A win for the good guys

[IDBillzFan]

And a jury has never been wrong before.

So this jury was wrong? And you know this how? Because you disagree with the verdict?

[eball]

So this jury was wrong? And you know this how? Because you disagree with the verdict?

First of all, there was no verdict. A grand jury is called to determine if an indictment will come down; i.e., will the person be charged with a crime. Semantics aside, there's a little something called "jury nullification" that stands for the proposition that a jury may know exactly what the law is, and how to apply it, yet decide to do the opposite as a way of expressing disagreement with the law. It's entirely possible this particular grand jury made a conscious decision that they were not going to return an indictment on one of "their own" who shot a couple of "foreigners" robbing a U.S. citizen. We are talking about Texas, right?

 

I do NOT know all of the facts and have not taken the time to read or listen to everything, so I can't make a truly informed judgment -- all I'm saying is that it smells real bad on its face.

[IDBillzFan]

all I'm saying is that it smells real bad on its face.

It only smells bad if you disagree with the action/inaction of the grand jury, and think a person should not be able to shoot at people who are clearly trespassing on his/her property.

 

Apparently I'm the only one who doesn't see what the problem is.

[erynthered]

It only smells bad if you disagree with the action/inaction of the grand jury, and think a person should not be able to shoot at people who are clearly trespassing on his/her property.

 

Apparently I'm the only one who doesn't see what the problem is.

 

Nope. You're not the only one.

[Buftex]

It only smells bad if you disagree with the action/inaction of the grand jury, and think a person should not be able to shoot at people who are clearly trespassing on his/her property.

 

Apparently I'm the only one who doesn't see what the problem is.

 

 

This is a dicey one. I think I heard somewhere, that there had been a few robberies in the neghborhood since late last year, which may have added to Hornes' fears.

 

Acccording to CNN last night, Horn actually shot the guys, while there were police officers on the scene were...at some point after he fires the gun, the operator tells Horne to "put the gun down Mr Horn, there are police officers there, we don't want you shooting one of them"...I guess there are a lot of experts here, I won't pretend to be one. But, I always thought the right to defend your property with death, was only extended in cases where you are being threatened. It sounds, from the reports, that these guys, while they may have stepped on Horns property, were in no way threatening him, or his property. It sure sounds, on the tapes, that Joe Horne was somebody who was just itching for an excuse to kill someone...he got his excuse. Good for him, he got what he wanted.

 

Ultimately you are right, it comes down how you feel about the grand jury decision. Personally, I think Horn got away with something here. But we all know, the right to bear arms, no matter how unequipped you are to make good jusdgement, is more important than anything. I do give Horn credit though, when he expressed "I am no hero".

[Buftex]

I don't own a gun for two reasons: first, I have a 3 1/2-year-old in my house and I prefer not to taunt life in that manner, but second, I'm fairly certain if I saw someone robbing any of my neighbors' houses, I'm not so sure I wouldn't be shooting at the !@#$ers, yelling "You're dead!!!" at the top of my lungs.

 

Let me make sure I get this right: two guys have come into our country illegally and have decided to rob us, they trespass on a guy's yard in the process, the guy shoots them both while they're on his property, but there's an ISSUE here? What if this was a kid stealing a stereo? A !@#$ING STEREO????

 

!@#$. !@#$. !@#$. Obama is going to win this election. I had no idea there were that many pussies in this world.

 

 

You surprise me somtimes!

 

There is a big difference between yelling "you're dead" and actually killing someone. Your argument is all over the place on this...you don't have a gun because you have a 3 1/2 year old and you prefer not to taunt life in this manner (does that make you a pussi?), you would yell "you're dead", but not kill anyone (pussi?)....you argue that there is really no issue here, but then say "what if this was a kid stealing a stereo?" What if? Does that mean that you would feel justified in killiing the kid who is stealing the stereo, or are you pointing out that a human life, no matter how reprehensible the human may be, is worth more than a stereo? You don't make any sense...

 

!@#$. !@#$. !@#$. McCain is going to win this election. I had no idea there were so many confused pussi conservatives in this world!

[ieatcrayonz]

Look, I don't want to see anyone dead but these guys came over our border, stole someones stuff and then threatened a dude that was calling them out. I hate to say it but maybe of a few more Latin American and Canadian illegals got this treatment when they acted up, we wouldn't have a need for a border fence.

[BigAL]

You're embellishing assumptions to make your point and you really need to leave that kind of thinking to VABills and his Losman discussions.

 

Seriously, you state "if someone is stealing something from my neighbors house and I have 911 on the phone, I should just go shoot them."

 

That's not what happened. According to his attorney, "he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him." End of discussion. If they came into his yard and threatened him, as a jury of his peers decided, then everything else is just a waste of a discussion. He protected his family, his property and his own self regardless of where on their bodies they were shot.

 

You can make all the assumptions that you want, such as "Weird how he shot them both in the back," but exactly what did the jury know that you don't know? Which direction were they headed when they were shot in the back? If it was so clearly murder, again, I ask, what do you know that the juror's didn't know?

 

While you were listening to the 911 tapes, did you read the DA's comments as well?

Although, by state law, I cannot discuss the actual proceedings in the grand jury, I can tell you that the grand jury conducted a thorough review of the evidence and testimony. They considered the relevant criminal statutes in Texas, including those pertaining to homicide, use of deadly force, self-defense, and defense of property. In short, before making their decision, they were as well-informed on the facts and circumstances of this case as any deliberative body could be.

 

Again, what came out the grand jury proceedings that you are not aware of? Or alternately, what do you know about the case that was not presented by the DA?

 

They trespassed. He shot them. Jury agreed. End of story.

It's freaking Texas where they have exonerated more people on death row than any other state. If the dead guys had been white, and Joe Horn any other color, I doubt the grand jury outcome would have been the same.

[shrader]

So this jury was wrong? And you know this how? Because you disagree with the verdict?

 

You're post seemed to imply the exact opposite, that the decision was made, so it must be right. I've heard these tapes several times now and it almost sounds like there's an excitement in his voice, a "yes, I get to go do something" tone. Whether or not the actions were justified, in my opinion, hearing that tone takes things to a whole new level. Maybe it wasn't anything illegal, but its wasn't the right thing to do.

[stevestojan]

You're embellishing assumptions to make your point and you really need to leave that kind of thinking to VABills and his Losman discussions.

 

Seriously, you state "if someone is stealing something from my neighbors house and I have 911 on the phone, I should just go shoot them."

 

That's not what happened. According to his attorney, "he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him." End of discussion. If they came into his yard and threatened him, as a jury of his peers decided, then everything else is just a waste of a discussion. He protected his family, his property and his own self regardless of where on their bodies they were shot.

 

You can make all the assumptions that you want, such as "Weird how he shot them both in the back," but exactly what did the jury know that you don't know? Which direction were they headed when they were shot in the back? If it was so clearly murder, again, I ask, what do you know that the juror's didn't know?

 

While you were listening to the 911 tapes, did you read the DA's comments as well?

Although, by state law, I cannot discuss the actual proceedings in the grand jury, I can tell you that the grand jury conducted a thorough review of the evidence and testimony. They considered the relevant criminal statutes in Texas, including those pertaining to homicide, use of deadly force, self-defense, and defense of property. In short, before making their decision, they were as well-informed on the facts and circumstances of this case as any deliberative body could be.

 

Again, what came out the grand jury proceedings that you are not aware of? Or alternately, what do you know about the case that was not presented by the DA?

 

They trespassed. He shot them. Jury agreed. End of story.

 

If the guy had stayed in his house, like the dispatcher told him to do THIRTEEN TIMES, someone's stuff would have gotten stolen and perhaps the police would have caught them since they were on the way.

 

If these people attempted to break into HIS house, shoot the sh-- out of them, no problem there.

 

The fact that they are illegal immigrants doesn't mean a some hillbilly gets to finally live out his fantasy of shooting some illegals.

 

The jury decided not to indigt him? WOW HE MUST BE INNOCENT. Twelve people who were too stupid to talk their way out of jury duty, all people from Texas, decided not to pursue a good ol' boy that shot some illegals? SHOCKING!

 

Listen to the tape. Listen to it again. Then tell me this guy "feared for his life" as he said in an interview. I am not being a prick here. I am really asking that you listen to the entire tape and tell me this guy was justified.

 

Some excerpts from the 911 tape:

Dispatcher: Don’t, don’t — don’t go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?

Horn: They just stole something. I’m going after them, I’m sorry.

Dispatcher: Don’t go outside.

Horn: I ain’t letting them get away with this s--t. They stole something. They got a bag of something.

 

Yeah, really sounds like he is fearing for his life...

 

Dispatcher: Don’t go outside the house.

Horn: I’m doing this.

Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.

Horn: I’m sorry. This ain’t right, buddy.

Dispatcher: You’re going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don’t care what you think.

Horn: You want to make a bet?

Dispatcher: OK? Stay in the house.

Horn: They’re getting away!

 

They're getting away??? Holy crap, he must have been REALLY scared for his life at that point. How can anyone say that it is justified to leave your house to shoot and kill two people who stole property and are GETTING AWAY!

 

But you make a point. Jury's have a perfect track record...

[PromoTheRobot]

It's freaking Texas where they have exonerated more people on death row than any other state. If the dead guys had been white, and Joe Horn any other color, I doubt the grand jury outcome would have been the same.

No matter how you stand on gun rights, there's no question Joe couldn't wait to kill him a "colored." He's guilty of murder. But his fellow rednecks are letting him walk. If Joe was black and he shot white people, he'd be swingin' from a tree by now. But that's Texas.

 

PTR

[D_House]

Article with audio from 911 calls (right side of the page)

[Buftex]

No matter how you stand on gun rights, there's no question Joe couldn't wait to kill him a "colored." He's guilty of murder. But his fellow rednecks are letting him walk. If Joe was black and he shot white people, he'd be swingin' from a tree by now. But that's Texas.

 

PTR

 

 

But, but, but they were illeagals!!!! They don't count!

 

By that logic, we shouldn't be getting our panties in a wad when an American citizen goes oversees, breaks a law, and gets locked away for life...

[eball]

It only smells bad if you disagree with the action/inaction of the grand jury, and think a person should not be able to shoot at people who are clearly trespassing on his/her property.

 

Apparently I'm the only one who doesn't see what the problem is.

The problem is as simple as this: property is not equal to life. You have the right to use deadly force when you have a REASONABLE FEAR your life is in jeopardy. "They stole something and they're getting away" doesn't sound to me like it fits that scenario.

[SilverNRed]

No matter how you stand on gun rights, there's no question Joe couldn't wait to kill him a "colored." He's guilty of murder. But his fellow rednecks are letting him walk. If Joe was black and he shot white people, he'd be swingin' from a tree by now. But that's Texas.

 

PTR

There's "no question" he "couldn't wait" to kill a non-white person?? Really? That's incredible that you're 100% certain that that was his intention.

 

I love how no one acknowledges just how frightening it must be to be a senior citizen living in a neighborhood where two men can break into a home in the middle of the day and the police, even if they're alerted, can't do anything about it. Of course that's scary! Imagine if they'd picked his house.

 

I also really appreciate the outpouring of support for two criminals, a couple of parasites who preyed on honest people. Once you're breaking and entering into people's homes, I really don't care if you end up dead. What if it was a college kid? Also don't care.

[KD in CA]

I could give a flying f*^k who said what on the 911 call. Sometimes the ends justifies the means, and did it ever in this case. I will never understand people who think all humans should be valued equally. He didn't shoot a child or some honest guy hard at work or some grandmother. He shot two pieces of lower-than-animal filth so low I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. And there is no reason to say it would be the same situation if it was two kids stealing a candy bar from the five and dime. Different situations have different standards of acceptable response. And Mr. Horn was dead on, in his shooting and his judgment.

 

 

 

But, but, but they were illeagals!!!! They don't count!

If they are here to work hard? No. If they are here to be career criminals, you bet your ass.

 

By that logic, we shouldn't be getting our panties in a wad when an American citizen goes oversees, breaks a law, and gets locked away for life...

And I don't. Lori Berenson can rot in hell and her Peruvian jail cell.

[Buftex]

There's "no question" he "couldn't wait" to kill a non-white person?? Really? That's incredible that you're 100% certain that that was his intention.

 

I love how no one acknowledges just how frightening it must be to be a senior citizen living in a neighborhood where two men can break into a home in the middle of the day and the police, even if they're alerted, can't do anything about it. Of course that's scary! Imagine if they'd picked his house.

 

I also really appreciate the outpouring of support for two criminals, a couple of parasites who preyed on honest people. Once you're breaking and entering into people's homes, I really don't care if you end up dead. What if it was a college kid? Also don't care.

 

 

I guess you can draw conclusions from their actions, so why can't people draw conclusions from Horns' actions? You know with 100% cetainty that the house these "two parasites" were robbing was the home of honest people? What if the homeowners were serial killers, or child molesters? Does it matter? Take it one step further, what if the illeagals were robbing the home of other illeagels? Should Mr Horn take it upon himself to kill the homeowners too? Should every person who owns a gun be able to dole out justice as they see fit?

[SilverNRed]

I guess you can draw conclusions from their actions, so why can't people draw conclusions from Horns' actions? You know with 100% cetainty that the house these "two parasites" were robbing was the home of honest people? Does it matter? Thanks, glad to know that double standards still exist!

If your means of survival is breaking and entering into people's homes, then you're a parasite. Good luck finding comfort in the thought that the people whose homes are being violated might not be "honest." What would you say is dishonest about them? That they were lucky enough not to be home when the criminals broke in?

 

We do know with 100% certainty that Joe Horn shot two men and that those two men were criminals who were breaking into someone's home to steal from them. That information is 100% certain. Saying that Joe Horn is just some racist who "couldn't wait" to kill a brown-skinned person and calling that 100% certain is complete nonsense.

[Buftex]

I could give a flying f*^k who said what on the 911 call. Sometimes the ends justifies the means, and did it ever in this case. I will never understand people who think all humans should be valued equally. He didn't shoot a child or some honest guy hard at work or some grandmother. He shot two pieces of lower-than-animal filth so low I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. And there is no reason to say it would be the same situation if it was two kids stealing a candy bar from the five and dime. Different situations have different standards of acceptable response. And Mr. Horn was dead on, in his shooting and his judgment.

 

So, intent is not important to you? There is no level of crime that an illeagel could committ, that wouldn't justify death? KD, what happened to you in CT?

[KD in CA]

So, intent is not important to you? There is no level of crime that an illeagel could committ, that wouldn't justify death? KD, what happened to you in CT?

 

That's not what I said. I have no problem with illegals jaywalking. And I have no problem with any career criminal, illegal or not, catching a bullet in the back.

 

The 'burglary doesn't justify death' argument just doesn't hold water. The accumulated net contribution/detraction to/from society by these filth deserved death, and that's what they got. Sometimes you gotta step back and just ask if justice was served. I can recall few cases where the answer was so clearly a 'yes'.

 

 

I'm guess I'm just a sucker for true justice....