authorities said Thursday.

Authorities also said they are investigating whether Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48, were part of a crime ring linked to burglaries and the use of fake immigration documents.

The two — killed by a Pasadena man Nov. 14 after he said they were trying to steal his neighbor's property — were in the country illegally, according to Leticia Zamarripa, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Joe Horn, 61, shot Ortiz and Torres, who went by the alias Miguel Antonio DeJesus. Horn called police after hearing breaking glass. He ignored an operator's warning to not go outside with his gun.

Pasadena Police Department Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction. He was on parole until 2017, Corbett said.

Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz. He had two aliases.

Torres had identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. He had three aliases.

State and federal authorities are investigating whether the two men, who lived in southwest Houston, were involved in the crime ring, Corbett said.

Police found almost $2,000 in cash in a white bag the men allegedly took from the home in the 7400 block of Timberline before Horn shot them.

Investigators also are trying to determine whether the men knew about the home or family before burglarizing it.

"I don't believe the victim was a random choice ... but there's no evidence of a relationship either," between the homeowners and suspects, Corbett said.

Horn told the operator that he did not know his neighbors well. Neighbors said the family moved into the home next to Horn's house about four months ago.

"I can't comment," a woman at the home said over the phone Thursday night.

A source told police that Ortiz and Torres burglarized the home, in part, because the homeowners were immigrants.

"They targeted foreign-born people," Corbett said. "They felt they were easier victims."

Little is known about the homeowners, who have Vietnamese surnames.

Neighbors said they own a small business near their Village Grove East subdivision.

Records filed with the Office of the Secretary of State of Texas show that the family owns a dry cleaning business on Fairmont Parkway.

Horn has received an outpouring of support from some neighbors, friends and strangers, but the incident also has outraged activists and other neighbors.

Activists and Horn supporters clashed Sunday when they staged dueling protests outside his home. The homeowners association is trying to prevent more protests from being held in the subdivision.

Chronicle reporter Susan Carroll contributed to this report.

robert.crowe@chron.com

zigzag
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 17
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:32 am
Location: Hot Houston, Tx

#113

Post by zigzag »


elwood blooz
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:22 am
Location: Dayton, Texas

#114

Post by elwood blooz »

The report on 740 KTRH claimed both were shot in the back.

WarHawk-AVG
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:05 pm

#115

Post by WarHawk-AVG »

Pasadena burglar was shot in back; officer witnessed shooting

09:26 PM CST on Friday, December 7, 2007

By Rucks Russell / 11 News

An autopsy report of the burglars shot by a Pasadena homeowner shows that one of the men was shot in the back sources tell 11 News.

A Pasadena law enforcement official told 11 News that late yesterday; detectives finally got their hands on the preliminary autopsy results. Pasadena police sources also confirmed that a plainclothes officer arrived on the scene just seconds before Joe Horn opened fire, killing the two burglars.

That officer witnessed the shooting Pasadena police confirmed to 11 News.
Pasadena resident reportedly shoots suspected thieves

It was a little more than three weeks ago, when shots rang out on Timberline Drive in Pasadena. Homeowner Joe Horn told a Pasadena 911 dispatcher two men were breaking into the house next door.

You could hear Horn over the phone firing the shots that struck and killed Miguel Dejesus and Diego Ortiz. Both burglars were illegal aliens from Columbia and believed to be a part an organized crime home burglary ring.

On the day of the shooting, police said, they thought one of the men was shot in the chest and the other in the lower left side.

Now, based on the preliminary autopsy, they believe that what they thought were entrance wounds, were actually exit wounds instead.


That report indicates that one of the men was clearly shot in the back.

Horn's attorney said the new information doesn't change his stance that Horn was acted in self defense.

"The facts remain the same in this case as they were on November 14th. Joe Horn shot in defense of his life in his own yard,� attorney Tom Lambright said in a written statement. “We anxiously await the final autopsy report."

Pasadena police are turning over the evidence to the Harris County District Attorney to present to a grand jury.

Since the shootings, Horn has received an outpouring of support from his neighbors and outsiders who advocate the use of deadly force to protect property.

But his actions have also been condemned by community activists Quanell X and his followers, who have staged a pair of marches in front of Horn’s home.

Last weekend the planned protest ran into Horn supporters on motorcycles in a clash that has homeowners in the neighborhood seeking to prevent more protests from being held in the subdivision.
They really need to pull their heads out..any good doctor doing the autopsy can figure out if its and entrance or exit wound

I say the badguys were scumbags..they were caught robbing...goodguys get a freeby...if you don't take other peoples stuff you don't get shot

They were a bunch of scum bag illegal thieves
A sheepdog says "I will lead the way. I will set the highest standards. ...Your mission is to man the ramparts in this dark and desperate hour with honor and courage." - Lt. Col. Grossman
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Edmond Burke

zigzag
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 17
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:32 am
Location: Hot Houston, Tx

#116

Post by zigzag »

Next week will be busy as this will be finalized. Grand Jury makes their case.

Topic author
lawrnk
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 30
Posts: 1585
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:36 am
Location: Sienna Plantation, TX (FT BEND)

#117

Post by lawrnk »

Well, this is not good news for Joe if it was in the back. That doesn't change my support for him though.
Member- TSRA
Life Member- NRA

Topic author
lawrnk
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 30
Posts: 1585
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:36 am
Location: Sienna Plantation, TX (FT BEND)

#118

Post by lawrnk »

Molon_labe wrote:

I say the badguys were scumbags..they were caught robbing...goodguys get a freeby...if you don't take other peoples stuff you don't get shot

They were a bunch of scum bag illegal thieves
Man, I pray they get you on the Grand Jury! :grin:
Member- TSRA
Life Member- NRA

KD5NRH
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3119
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:25 am
Location: Stephenville TX

#119

Post by KD5NRH »

lawrnk wrote:Well, this is not good news for Joe if it was in the back.
Why not? Let's rehash the whole stack of Penal Code arguments in one place, for easy reference:
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 OK, so we can establish that he would be justified in using -force- to stop the interference had the property been his own.
(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 done, see above
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:His belief of immediate necessity is pretty well shown by the 911 call.
(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 This has been argued as a reasonable assumption, however, that "or" means we can pick one, and while I'd gladly accept (A), (B) is much easier to prove, IMO.
(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. Now you're not going to claim that an elderly man could, without substantial risk of serious bodily injury, tackle the BGs and wrestle the property away, are you? So, now we have him justified in using deadly force, had the property been his own.

§ 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 The "or" makes (2) irrelevant if (1) can be proven. Mr Horn's 911 call supports his belief of (1).
(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, would someone please point out where that says "unless the other is facing away from the actor" or "unless the actor previously expressed intent to do what this law specifically justifies?" He attempted to use lesser force by the threat of deadly force and the command to stop, and it didn't work. No other level of force was available to him under the circumstances.
User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#120

Post by stevie_d_64 »

Hmmmm, man with tire iron and a bag of stuff coming out of my nieghbors window to their house, heading straight for me...

I don't have a flat tire... :shock:

So I believe I have reasonably deduced that he is rapidly becoming a threat to my life and limb...I am not in fear, I am concerned...

I cannot place any other reasoning to their intent that isn't a stretch or fabrication...

Now all we have to do is see how much of an impact the 911 tape will have on this incident...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”