J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

[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.

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.

Very good points. I do agree that it is up to each person to make this decision. I also agree that legally we have the right to stop a person from stealing our possessions. I believe each situation has to be judged on it's own merits. Like for instance the fellow who shot the guy who was mugging him a month or so back. If I remember correctly, that was in Houston. If in the same situation as this guy and my support to feed my family was in my pocket, I would probably shoot the BG too. My whole family could have been put through very hard times if the BG had of walked away. Recovering the loss would have been impossible. But in a case such as Joe Horn, I would not shoot the BG because the loss of a TV set or anything material is recoverable from the insurance company and my life and families lives or the neighbors lives, would not have been adversely impacted by my neighbors loss of a TV set for a few days.

[03Lightningrocks]

......SNIP........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.

Your right...I am talking about my personal moral code when I say it is wrong to kill over material possessions. Not being a lawyer, it is hard for me to distinguish between the two at times. I don't mean to pass judgment on someone else for a moral code when I state that I believe what they have done is wrong. Maybe that does have the tendency to make a person feel judged. It is something to think about for sure.

[57Coastie]

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.

Back to the very beginning of this thread -- the wording of the original question assumes something untrue -- that Joe Horn was acquitted -- as does the above quote. There is nothing in the record indicating that the grand jury decided that "it was justified." All the grand jury decided was that Joe Horn should not be indicted. If any single grand juror should announce to the world the reason why they did not indict Mr. Horn in their secret proceeding, that person would most likely find himself or herself in serious trouble.

Not to beat a dead horse, but repeating this type of thing just leads to further misunderstanding -- unnecessary misunderstanding. I submit that we have had enough misunderstanding already. The guilt or innocence of Mr. Horn has not been decided by a court of law, therefore, as it now stands, not having been convicted, he is innocent. Similarly, by the way, the two decedents are innocent of the crime of the burglary of Mr. Horn's neighbor's home. It works both ways.

With respect,

Jim

[stevie_d_64]

Ready for more misunderstanding...

I have heard that Shiela Jackson-Lee is stirring the pot of a Federal investigation into Harris County Judicial proceedings, the Harris County DA's office and the Sherrif's department...

Way to go Shiela!!! [/sarcasm]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 74193.html

[Crossfire]

You guys need to keep this on topic, and stop the personal attacks.

[03Lightningrocks]

Ready for more misunderstanding...

I have heard that Shiela Jackson-Lee is stirring the pot of a Federal investigation into Harris County Judicial proceedings, the Harris County DA's office and the Sherrif's department...

Way to go Shiela!!! [/sarcasm]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 74193.html

It looks like she is upset over several situations and she thinks this one may be the one that will get her some attention she can use to address her other issues.

[LedJedi]

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.

Back to the very beginning of this thread -- the wording of the original question assumes something untrue -- that Joe Horn was acquitted -- as does the above quote. There is nothing in the record indicating that the grand jury decided that "it was justified." All the grand jury decided was that Joe Horn should not be indicted. If any single grand juror should announce to the world the reason why they did not indict Mr. Horn in their secret proceeding, that person would most likely find himself or herself in serious trouble.

Not to beat a dead horse, but repeating this type of thing just leads to further misunderstanding -- unnecessary misunderstanding. I submit that we have had enough misunderstanding already. The guilt or innocence of Mr. Horn has not been decided by a court of law, therefore, as it now stands, not having been convicted, he is innocent. Similarly, by the way, the two decedents are innocent of the crime of the burglary of Mr. Horn's neighbor's home. It works both ways.

With respect,

Jim

good points man, good points indeed and i stand corrected.

In laymen's terms though to me it appears that a grand jury let him walk. To me that says those 12 folks thought it was justified enough to not even bring him to trial. I realize that may be different from the legal standing from it being a "justified shooting" but it comes to the same outcome. From my perspective it's splitting hairs. I'm glad it didn't come to trial. That's just further hassle for Mr. Horn to have to go through for what was at least in my opinion a completely legal and justified shooting.

[KBCraig]

I am a bit old fashioned about murder.

Not to mention, confused about the definition of the word.

[LedJedi]

I am a bit old fashioned about murder.

Not to mention, confused about the definition of the word.

ummm, actually i think lightning is technically correct here. I remember TXI once saying that even in a self defense shooting that if you kill someone you technically committed murder, however you have a positive defense against prosecution in that it's self defense.

where is that guy anyway? i sure miss the back and forth with him!

[KBCraig]

ummm, actually i think lightning is technically correct here. I remember TXI once saying that even in a self defense shooting that if you kill someone you technically committed murder, however you have a positive defense against prosecution in that it's self defense.

I think that must have been a discussion about homicide, not murder (homicide is often mistakenly used as a synonym for murder, when it's not).

The statutory definition of murder:
§ 19.02. MURDER.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;

In a self defense shooting, a person does not intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual. Death might be a likely and foreseeable outcome, but it's not the goal. The goal is to stop the other person from doing whatever justifies shooting them.

[LedJedi]

ummm, actually i think lightning is technically correct here. I remember TXI once saying that even in a self defense shooting that if you kill someone you technically committed murder, however you have a positive defense against prosecution in that it's self defense.

I think that must have been a discussion about homicide, not murder (homicide is often mistakenly used as a synonym for murder, when it's not).

The statutory definition of murder:
§ 19.02. MURDER.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;

In a self defense shooting, a person does not intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual. Death might be a likely and foreseeable outcome, but it's not the goal. The goal is to stop the other person from doing whatever justifies shooting them.

Ahh, you may be right. I'm not really an expert in such things, just parroting what I've heard before in a convincing tone :)

[SCone]

Exodus 22:2-3 KJV

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."
"If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

The "blood" being talked about here (for anyone without a Bible) is the sacrifice required to pay for the sin committed. Not for the theft, but for the killing of the thief. The Bible makes a huge difference in killing a thief in the night or during the day.

[boomerang]

The Bible makes a huge difference in killing a thief in the night or during the day.

The Bible also says the thief "shall be sold for his theft" if can't make restitution and restitution can be anything from double (Exodus 22:4) to five times (Exodus 22:1) what he stole.

Some people who follow the Koran quote Sura 5:38 to say a thief's hand should be cut off.

[LedJedi]

The Bible makes a huge difference in killing a thief in the night or during the day.

The Bible also says the thief "shall be sold for his theft" if can't make restitution and restitution can be anything from double (Exodus 22:4) to five times (Exodus 22:1) what he stole.

Some people who follow the Koran quote Sura 5:38 to say a thief's hand should be cut off.

I thought we weren't supposed to go there on this forum? do you REALLY want me to bust out with the reincarnation logic and druidic philosophies? :)

[03Lightningrocks]

ummm, actually i think lightning is technically correct here. I remember TXI once saying that even in a self defense shooting that if you kill someone you technically committed murder, however you have a positive defense against prosecution in that it's self defense.

I think that must have been a discussion about homicide, not murder (homicide is often mistakenly used as a synonym for murder, when it's not).

The statutory definition of murder:
§ 19.02. MURDER.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;

In a self defense shooting, a person does not intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual. Death might be a likely and foreseeable outcome, but it's not the goal. The goal is to stop the other person from doing whatever justifies shooting them.

This has not yet been ruled a self defense shooting. It was no billed by the grand jury.. I am not convinced that self defense would be the verdict if thisd case went to trial.