J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

[Bart]

• "Frank Ortiz, a member of the local League of United Latin American Citizens chapter, said he hopes federal authorities investigate the case further."
  http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP3O ... wD91KVCD00

Consider the source. CITIZENS?

The two dead criminals were citizens of a Latin American country. I think Colombia. One of them was a convicted drug dealer that was deported and returned to the USA to commit more crimes.

[WarHawk-AVG]

Both were 100% illegal

[Rough_Ashlar]

§ 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.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm


not to hijack the thread, but,if he were in a neighborhood watch area wouldn't that be an implied request for protection?

[LedJedi]

§ 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.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm


not to hijack the thread, but,if he were in a neighborhood watch area wouldn't that be an implied request for protection?

2a doesn't necessary apply based on the condition of the OR at the end of 1. If the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; then the actor does not need permission. I believe that was the case in relation to joe horn, thus 2a does not apply (thanks to DParker i think for pointing this out to me.)

And, i'm not sure that the existence of a neighborhood watch or participation in that watch would necessarily constitute an implied request for protection in this case, though that's an interesting concept and I believe that would be a REASONABLE assumption in my opinion. I honestly believe the there is a standing reasonable assumption that anyone having their property stolen would want a good Samaritan's assistance in protecting that property, but I'm not sure there's any case precedent out there that says that. It's just a reasonable assumption imo.

Charles, or anyone else equally qualified feel free to kick me in the buttox if i'm off base here. I don't want to give out bad information.

[Jesse1911]

After all the legal issues, death threats and time it takes to get things like these resolved, I don't think I would have shot those guys. Even if they ran accross my property. But the minute I saw them comming towards my house with the intent to bulglurize, then they would have gotten . Shooting them in the back means they were not threatening my life, and I would have made sure I got all the description/info possible, video etc. for the cops to deal with it. That is just my .02.

[Dan20703]

I would love to see a t-shirt that said:

TEXAS PENAL CODE 9.43
JOE HORN HAS MY PERMISSION

[57Coastie]

Charles, or anyone else equally qualified feel free to kick me in the buttox if i'm off base here.

LedJedi,

While I would never offer myself as being "equally qualified," I will suggest that one never deserves that kick for giving an opinion, which is all you did. Others on the forum may disagree with me about this, but I am unanimous in this.

Jim

[LedJedi]

I would love to see a t-shirt that said:

TEXAS PENAL CODE 9.43
JOE HORN HAS MY PERMISSION

well come one... that came off like it was a challenge.

http://www.cafepress.com/libertygear713

I'm happy to make others if you guys want. It's easy to do and costs me nothing. I set the stuff in there to be at-cost so there's no markup.

[03Lightningrocks]

I just realized there are two different threads on this same topic. I think I have been responding to posts in both threads. Maybe one of the mods could merge the two threads together? It might alleviate some confusion.

[DParker]

My beliefs are arrived at the same way yours are. By how I see the evidence. Maybe your beliefs are simply because they are what you want to believe, since you brought this possibility up first.

First off, I never stated a "belief". I simply presented the evidence. Secondly, my assessments are simply what I think is most probably true based on that evidence and and a rational interpretation of it. Statements like "I don't believe for one second..." have more of the air of religious conviction about them.

I did not remember reading that an officer actually watched as Joe Horn fired at these guys.

Then you were missing a pretty crucial bit of readily available and much-discussed evidence.

[03Lightningrocks]

My beliefs are arrived at the same way yours are. By how I see the evidence. Maybe your beliefs are simply because they are what you want to believe, since you brought this possibility up first.

First off, I never stated a "belief". I simply presented the evidence. Secondly, my assessments are simply what I think is most probably true based on that evidence and and a rational interpretation of it. Statements like "I don't believe for one second..." have more of the air of religious conviction about them.

I did not remember reading that an officer actually watched as Joe Horn fired at these guys.

Then you were missing a pretty crucial bit of readily available and much-discussed evidence.

There is nothing rational about believing a man shot in the back was on the attack. It is rational to believe the story was cooked up after the fact to keep Joe out of jail. If you are actually basing your beliefs on the evidence, then you would come to the same conclusion as I. I guess one guy was attacking backwards as he was shot dead in the middle of the back. I have been hunting and using guns all my life, my experience with shooting game animals tells me one cannot turn sideways at the sound of a shotgun blast from a few feet away quick enough to cause the impact to change from the front of the chest to the side of the back. But I guess I am letting the facts influence my beliefs again.

[DParker]

There is nothing rational about believing a man shot in the back was on the attack.

How familiar are you with what is meant by "in the back" in this case? In the instance of one of the BGs, it meant mostly the side, but toward the back. Not exactly precise terms there, in any event.

It is rational to believe the story was cooked up after the fact to keep Joe out of jail. If you are actually basing your beliefs on the evidence, then you would come to the same conclusion as I.

Not if one is basing one's assessment on ALL of the available evidence, rather than just a subset of it.

I guess one guy was attacking backwards as he was shot dead in the middle of the back. I have been hunting and using guns all my life, my experience with shooting game animals tells me one cannot turn sideways at the sound of a shotgun blast from a few feet away quick enough to cause the impact to change from the front of the chest to the side of the back. But I guess I am letting the facts influence my beliefs again.

Calm down, old bean. Try this one on for size (and bear in mind that all of it happens in just a few seconds at most):

Both BGs cross over into Horn's yard. Given the layout of the yards this means that they were at least moving in Horn's general direction. Burglar 'A' runs toward Horn but, at the las moment, veers off toward the street (as the detective reported.) While BG 'A' is in motion Horn makes the decision to fire, and is tracking him with the shotgun while doing so. The delay between decision and action is the window during which BG 'A' changes course. By the time Horn fully pulls the trigger, our first unlucky criminal is now oriented with rear-left quarter more-or-less directed at Horn, and said quarter receives the brunt of the 00 buckshot load. Knowing there is still another BG who can do him harm Horn instanly, and without further evaluation or other thought pumps up a fresh round and fires in the direction of BG 'B' who, by now, has turned tail and started fleeing. Unfortunately for BG 'B' all of this has happened so quickly that his change in direction has either not been consciously noted by Horn, or Horn is just too action-oriented to care at that point. Given BG 'B's wounds as they've been described, he likely couldn't have turned and begun fleeing more than a second or two before the shot.

Now, I'm not saying that's exactly what happened. But it's certainly more than plausible. At least as much so as your conspiratorial presuppositions.

[Skiprr]

This afternoon, the Fox Houston affiliate posted the 15-minute investigation video taken right after the shootings. Not great video quality, but interesting information for those following the case. Here is the link to the explanation of the video and its content. The 5th paragraph is the link to the video; the 6th is a link to a Windows WMV audio file of the 911 call:

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages ... geId=1.1.1

[KD5NRH]

I have been hunting and using guns all my life, my experience with shooting game animals tells me one cannot turn sideways at the sound of a shotgun blast from a few feet away quick enough to cause the impact to change from the front of the chest to the side of the back. But I guess I am letting the facts influence my beliefs again.

And, since one cannot jump up at the sound of a gun quickly enough to get into the path of the shot, Cheney must have intended to shoot his buddy in the head?

[Skiprr]

This afternoon, the Fox Houston affiliate posted the 15-minute investigation video taken right after the shootings...

Okay. I wasn't going to editorialize about the video, but I can't help myself.

Most of us have already agreed that Mr. Horn simply talks too much for his own good, and has done so on several occasions...and continues to. I have a feeling that's just Joe. If you invite him over for BBQ, I'll bet he will talk freely about anything you choose...including this case. That he is giving media interviews makes me cringe.

You'll notice something else in the video that makes me cringe. This is a 15-minute-long police interview recorded about fours hours after the incident. The 911 call came in around 2:00 p.m., and the officer mentions seven minutes into the video that the time is 6:30 p.m. My guess is Joe has been talking loquaciously the whole time.

What's missing in this picture?

An attorney!

I certainly don't condone being uncooperative with law enforcement officers, but geez, Joe: you just shot two guys. Don't yammer for four hours and then even agree to give a video deposition without having an attorney with you!

When police are involved in a shooting, the first thing they do (at least in large metropolitan areas) is call their union, and the union has legal representation on the way to scene right away. LEOs respect the right to legal representation because it's what they need if they are ever forced to pull the trigger.

CHL holders need to learn a lesson from this, IMHO. In the event you ever have to move to the last resort and go to Cooper's Code Red, in the immediate aftermath do not say any more than you need to: it's not that you don't want to cooperate with the police; it's not that you have anything to hide; it's not that you're the bad guy. It's that you're jacked up on adrenaline and are under severe emotional stress, whether you realize it or not. At that time--minutes to hours after the incident--you cannot be your best witness or representative.

You need to do and say enough to convey to the responding officers that you're the good guy, and to--as Charles says--convert the static snapshot of the scene they first see into a mental movie that provides the officers with the essential information about what transpired. You need to be honest, genuine, and not frantic...to the extent possible. Do not let your mouth or actions turn any part of that mental movie bad.

Know when enough is enough. And then respectfully convey that you are absolutely willing to cooperate in every way possible, just as soon as you contact your lawyer and get his advice.

You will be shaken up. You will be trembling, your pupils will be dilated, and you may slur your speech or try to speak much faster than normal: recognize these are effects of the adrenaline pump and its aftermath. Recognize that your immediate perceptions of the incident are probably wrong: remember all you've heard about sensory exclusion, tunnel vision, time dilation, and remember all you've read about LEO shootings where they thought they fired four rounds and it turned out to have been twice that number. Recognize, in the moment, you may feel any emotion from elation to tragic sadness to actual physical illness. Recognize that your state of mind will change by the hour: what you recall and feel now is not the same as it will be one or two or 24 hours from now.

Check the Horn video: he clearly contradicts important evidence recorded in the 911 call. He uses a racial qualifier when first describing the men he saw at his neighbor's window. He is so hyped-up that he is answering "yes" to questions before the officer has completed his sentences. It would be an interesting study to try to pick out everything that Joe did wrong--as in being a poor witness for himself--based on this video.

This is the aspect of CHL responsibility where I think it so important to attend one of Charles Cotton's lectures on the ramifications of deadly force. Maybe there are others equally qualified to give that kind of presentation and include both legal and practical matters, but I don't know any.