J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

[Bart]

Being in fear for your life is not justification for shooting someone in Texas.

But stopping another's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force against you is usually justification.

[Liberty]

Being in fear for your life is not justification for shooting someone in Texas.

But stopping another's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force against you is usually justification.

Of course.

[DParker]

I must have forgotten to read the part where the Colombian had trained with Chuck Norris. Some of you folks have been playing way to many video games. OK...so let's assume the Columbian who was shot in the side of the back had martial arts skills. I guess the one shot dead in the back was running backwards Michael Jackson style in an effort to confuse poor scared Joe Horn.

Interestingly, I offered a very plausible scenario that fit the facts quite well...and yet you've ignored it in favor of snide retorts.

[03Lightningrocks]

[DParker]

I must have forgotten to read the part where the Colombian had trained with Chuck Norris. Some of you folks have been playing way to many video games. OK...so let's assume the Columbian who was shot in the side of the back had martial arts skills. I guess the one shot dead in the back was running backwards Michael Jackson style in an effort to confuse poor scared Joe Horn.

Interestingly, I offered a very plausible scenario that fit the facts quite well...and yet you've ignored it in favor of snide retorts.

Funny, your replies seem a bit on the smug side as well.

A classic case of projection. You chimed in with some claims regarding what you think must have happened and I simply countered with a viable alternate explanation. You then went on to ignore it and make condescending remarks to others.

No need for you and I to discuss this further.

There's been no real discussion from you anyway, so you're likely correct in this assessment after a fashion.

You appear to believe it is OK to shoot a human dead over a TV set...

I've said/implied no such thing. If all you can do is dishonestly mischaracterize what others say then you probably ought to refrain from pretending that you're interested in any sort of "discussion" at all.

I have a different view point. Neither of us will change our minds on this, so further debate is pointless. Joe Horn has damaged our right to defend ourselves. People across the nation look at this guy and paint us all as if we are a bunch of cowardly cowboys just looking for a reason to use our guns.

There are many people who will seize on anything as a reinforcement of their preconceived notions. I don't worry about them, since their minds are made up and they wish to not be confused by the facts (much like yourself, apparently.) But your faux righteous indignation here really has nothing at all to do with what was being discussed...which was an explanation for why the perps had buckshot wounds in their sides/backs. You seem to have lost sight of that...perhaps intentionally.

I will greatly enjoy the day he is brought to trial for this murder.

And the mask is peeled back a bit.

Believing in the right to keep and bear arms does not require I support such a cowardly deed. Keep it up Doc...and I will tell you what I really think.

So far, I have yet to see any evidence that you think at all.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Anyone know of a site where folks can talk about concealed carry?

You know, without the hostility and arguing.

I agree Mike. Get back to discussing the facts of this case, as well as your opinions. But stop the insults or snide remarks or this thread is going to get locked.

Chas.

[03Lightningrocks]

Thank You Charles.

[03Lightningrocks]

[DParker]

Thanks for proving my point so brilliantly.

Anyone else have any opinions as to my offered scenario as a potential explanation for the facts of the case as they've been reported?

[LedJedi]

Thank You Charles.

*** whoosh ***

*********woosh is right************** You have said nothing that would need a response as nothing you said in any post had any significance to the topic at hand. About all I read when seeing your posts is a whole lot of hot air as it spews forth from a pretentious pompous windbag. Your posts just wreak of self deprecation. I am truly sad for you. I can only imagine how truly unimportant you are in your real life that you feel it necessary to get on an internet forum and attempt to make judgmental statements about the opinions of others.

I am wanting to get one thing straight from you. If late one night, I catch your teenager and his friends stealing my car stereo, would you like me to shoot him in the back if he tries to run away...or would that be different?

if you see my kid doing that... yep.. fire away. if she survives maybe it'll ingrain a lesson that i have apparently been unable to given what you just caught her doing.

[LedJedi]

Thanks for proving my point so brilliantly.

Anyone else have any opinions as to my offered scenario as a potential explanation for the facts of the case as they've been reported?

well, honestly, i don't much care where or how they were shot. 9.43 doesn't say where or how they need be shot and I'm not sure self defense does either. someone can be retreating and I might still consider them a threat.

I dont know the specific details as they are at hand but i have faith that 12 men and women did in the jury box and they decided it was justified. That's good enough for me.

[DParker]

well, honestly, i don't much care where or how they were shot. 9.43 doesn't say where or how they need be shot and I'm not sure self defense does either. someone can be retreating and I might still consider them a threat.

That's all true, and I'm not suggesting that my hypothetical was a requirement for a legal defense. I just offered it as a counter to the "They were 'shot in the back', so they couldn't have been any threat" assertion and was wondering if sounded as plausible to others as it did to me.

[LedJedi]

well, honestly, i don't much care where or how they were shot. 9.43 doesn't say where or how they need be shot and I'm not sure self defense does either. someone can be retreating and I might still consider them a threat.

That's all true, and I'm not suggesting that my hypothetical was a requirement for a legal defense. I just offered it as a counter to the "They were 'shot in the back', so they couldn't have been any threat" assertion and was wondering if sounded as plausible to others as it did to me.

oh, i think i missed the scenario. i scanned back a few pages and don't see it... can you re-post? i think i missed it.

[03Lightningrocks]

if you see my kid doing that... yep.. fire away. if she survives maybe it'll ingrain a lesson that i have apparently been unable to given what you just caught her doing.

I appreciate your candor...but I would have to let her run away. I am a bit old fashioned about murder. I really can't imagine killing a person over material possessions. Our society is going to get pretty messed up if we all just start blasting each other over TV sets, stereos and yard ornaments.

[LedJedi]

if you see my kid doing that... yep.. fire away. if she survives maybe it'll ingrain a lesson that i have apparently been unable to given what you just caught her doing.

I appreciate your candor...but I would have to let her run away. I am a bit old fashioned about murder. I really can't imagine killing a person over material possessions. Our society is going to get pretty messed up if we all just start blasting each other over TV sets, stereos and yard ornaments.

in the long run i like to think it would get sorted out and folks would realize you just can't get away with that kinda thing. Once that message got across and folks started to realize they might actually get shot for breaking into your car and jacking your stereo maybe they'll realize their life is worth more than that. They have to realize that for themselves though. It's not my place to let them run off with my hard earned property while they try and figure that out.

I don't go out and break my back every day but I've studied a LOT to be able to do what I do for a living. There is a lot of my time in my work and I will not step back and someone run off with my stereo which amounts to a certain amount of my time spent earning it.

I will be the fist to step up and give someone the shirt off my back if they're hungry and to whatever I can to "teach a man to fish" but i cannot and will not abide thieves. If that means i have to put some 00 in someone's behind to protect my property (or yours for that matter) then I will do so without hesitation so long as I can do that within the confines of the law and my right as a property owner.

Life is worth more than property. My life is worth more than my property. The life of a thief is not. They chose that vocation of their own accord. They chose to put themselves in a risky situation and they should know the law allows DF in defense of that property they're running off with. You may have moral objections to using DF for property but I do not (as well as many others I know). If you don't agree with DF over property I wholeheartedly respect that and defend your right to NOT use DF if you so choose, but please do no chagrin others of our lawful right to defend property because you consider our lawful defense outside your moral code of ethics.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I just want it understood that you're talking about your own personal moral code, not the law. I suppose you can pass moral judgement on others for how they feel. You have a right to your own opinion, but try and understand that not everyone shares your perspective on the situation and that when you're talking about ethics and morality (which is essentially what we're talking about here, not law, because we all agree on the law i think. that's clear)... ethics and morality are often matters of perspective and opinion. What one man considers a travesty another considers justice. Who is to judge what is right and wrong in the realm of ethics? I dont think anyone is qualified in that. That's why we have laws to establish the confines of what is right and wrong. And, in Texas our laws allow for DF in defense of property.