Texas Joe Horn: "Law-Abiding", Backshooting, Self-defense Expert

[rdenney]

Perfect Example of the American Gun Nutters Idea of "Self-Defense" with a gun:

Click on the links, listen to it, watch it, read it and weep, Dave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc&feature=related

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

http://rackjite.com/archives/908-Local-Pasadena,-Texas-Hero-Joe-Horn-Kills-2-Unarmed-Hispanics.html

http://rackjite.com/archives/987-Dec-8-Update-Texas-Hero-Joe-Horn-Shoots-2-Unarmed-Black-Men-in-the-Back.html

[virginia mountainman]

1. Your point IS???

So, what about the rest of the 9 MILLION gun owners, who did nothing wrong??

[rdenney]

3. This is calling someone here, who thought I made things up, on his bluff.

Damn straight its homicide, but read the responses by some of these backwoods knuckle dragger's
who think Joe Horn did the world a favor, by back-shooting two unarmed daylight burglars.

[high_and_mighty]

6. Even self defense is homicide.

Homicide is when one person kills another regardless of the circumstances. Murder is without just cause and self defense is with a reasonable justification. In Texas you are allowed to defend your property with deadly force. Wasn't his property but if those two men hadn't decided to rob someones house they would still be here. I don't believe he was charged with anything. So I'm guessing the DA didn't think his actions were unreasonable in that situation.

I don't believe he should be lauded as a hero though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. This is what you posted.

Problem is shooting people in the back running away isnt self-defence.
but "law abiding citizen" do it all the time.

You'll notice that you said "law abiding citizens do it all the time".


To which I responded, "Surely you have something to back this idiotic statement up". The idiotic statement was that law abiding citizens do it all the time. So I'm still waiting for you to back up that idiotic statement.

This is what I responded wtih to your post about Joe Horn, "So one case is law abiding gun owners doing it all the time.
So again a shred of evidence that law abiding gun owners shoot people who are fleeing the scene of a crime all the time. If it happens as frequently as you state it shouldn't be hard to come up with say an occurence a week, that should keep down the work load, since you've obviously got thousands of cases to sift through."


Sounds like you better get busy. Especially if all you came up with was one case in the last 7 months.

David

[rdenney]

20. Is that like your wacko Lott gun "study" that claims 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, Dave?

You can claim that all you want, but you gun nuts are still out of touch with reality, no matter what.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. So I am guessing you can't support your claim.

I don't think I've ever referenced the study you are speaking of. If you can point to where I have claimed that then I won't call you a liar. I have no idea how many defensive gun uses there are per year. I have seen other people make that claim on DU, I would think that most defensive gun uses, where shots aren't fired, aren't ever reported to the police so the numbers would be difficult to prove.


David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. You really do need some lessons from Iverglas.

You keep getting smacked down here, it's time to change up the game plan.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Still waiting it's just been a week.

Having trouble finding examples huh?

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. I'm guessing by your complete lack of response you have conceded total defeat.

[solinvictus]

45. You know what...

..about 8 years back, my wife was out of state and I was tying up lose ends at the old apartment. A young woman (around 20 I'd guess) moved in next door with her baby and she had ex-boyfriend/husband/whatever issues. He periodically came over at all hours, banged on her door and yelled obscenities at her through the door. She always appeared nervous and looked over her shoulder just walking from the parking lot to her door. Again, I heard the through-the-door fights and even called the police at one point. It took them around 45 minutes to show up and all they did was write the incident up.
A few days after that, he came back around 1-2AM with a car load of friends. They were all rowdy and came to her door, banging and yelling as usual. I'd had enough myself, so I picked up my Ruger Mini-14, loaded a magazine, chambered a round, and put on the safety of the rifle. They were banging on the door, so I walked outside, rifle at port arms(look it up) with my finger on the trigger guard. I shined a flashlight at the guys and made it clear they saw the rifle. I then asked if there was a problem and they promptly turned as meek as kittens and left.
The point being my neighbor was grateful I was there and armed because she feared for her safety. You know what a restraining order is? It's paper. Paper doesn't work unless the authorities provide 24/7/365 protection. She moved out soon after and I hope the jackass never found her.

[iverglas]

55. one down

2,499,999 to go.

Of course, we'll never know whether, if you'd opened the door with a flashlight in one hand and a telephone in the other and asked the same question, what would have happened, will we?

And I guess we actually don't know what happened to her after you weren't around ...

Just curious. Did you give a statement to police about any of these incidents?

[Tejas]

57. prevents possible harm to a defenseless female and you spew hate n/t

edit defensless = defenseless

[solinvictus]

63. Police didn't give two craps...

..yep, they took my statement, shook their heads, and went about their business. Do you have some sort of telephone gun that you carry? That'd be the only way a telephone would do you any good. In the area I lived, I called emergency response when a carload of local thug-lifers shot up a convenience store. It took 45 minutes for a patrol car to arrive; even with me informing the operator that: 1)shots were fired into the store and 2) I had no idea if anyone was inside at that time.

For the record, after witnessing the convenience store shooting from my porch, I started keeping a loaded SKS carbine near me at all times. Why? Because I may have needed it.

What happened to her afterwards? No idea, but that time, no harm came to her. That's the point.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Just 10 days now, are there really that few examples.

[Longtooth]

28. Um, excuse me, they were shot in the chest. Not in the back.

Yes both are the upper torso but clearly different. Just though you should know.

[pipoman]

38. Exactly what article are you reading?

Please show where this line is true..it is either true or false, which is it?

"by back-shooting two unarmed daylight burglars."

I think we all know the answer, you are lying about this to bolster your story just like all of the other Berkley/NY gun grabbing nut cases. Can't win people to your way of thinking by telling the truth so you choose to drive people away from your position by lying and insulting their intelligence.

[solinvictus]

59. He did...

... yep, we are a nation of laws, but law and justice are often two very different animals. If more criminals were shot in the commission of the crime, there'd be less criminals because of the increased possibility that they would lose their lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA


What do the criminals fear? An armed response; pure and simple. If you wish to be unarmed in the face of criminals, that's fine and I sincerely hope you never have to regret that position. However, in my view, a gun is simply a tool; like a hammer, kitchen knife, or an axe.

[Tejas]

8. maybe that all knuckle-dragging gun-bubbas are racist?

To put it mildly, hints of racism is the main thrust in rdenney's rakjite link.

[rdenney]

21. Absolutely! If this had been a minority gun-owner shooting two White burglars, it would have been a

very different outcome. But blast two non-Whites in Texas, and thats "A-OK" with the
all the White numbskull's who own a gun in Texas.

[Tejas]

22. and that outcome would've been?

rdenney
(343 posts)
Thu Jun-12-08 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #8

21.

Absolutely! If this had been a minority gun-owner shooting two White burglars, it would have been a
very different outcome. But blast two non-Whites in Texas, and thats "A-OK" with the
all the White numbskull's who own a gun in Texas.

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


Really, don't hold back, you're on a roll, let's hear your version.

[rdenney]

24. Texas "justice" would demand that a non-white be charged with murder, of course.

cant have non-whites shooting good old boys, even if they are thieves, right? "Hang em high, yee-haw, this here is Texas where we got our own ways of doing things down here, Yankees."

[maxidivine]

25. Where does it say the race of the deceased?

Not sure I caught that, and he didn't shoot anyone for fun, he shot them because there had been burglaries lately and hs neighbor was being burgled. Texas state law allows for lethal force to be used to protect property, putting the onus on the criminal to not do that anymore. I think it is a wonderful deterrent, codifying that if you are killed while attempting to steal countless hours of someone else's hard work that maybe you should not have been stealing from them. I don't see any reason to molly-coddle our burglars and thieves, if someone wants to invade another's home and steal what they have worked their whole life to acquire, good riddance. Society is far better off without them, and after some high profile cases like Horns' maybe most of the little bastards will quit putting people in those sorts of situations.

Good job Mr. Horn, you are a fine neighbor and I have no doubt you would not let a Kitty Genovese happen in front of you. To the families of the deceased, too bad your loved ones did not value the short time we have on this planet enough to not give up their lives.

Oh and as far as racism goes, Mr. Horns neighbors were Chinese or Korean. Real anti-minority huh?

[rdenney]

31. You cant read? They were legal hispanic immigrants or Mexicans as they are called down in the land

of the rope and the gun.

Excerpt from the news article-

"Hispanics legal immigrants - Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30 - were leaving, Horn shot them three times in the chest from a distance of 15 feet, needless to say the two died on the spot. Wow, 15 feet with a 12 gauge! Dead-eye Joe."

As far as your notions about stealing someones' hard work, I don't agree with theft of any kind, even if its covered by the homeowners insurance as this was, but that isn't what this debate was about, now was it?

No, it was about Joe Horn deciding, despite all the good advice that the 911 operator gave him NOT to take the law into his own hands and NOT to go outside with a gun and kill two men who were no threat to him at any time during this event.

One thing I will say as well, is that if I and my children have lived in that neighborhood and this Joe Horn miscreant did this, I would be glad to be on a jury to put him away for a long, LONG time.

He could have easily missed and shot someone in the area, besides these two dead men, and I can assure you, had that been my children he had shot, Mr. Horn would be somewhere very unpleasant right now.

Actions _have_ consequences, in states other then Texas at least, and had this self-deciding killer of men been living where I do, he would be behind bars, where he most assuredly belongs.

P.S.: His neighbor's race has nothing to do with this at all. Mr. Horn clearly decided over the phone to become judge, jury and executioner of these two men, well beforehand and despite ALL the warnings, in speaking with the 911 operator.

[maxidivine]

32. I was under the impression he shot them with a 1911 in .45ACP N/T

[rdenney]

43. 12 Gauge shotgun. Once again we see that their is no reason to allow most people to own guns....

hell, they cant even read and comprehend, as it is!

[maxidivine]

48. Far cry from our perfectly polite PM conversation a few weeks ago

WTF Rdenney, I was under the impression that the hate-speech stopped with you after an amicable introduction? Well I guess I'm going to get right back to slamming your posts then.

See you around.

[Longtooth]

13. deleted

put in wrong place

[krispos42]

2. This got discussed pretty extensively when it happend seven months ago

I believe the general cocensus was that it was not legitimate self-defense. And if it's not legitimate self-defense, it's some form of homicide, probably second-degree.

[rdenney]

4. Thats correct, but that's not what most gun-nuts are saying: They think it was a "good shoot".

:puke:

[krispos42]

5. You mean the locals in that Texas community think that

The law will most likely say otherwise.


While I don't really have a problem in general with intruders being shot by their intended victims (after all, they tend to be career criminals that are willing to bet their lives for illegal material gain, putting innocent people in danger and sometimes even PTSD in the process), the fact is that even under the relatively permissive Texas laws this was not a legit shooting in defense of life or property. I don't want people doing what he did. Despite the pretty obvious guilt of the parties involved, our goal as a law-abiding nation is to get the accused into a courthouse, not a body bag.

[WWFZD]

7. Who are you conversing with and where have you

encountered any "gun nuts" who think that was a "good shoot".
I don't know anyone, gun owner or other, who thinks that Joe Horn's actions were anything other than unjustified vigilantism. My anecdotal evidence trumps yours, vomiting emoticons not withstanding.
Maybe you should either tell the truth or associate with better people.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Only in Texas.

Here in WA, this guy would be explaining himself in front of a grand jury.

Gotta say the timing on the arrival of the police officers was somewhat ironic.

[rdenney]

19. He would be in prison on first degree murder charges here. He planned to kill these men and told the

911 operator that he was going to shoot them. Thats premeditation up here, which means first degree murder charges would be brought forth.

Now I know why I stay away from the South, particularly Texas.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I don't think it's as clear cut as that.

If he went outside, and they were on HIS property, which it sounds very much like they were, and one had a crowbar, with a good defense team, he could probably work that into a self defense case.

IIRC, he said 'I'm going to stop them', not 'I'm going to shoot them'.
Though it did sound like he kept firing as one ran away.


I think a trial would be messy, but he might come out with no prison time, depending on the state, and quite a few other factors.

[rdenney]

46. Might be messy in TX but up here he would be behind bars, no doubt about it.

but then I live in a civilized NE state where we know what to do with murders.

[maxidivine]

49. We sure do

release em 44 years early so they can murder a law enforcement officer. Brilliant.

[solinvictus]

58. Yep...

..leave the rest of us in fly-over country alone, then. At least you're not SMUG about your views.

[solinvictus]

62. What do you do with murders?

I'd like to know. Please, enlighten the rest of us bitter hicks in flyover country.

[Tejas]

9. rdenney, I have a point for you

There's a pesky little fact that just won't go away, a detective witnessed the perps in Horn's front yard.

Your selective links don't seem to mention that.

[slackmaster]

10. Perfect example of stereotyping, painting with an overly broad brush

Makes about as much sense as saying Fred Phelps speaks for everyone who lives in Kansas.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. You said gun owners do it all the time, that's what the dispute was about.

Not a gun owner doing it once. Not a few gun owners doing rarely. Your idiotic statement was that gun owners do it all the time. That's what you were supposed to be backing up. If you would choose your words more carefully and quit responding with raw emotion you actually might put together a cogent thought.

David

[Longtooth]

14. The man is a good citizen. He broke no law in his actions.

Wish he lived next to me.

[politicalcamper]

17. Yes, he did break the law

Not only did he break the law, he also broke one of the most valued freedoms of our country. The law says you may kill people to defend your property. He admits that he was not defending his property, so was breaking the law by committing murder. Also, against the argument that the people were breaking the law so deserved it, he does not have the right to give anyone the death penalty, that is reserved for our courts. As an American, I value the fact that me and my countrymen are supposed to be allowed a court hearing before we get executed for stealing. I don't know if you don't care about this right or what, but most Americans do and it would be nice if our government actually protected it.

[Longtooth]

18. He broke no law. The law in Texas changed recently.

What he did was legal and I wish he was living next to me.

[politicalcamper]

42. Could I have some proof?

The articles I read said he was not allowed to defend his neighbor's property with deadly force. I'm not saying you're lying, just that I can't trust the internet.

[maxidivine]

26. He didn't give anyone the "death penalty"

he prevented them from stealing the livelihood of his neighbors. An execution is typically something that happens some time after the event in question, not during it. If a police officer shoots a bank robber, did he "execute" the bank robber for stealing, or did he use neccessary force to prevent a felony in motion?

[politicalcamper]

40. Police officer's can't shoot to kill robbers

unless the robber is threatening the life of someone.

[maxidivine]

50. My point was that stopping a crime in progress

Is not a "vigilante" action, wether or not the response is over the top. It is not vigilante to stop someone from robbing your neighbors house, even if you go above and beyond the acceptable level of force, which he didn't, since no one was home and Texas does allow for lethal force to be used to protect property. For an action to be vigilante, the person out to get the criminals in question has to actually go looking for them, with intent to stop them from doing criminal stuff, not be sitting at home on the phone while 911 tells him to wait for assistance.

[Tejas]

56. that is absolute BS

Police officer's can't shoot to kill robbers unless the robber is threatening the life of someone.


An officer of the law can indeed shoot a fleeing robber, and not just per your scenario.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. No.

We have a very narrow picture of what happened when he went out the door of his home. According to the article, one of the officers saw one of the thieves on his property, and indicated that's where one body was found.

I think it's a bad situation all around, but a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions based on the audio. There is no law compelling him to stay in his house, that I am aware of in Texas. (However I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV) If he went out his front door, and one of the suspects was a few feet away with a crowbar, this could end up being ruled a straight up self-defense case. I think that's probably being generous, but it's within the realm of possiblity.

Also, he was asked to watch that property while the owner was away, I am not familiar with Texas law, but that may allow him the same rights as the actual owner. (again I think it's immoral to shoot people over property, BUT, if it's legal, I have no grounds to complain, I don't even live in Texas)

[Longtooth]

35. You are Correct

The 911 operator has NO authority to give ANY orders to the caller. It does not matter how many times the operator said to stay in the house because the operator doesn't have that authority.

[politicalcamper]

41. Texas law

According to one of the articles he was only allowed to defend his own property with deadly force, not his neighbor's. If someone was coming at him with a crowbar however, I agree with you.

[Tejas]

53. You keep using the same INCORRECT information.

He did not fire the weapon to "defend his neighbor's property", he started firing at the perps while they were on HIS PROPERTY to protect his life.

[benEzra]

15. That's no different than saying that the officers who shot up Sean Bell's wedding party...

Texas Joe Horn: "Law-Abiding", Backshooting, Self-defense Expert

Perfect Example of the American Gun Nutters Idea of "Self-Defense" with a gun

That's no different than saying that the officers who shot up Sean Bell's wedding party are representative of what ALL police officers do, which is not the case.

BTW, the general criteria that must be met for a homicide to be ruled justifiable are very similar in every state. The best phrasing I have found so far is in Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4, but these same criteria would apply in pretty much every state.

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable (there is an exception for someone kicking your door in, but we'll get to that in a minute). A handful of states used to add a FIFTH criterion to the list above, that of running away from the imminent lethal threat before turning to defend yourself (and hoping the attacker doesn't kill you while your back is turned). Florida was one of those states, and recently eliminated it; most states have never had such a provision to start with. These are the criteria that govern self-defense with a gun. Whether Mr. Horn's actions measure up to those standards or not is the question, rather than what the standards actually are.

Note that "reasonable belief" does *NOT* mean merely "feeling threatened" as the Brady Campaign would have you believe; the phrase is a legal term, and its definition in the context of self-defense law is that in paragraph (b) above--i.e., that "the facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault." Merely "feeling threatened" isn't reasonable belief; the belief has to be objectively rational, i.e. there is in fact a guy standing in front of you holding what appears to be a knife in a threatening posture, multiple assailants who are a bona fide threat, etc.

Also, it is important to understand that a claim of self-defense is not an automatic exemption to the laws against homicide. Rather, it is what is known as an "affirmative defense"; in a self-defense shooting, the shooter must actively demonstrate that the shooting was indeed justifiable self-defense, unless the person shot was in the act of breaking into the person's place of residence. If the shooting is questionable, it is more likely to swing against the person claiming self-defense than it is to swing in their favor.

There are a few other conditions that may constitute justifiable self-defense; for example, there is a provision in U.S. legal tradition called the Castle Doctrine that says that if someone is making an illegal forced entry into your home (whether by door or window, whatever), you are authorized to use whatever force is necessary to stop them and it would ordinarily be ruled justified; the presumption is that if the guy is kicking your door down, he's not there to sell magazine subscriptions. A majority of states explicitly spell out the Castle Doctrine in their laws, I believe, but the principle is there in every state, even Massachusetts. Florida, and most other states, also allow the use of lethal force to stop a "forcible felony," i.e. rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc. Texas used to also allow lethal force in defense of property in some circumstances (which probably dates back to frontier days when stealing your horse or your food would cause you to die of exposure or starvation); they may still, but it is my understanding that in general, shooting in defense of property in Texas can get you in big trouble.

If I saw someone breaking into my neighbor's house and my neighbors weren't home, I would call the police and report what I was seeing, and stay on the line until the police came. Yes, I would have a gun, but I would not need to use it unless the intruders became a threat to me or my family. HOWEVER, if someone lived in a rural area, and his/her neighbor had asked them to keep an eye on the neighbor's property, and he/she went over to check on things and were attacked, then that would be a situation in which self-defense would be justifiable under the rules above. But it depends on the circumstances.

[pipoman]

23. Once again

rdenney chooses to lie when the truth would be just as good.

Texas Joe Horn: "Law-Abiding", Backshooting, Self-defense Expert

From his own cited source:

Horn shot them three times in the chest from a distance of 15 feet...

[pipoman]

30. Is the deterrent value of this incident

greater than the threat of criminal prosecution to people prone to criminal activity? I don't dispute Ol'Joe is a nut. Some of Joe's nutdom could be based on the historical reality of "Texas justice".




<sp>

[Wcross]

34. I don't agree with his decision to kill the criminals.

I am not going to lose any sleep over the loss of two criminals who make their living victimizing homeowners. They knew, or at least SHOULD have known that death is a possible outcome of breaking into peoples homes to steal. It is an occupational hazard.
Personally I would have held the men for the police to deal with or disabled their vehicle. Shooting them seems a bit harsh.

[Hangingon]

37. I am waiting for this to go to a grand jury.

I don't think it will.

[rdenney]

39. Of course it wont. This is shoot em up Texas. Even JFK didnt make it out of Dallas...

alive. Shoot first, shoot later, then shoot some more. Thats Texas for you, the land of the good old boys like *.

[Hangingon]

47. Come on down. Actually get to know us.

[Tejas]

52. Heck yeah, just don't make any false moves

:rofl:

[Hangingon]

54. Well, being a little more circumspect with language would

ensure a better experience. Announcing that Texas is a "shoot first, kill 'em all, gun crazy place that terrifies me" in the airport baggage claim area would be a bad way to start. I don't think rdenny would be shot, but I don't think anyone would ask rdenny to have a beer or even a nice day either. Wonder what would happen if I mouthed off about New York up there. I am headed to New York next month and I plan to be polite.

[Duke Newcombe]

64. That poster can't do that...

that would get in the way of too much snark, and, you know...it would actually MAKE SENSE and stuff...

Duke

[maxidivine]

51. Really unlikely he could have disabled their vehicle

with personal arms. He could have put some "marks" on it though, in the form of a shot-out windshield or other obvious bullet holes. But that probably wouldn't have mattered, since the chances that they were using a stolen car is quite high. Since one of the two was found on his property (I believe a detective saw the man on his property as well) and he already knew they were robbers I would call it good on his part, just because the second home invader's body was not on his property does not mean that he shot him off his property, since it is normal for shot people to be mobile for some time after they have suffered a fatal wound. On top of that, if one member of a home invasion team was in his immediate area with a crowbar, it would be a normal reaction to shoot his partner who was standing a few feet away as well. They may have only had a crowbar in hand, but how was he to know if either of them had a firearm as well?

[Hangingon]

60. Harris County Grand Jury hearing Horn case this week.

Looks like there could be a decision by the end of the week.

[Tejas]

61. ALL in all, it changes nothing

The 'Joe Horns' of America will still exist.

[tburnsten]

67. Well they did approach him with a crowbar

in his own yard. The fact that he was a witness to them burglarizing his neighbor's house sort of shows he had some good reasons to feel that NOW was the right time to shoot. If I confronted someone burglarizing my neighbor's home with a shotgun and they did anything but get down on the ground, I would have to assume they felt I was a harmless old man and were going to attempt to hurt me. I know from lurking that some on this board probably feel that it is never right to confront someone, even to protect the life work of your neighbor, or that attempting to stop a crime in progress is the same as "vigilantism", but I can't see it that way. If someone is speeding down my road, where there are a good number of young ones and a skate park that attracts kids as well, it would not be wrong to confront the driver and tell him to cut it out. I see little to no difference in telling someone to stop burglarizing my neighbor. The fact that they approached a clearly armed man (I can't believe he had his shotgun concealed) while committing a crime against his neighbor shows that they were quite willing to take the risk that he may shoot in order to gain the reward of not leaving behind a witness and getting a shotgun along with the loot from the house.

[jimmyflint]

68. Grand jury declines to indict

MSNBC just reported that the grand jury decided not to indict. Is this true? anybody else see this?

[tburnsten]

69. Good. A burglar approached him with a

crowbar in his own yard, he absolutely deserved to be shot down, if his mangy ass hadn't broken into his neighbors home and then approached him with a very effective blunt weapon in hand he wouldn't have been killed, and his partner by extension put Mr. Horn under threat. How was he to know if the partner of the dude who just came at him with a crowbar had a pistol or not? They already demonstrated that they had no moral compass that would prevent them from stealing for a living and attacking an old man (clearly armed old man at that) when he gives a command to the effect of "STOP!"

[jimmyflint]

70. Criminal behavior can be hazardous to your health.

Breaking into holmes is a good way to shot. Thieves suck.

God bless Texas!


http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6235878

[tburnsten]

71. Hooah. Good community colleges

and tech schools helps take some of the market share of high-school only educated people out of the crime continuum, not that college graduates can't be criminals as well but they have more of a tendency to grow up and stop doing dumb shit than people who do dumb shit plus don't pursue a post-secondary education.