Re: Joe Horn Cleared by Grand Jury in shootings

"Herbert Cannon" <hcannon18@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XnOak.12398$rH1.500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Summary execution is what it is. You make China look like a wussy
democracy.

Nah, China shoots a lot more criminals.

Would that have anything to do with it having four times the population?
Hmmm...

Yeah; but, I bet they still beat us on a per capita basis.

You guess. Hmmm...

Damn I hate not being first in everything.

Yeah, you'd be first in line if they were handing out *** sandwiches.

They gonna make sandwhiches out of your brain and hand them out?

Actually, they wanted to make the filling from your brain, but they thought
it would be too much trouble to have to send up a rocket to pluck it out of
geostationary orbit.

Anyhow, shooting in the back is always despised by anyone with any
moral standard.

Always cheat always win. I suppose you are going to tell them to pull
out their gun and take the first shot at you, moron.

That's a lame excuse. You can't lawfully kill someone because they might
have a gun

Oh yes you can.

The laws are somewhat different, outside of your padded cell.

and that they might try to shoot you with the gun which you
supposed them to have.

Oh yes you can.

Did the voices tell you that?

These two poor bastards might have been driven to burglary by hunger.
They wouldn't have to steal if you really have a society with a heart,
instead of just a group of heartless bastards.

Driven to burglary by hunger.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Yeah, you moron, their hands were just loaded with food when they were
caught. Two illegals with a long criminal records.

Of course he knew all that. Maybe you should lobby for a three strikes
and you're out cold on a slab law.

That would either cut crime or save a lot of money woudnt it.

It seems a bit excessive. We used to have laws like that, where you could
get hung for stealing a loaf of bread. As an aside, the reason that hanging
was finally abolished was that it caused too much traffic congestion. At
least that's what I heard. It didn't stop people from stealing.

That is what we call hardened criminals down here. Sorry, Dumbo, people
get tired of being victims because of feel good idiots like you
defending criminals.

The ruling looks like an incorrect interpretation of the law.

The ruling is a very correct interpretation of the law. 1. Texas passed a
law that said you could use lethal force to stop someone from stealing
your property ( most states dont have that law).

It wasn't his property.

2. He ordered them to stop and told them if they moved they were dead.

That shows premeditation.

3. They started moving - at that moment he was safe to assume his life was
at risk ( the old action beats reaction thing - I will give you a shotgun
and let you point at me and turn my back on you- If I have a gun in my
hand I can spin and put three bullets in you before you can even think
about pulling the trigger even though you already have the drop on me).
They should have frozen when he told them to.

All of that is bull***. He was in no fear for his life; he decided he'd
very likely kill them before he confronted them.

4. They were criminals caught in a criminal act. They got themselves
killed - no one else did it to them.

It still wasn't a lawful act.

The reason so many innocents get hurt is they dont realize that when they
confront evil intent they must act really fast and not go into denial. Joe
Horn acted.

I thought of asking you which law you were referring to, but I concluded
that it would be beyond you.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.42.00

TEXAS PENAL CODE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 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
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 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
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(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
(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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, relating to this case,

(A) You can use reasonable force to protect your own property;
(B) You can use deadly force reasonably to protect your own property, if the
thief is in the process of committing theft or is in the process of making
his escape, having commited the theft *at night*;
(C) You can use deadly force to protect a neighbour's property if the
aforementioned conditions are met for your neighbour's property, as if it
were yours, if:

"(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."

This action under discussion has no legal defense that I can see.

My foray also turned up this interesting titbit, painstakingly written with
Bubba's own hand:

"§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency."

Basically, if you encounter someone trying to commit suicide in an
emergency, you have the right to kill them in order to prevent them from
taking their own life. Hmm...

That is why Texas passed a law that said you could use lethal force
against property theft.

The Castle Law doesn't give one the immunity to execute a burglar
escaping down the road with your property.

This has nothing to do with the castle law. That is for someone breaking
into or already in your house. Texas has passed a much more stringent law
on burglary than any other state. It shows they are fed up. Ordinarily you
are not allowed to shoot someone stealing property unless they are in your
house ( that is the castle law).

It was empathy, not the law which protected this yahoo.

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"


.