Joe Horn no billed by grand jury

[aikoaiko]

Joe Horn no billed by grand jury
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6235878

HOUSTON -- A suburban Houston homeowner was cleared by a grand jury Monday for shooting to death two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home.

Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men last November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in Pasadena, a Houston suburb.

Horn, a retired grandfather, called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill them. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters at the courthouse.

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

eta: Hear the 911 conversation http://youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

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

eta: I wish I could have been a fly on wall of the grand jury room. Texas law is perhaps the most permissive of all the states when it come to use of force. Horn's initial position was that it was self-defense, but Texas also has laws where (under some specific circumstances) one can use force to stop a fleeing felon even when it involves a third party.

[CBGLuthier]

1. murderer

Over property.

I really wish there were a hell.

[jody]

2. If there is no hell, then was the moral issue involved in this case? n/t

[angstlessk]

4. You don't have to believe in God to think a human life is worth more than a plasma teevee

I am sure the guy who did the shootin was a 'god' fearing christian!!!

[jody]

19. I'm just curious because the papers I've read regarding morality and such codes all become illogical

when trying to define or justify or rationalize the morality or immorality of some specific act.

Society has judged Horn by its moral code and approved his action.

You said "I really wish there were a hell" prompting my conclusion you do not believe in hell with a supernatural entity or entities that punish one's soul, if that exists, in the next life.

Obviously your moral code is different from that by which society judged Horn.

Absent belief in punishment in the afterlife, I just wondered how you arrived at your moral code that differs from that of society.

Have a nice day, :hi:

[pt22]

9. Just goes to show crime does not pay...sometimes.

We need more Joes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Only if you consider murder not a crime.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Or don't consider black people humans.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. It does raise some interesting questions.

If Mr. Horn had been Black and murdered two white burglars?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. He'd be on death row already.

And the people defending Horn would be happy with that.

[pt22]

21. For what it's worth, I would still have enthusiastically defended his actions.

Some DUers only see skin color in this saga...I only see criminal activity that ended badly for the perps.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. But, not for the perp who did the shooting or the prosecutor who ignored the law.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[pt22]

28. Yes...the 5th Amendment. So what? What is your point?

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. The point is, that Horn took the law into his own hands and the state approved.

While the 5th amendment clearly calls for a trial of criminals.

[pt22]

34. I assume you would approve if I were to shoot a man who was about to

bury an axe in the head of a child...right? That is also taking the law into one's own hands. Perhaps you can tell us all just precisely where is the line between a situation like that and the point where we must defer any response to criminal activity so that a Grand Jury can be convened. I'm sure your wisdom will be a welcome addition to American Jurisprudence.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Were the burglars waving an axe at a child's head?

Horn made a response. He called the cops who told him NOT to shoot the alleged burglars.

Your example is highly reminiscent of the ones used by "pro-life" killers. They're "saving" lives, don't you know?

Using the same example, would it be justified to gun down an American pilot on his way to kill babies with bombs?

[pt22]

50. It was a thought experiment. I figured you were bright enough to grasp that.

You did not answer my question, unsurprisingly. A pilot on a bombing mission is fair game, IMO, for those defending their positions. How is that analogous to the Horn story? I wonder how amenable -you- would be to someone attempting to steal -your- 'land' and 'liberty'.

[DefenseLawyer]

63. What you should do, is get a really big gun

and travel the countryside, looking for evildoers, and kill them. Maybe wear a cape just for effect, maybe a mask of some kind. In any case, you obviously need a really big gun to compensate for something that appears to be lacking in your life.

[pt22]

76. 1-800-ABCDEFG. I hear they do wonders for reading comprehension.

:D

[DefenseLawyer]

79. Thanks son, I'll look into that.

Now run along back to your suburban adolescent gun fantasy, where you make the world a better place by killing those who cross you, it is much cooler than real life.

[pt22]

84. If I thought I were your son I'd commit Seppuku. I'm probably old enough to be

your father...speaking of which, what was your mom's maiden name?

[DefenseLawyer]

87. Wow, I assumed someone with such a fucked up view of the world was 22

I'm not sure what your excuse is. Good luck with all the killin that needs to be done though, you've got a lot of work to do.

[pt22]

89. It's a dirty job but someone gots ta do it.

I was well trained in the 1960s.

[zanne]

141. Trying to have a discussion with a gun lunatic is like...

Trying to explain the Electoral College to a three year-old.

[treestar]

67. Because then you'd have a valid defense of others

On a crime against the person.

This was a property crime.

[pt22]

78. Yes and there are many cases where one's livlihood thus life depend on his property.

If I steal a fisherman's boat causing his family to starve, do you excuse that because it was only property?

[fishwax]

86. who here has excused property crime?

If I steal a fisherman's boat causing his family to starve, do you excuse that because it was only property?

[pt22]

92. Prejudice doesn't always mean presumed guilty, you know.

Plenty folks around here condemn Joe because the thieves were only stealing -stuff.- But interestingly none of them are willing to let somebody steal ALL their own 'stuff'. So much for unlimited charity empathy.

[fishwax]

98. so who here has excused property crime?

:shrug:

Thinking that someone shouldn't be shot and killed over property crime is not the same as excusing property crime.

[anigbrowl]

91. The constitution limits the power of government.

If you have a gun and I steal it, I'm not prosecuted with breaking the second amendment, but with theft. You're mixing up completely separate kinds of law here - the constitution and the the code.

[spanone]

37. so we can play judge, jury and executioner???

[pt22]

41. Jury is optional just like in real life. See post #34.

:-)

[pt22]

14. Murder is a legal term. Its definition is fairly consistent throughout the USA

and is a crime. What Mr. Horn did obviously did not fit the definition. You don't like it but it is the law. Talk to the legislature.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. I wonder what would have happened to him in Chicago or New York?

What would you call gunning down two people who posed no threat? I'd call it a crime..even if Texas doesn't.

[pt22]

20. It doesn't matter what you call it. It matters what the law says it is.

Maybe you should investigate the feasibility of moving to some place where you can make up the laws as you go along...?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Texas, perhaps?

Seeing as how they don't consider a trial necessary to inflict the death penalty.

[pt22]

26. I was thinking more along the lines of a place where stealing is encouraged.

Not sure where it is but a lot of DUers embrace the concept from what I have seen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. I didn't realize that death is the penalty for stealing.

Would it be OK if the heroic Mr. Horn had gunned down some kid that shoplifted a candy bar in a supermarket? How about somebody that overstated his charitable contributions to the the I.R.S.

[pt22]

29. Oh bullshit. These guys were breaking into houses, not stealing candy bars

from the Git 'n Go. Obviously the inability to perceive nuance isn't limited to the wingnut assholes on the "right."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Pretty weak.

You're the one advocating the death penalty (without trial) for people perceived as criminals. Which is what Horn was doing.

So, what crimes deserve the death penalty? The perps killed by Horn steal a helluva lot less than the average corporation, bank, or politician.

Your moral justification for killing seems a bit selective.

[pt22]

35. No, you misunderstand. I don't encourage it, I just approve.

Why in the world would I grieve for a couple of subhuman scum who made their living by stealing? I don't know how to kill a bank but I can approve of it if somebody does it in the middle of a theft. There was more than "perceived" involved in the Horn case. (I think it's interesting that stealing comes in at #8, just 2 notches below murder in the "ten commandments")

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Oh, well, if it's in the Bible...

OK. Did the guys at Enron, who stole billions, deserve the death penalty? Or, "citizen justice"?

[pt22]

51. Probably not but would you weep for them if that Granny in California

who Delay and Skilling bragged about 'fucking over' had found them and blown their brains out while they were committing their larceny?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. I'm not weeping for anybody. But, the granny would be a murderer.

Murderers always have justifications. I'll bet you that the two burglars had a long list of justifications for stealing. Some of them probably true.

Horn, convinced people that he was justified in killing people without trial. The KKK was defending "southern white women" when they tortured and killed blacks. And, they were usually found innocent by law.

If Horn had captured them and hanged them, would you feel the same?

[pt22]

61. Justification MEANS true, it's a redundancy. I imagine they had plenty of

excuses or reasons, none of which constitute justification. Personally, I think all your moral outrage is just bullshit that you disseminate because you -can- and nobody is trying to libertad your tierra. It's real easy to defend sinners when they ain't sinnin' against you.

[treestar]

68. When someone decides you've sinned against them

It'll be fine with me if they shoot you. That's what you're advocating.

[pt22]

73. You are correct. I support your right to approve of them shooting me.

I guess it would be a little presumptuous to say I'd defend that right to the death, nu?
:D

[treestar]

135. You're having a great faith in people being right

IOW, you're in that mode of "If I'm not guilty, nothing bad will happen to me." That's naive. Just because you are totally innocent does not mean you won't be accused, or thought guilty, by someone.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. Personally, I think all your "justification" of murder is just macho swagger.

The same kind used by the blowhard in the White House to "justify" mass murder with manufactured "truth" larded with "patriotism" and fear.

Just kill 'em because they're "subhuman scum" (from one of your previous posts).

[fishwax]

80. "we need more Joes" kinda sounds like encouragement

:shrug:

[Dimensio0]

93. It is fundamentally dishonest

to equate an act of defense with a state-imposed penalty.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. It is fundamentally dishonest to equate an act of defense with murder.

Horn was in no danger from the burglars. He was "defending" nothing except his notion of justice.

Just as the KKK was "defending" white women from the imaginary depredations of oversexed black men.

[Dimensio0]

137. I was unaware that you had witnessed the altercation.

Please describe the observations that you made during the event.

[treestar]

66. The point is that the individual here has gained the right to

be cop, judge and jury and executioneer.

And there is no death penalty for property crimes under the law. But in this state, obviously, there now is no law.

If someone thinks someone else is committing a crime, or even sees them do it, they get to shoot them dead right there.

[pt22]

81. So what is the solution? If someone is robbing you, should you have NO ability to

use force - to any degree- to stop him? I read a lot of bleeding heart sob stories for the thieves but so far none from anyone who got all their shit stolen.

[LisaL]

24. My feelings exactly.

TX apparently allows for him to do what he did.

[aikoaiko]

22. Hard to say: NYC found Bernie Goetz not guilty.

Although he did have to pay some money in a civil trial.

[appal_jack]

59. I believe that in NY (state) it is still legal to shoot cattle rustlers.

I believe that in NY (state) it is still legal to shoot cattle rustlers, due to a 19th Century law never having been taken off the books. At least, that is what a cattleman told me when I was a kid visiting his farm (many years back). No link, no evidence, sorry. Just a piece of hearsay that came to mind when I read your post Tierra.

-app

[CBGLuthier]

39. I am going to go out there and kill them he said

Hmmm. Now how the fuck is that not murder?

There is a law in texas that allows you to go outside and shoot people just for stealing someone lse's property? I thought the castle doctrine was to protect your own stuff. Of course you got to be a pretty low piece of shit to kill a man over property.

[pt22]

44. Send me your address. I will bring a trailer and start stealing your stuff

but you have to promise to let me know when I have to stop taking your property...or well, hey, if you just want to give it all to me that would be great and I will believe your commitment to the principle that deadly force should never be used to protect it! :D

[CBGLuthier]

47. Oh, I will gladly beat the shit out of you if you try

But I won't have to kill you. And uhh, you can kind of trust me on that one, OK.

BTW, one more time, IT WAS NOT HIS PROPERTY. It was his neighbor's property.

[pt22]

52. I see, you are not your brother's keeper.

Got it.

[Hangingon]

127. The grand jury said this is not murder. The system worked.

[Danger Mouse]

114. It sure does pay if your name is Joe. Murder two people, get away scot free.

What could be better?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Murder is legal in Texas.

"..the criminal justice system works,"

Worked for the KKK in the same way.

[texasleo]

5. Good.

[bluestateguy]

6. The law has spoken, and this case is closed

It's closed because it's the law. And the law says the case is closed.

[NightWatcher]

16. but we must beat it to death in here.....fwiw the law is the law is the law

[jeffrey_X]

57. FUCK IT!!! LET'S KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!!

eom

[treestar]

65. The precedent is that you can kill anyone you personally decide

has just committed a crime.

If you live in Texas, you'd better have your own gun on you at all times.

Anyone else thinks you're committing a crime, and that's all it takes for them to shoot you unpenalized. So you'll need to be able to protect yourself - the law doesn't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. I guess somebody's going to have to take the law into his own hands.

Right, Mr. Horn?

[Disturbed]

8. The message is that robbery can result in the Death Penalty.

This is a warning to all thieves in that town.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The Death penalty is, at least, usually inflicted after a trial.

But, I guess it's OK to forego such novelties down in Texas.

[treestar]

72. Then they should codify that into their law

There is no death penalty for robbery in any state in this country.

Suppose Mr. Horn decides on a death penalty for running stop signs? Does he get to carry out the executions then, too?

[pt22]

11. If Mr. Horn breaks into somebody's house, that would be fine with me.

...

[treestar]

70. What if the suspect's relatives kill Horn?

Will they get the same consideration. The state is not going to punish him.

Yet the state would have punished Horn's victims.

[varkam]

31. Here's the thing that I don't get...

both of the decedents were shot in the back. How can one claim self-defense if one shoots one's attackers in the back?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Fear of farts?

[LisaL]

38. He doesn't have to claim self-defense.

TX law allows him to defend his property.
So, defense of property is good enough, apparently.

[CBGLuthier]

42. read again

was not his property. Was his neighbor's property. And the law does NOT allow for that.

[LisaL]

46. Well, I don't think you are right.

If the neighbors asked him to watch the property, then the law would allow him to defend the neighbors property with deadly force.

[CBGLuthier]

48. How much is a life worth?

Say they stole a screwdriver that was in the lawn. Is that enough?

Or is there an actual dollar value. Does depreciation enter into it?

[LisaL]

49. Depreciation? Nope. Not under TX law.

They don't have $ amounts under which you can or can not kill someone.

[pt22]

53. You have convinced me. It's okay to steal a little bit. And English Common Law

backs you up on that...based on it, the difference between Petit Larceny (misdemeanor) and Grand Larceny (felony) is Twenty bucks! (Sorry no adjustment for inflation ever got included)

[treestar]

71. Is that the law in Texas?

Here, you can only use deadly force in response to deadly force.

Just calling 911 would have done it.

[LisaL]

There seems to be lots of laws in TX, allowing someone to

protect property.

[CBGLuthier]

40. Being white, victims not white, live i n Texas

and it all comes together doesn't it.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

118. In Texas

you have a right to protect your property with deadly force if necessary. It is left up to the criminal to decide if something he wants to steal is worth risking the loss of his life or not.

There is more to property than just "stuff."

[varkam]

132. Couple things:

It wasn't his property - it was his neighbor's property.

That's not relevant to what I was asking though - Horn was claiming self-defense in the shooting, saying that he felt threatened. I'm asking how that claim stands up in light of the evidence that both of the decedents were shot in the back.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

133. He may have been claiming

self defense, but it does not necessarily have to be so in Texas. In Texas your own or your neighbors' property can be defended with deadly force. He was well within the law. Sad that it was preventable. No Stealin', No Killin'.

[Freddie Stubbs]

136. They cound have turned around to draw their weapons?

[alarimer]

36. I hope someone shoots him in the back.

Fucking scumbag piece of shit.

Stupid asshole idiot grand jury.

He shoot these guys IN THE BACK (as they were running away from his neighbor's house). He was not defending HIS property or HIS life. Cowardly fuck. I hope he dies. I really, really do.

[pt22]

56. So you're just like Joe.

How nice.

[Dr. Strange]

58. Nope.

Joe caught them in the act of committing a crime. The poster above needs no crime to be committed. He just wants Horn shot.

[pt22]

62. You're right. He's NOT like Joe.

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. A crime was committed, murder.

Just like Joe. Also, I suppose, the jurors should be shot. Aiding and Abetting and all that.

Using Joe's sense of justice.

[devilgrrl]

54. This is awesome. The next time someone looks at my neighbor crosseyed, I'm going to cap them.

:woohoo:

[aikoaiko]

55. I wouldn't do that in California....

[treestar]

64. Man, this is evil

Allowing someone to take the law in their own hands like that.

[pt22]

85. Yep, when seconds count, the police will be there in mere minutes.

:eyes:

[DefenseLawyer]

95. Seriously, would you be this giddy about these killings

if the "perps" had been two 15 year old kids who had just made the worst decision of their now ended lives?

[pt22]

100. Bullshit. I was never 'giddy' over this and I resent that implication.

But I guaran-fucking-tee you a sociopathic 15 year old can kill your ass just as dead as a 35 year old can.

[DefenseLawyer]

104. There was no one home.

I guaran-fucking-tee you you can't kill anyone in an empty house. But who said anything about a sociopath? I mean just a dumb 15 year old kid who had a really dumb idea. Funny that you have already justified the killing by making him a sociopath and a killer. You really need to stop watching so much tv.

[Danger Mouse]

115. i guaran-fucking-tee you that a sociopath isn't killing anybody...

when he is fleeing from you and has his back to you. but that's when they're at their most dangerous!!!

[Zavulon]

69. I wish Horn was my neighbor.

I honestly wish everyone who breaks into a house would get shot. Flame away, but anyone who commits crimes like this is someone society can do without.

My house was broken into three years ago while I was away and I wish Horn was there to shoot the fuckers who did it. I have no sympathy for anyone (of any color, for those who want to turn this into a racial thing) who just thinks they can take someone else's stuff, when I read about people getting killed during crimes like this it makes my week.

It can be phrased "human life over property" by anyone, but I look at it as a human life which has no respect for others. Good fucking riddance. If being pro-gun and anti-criminal makes me a bad Democrat, then on this issue I'm a very bad Democrat.

[DefenseLawyer]

74. You must have some pretty awesome stuff.

I certainly hope no one else tries to take any of it, and if they do, you get the satisfaction of killing them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. "I look at it as a human life which has no respect for others."

Meh, well, then I don't feel sorry your house was broken into, and won't mind if it happens again.

:shrug:

"If being pro-gun and anti-criminal makes me a bad Democrat, then on this issue I'm a very bad Democrat."

You're pro-gun and pro-criminal.

Anti-theft, pro-murder.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. Pro-murder is better than pro-thievery?

Interesting that you bring up rape.

Where is rape on your list of "things that aren't too bad?"

Given your penchant for blaming the victim, I'll have to assume you think it's OK as long as they're dressed up like "sluts," or he already paid for dinner, or something. "Better to be raped, then be a cock tease, am I right fellas?"

[Danger Mouse]

116. So you're okay with them being shot in the back as they tried to flee?

[Zavulon]

119. I can probably guess the reaction I'll get for this, but

if they're still on the property, I am.

[Danger Mouse]

121. To be polite, I disagree in the strongest terms possible with that outlook.

[Zavulon]

125. I figured as much, but

I do thank you for putting it in a much more polite form than I expected. I don't expect a lot of people to agree with me on this, and I don't wind up liking most of the people who do because as a general rule such a stance is just the tip of the iceberg for these people, whereas this is generally as radical as I get. What I lost during my break-in can't be replaced until the time machine is invented and someone figures out a way to resurrect some lost loved ones. I take crimes a lot more personally when I'm a victim of them, I admit.

I mostly agreed with your Aerosmith take in the Lounge, though, so we're not in 100% disagreement today. :)

[Danger Mouse]

126. If something that precious were lost...

then i would hardly blame you for gunning them the fuck down. Right in the nuts. With rock salt. Ever see 'Kill Bill Vol. 2'? That shit hurts like a mother.

[Zavulon]

128. Never did see that one.

Didn't see the first, either. However, given a day of amnesty and the opportunity to use your suggestion vs. the guilty party / parties, I wouldn't pass it up.

[Dukkha]

82. This is what police get training for

They know better to shoot fleeing criminals at the legs to take them down and apprehend them alive. I've seen cops do this first hand. The suspect is painfully wounded but they survive to face trial. This was an act of vengeance, and I say that as someone who's been robbed several times.

[pt22]

94. It's a damn shame those robbers got your brain too.

:shrug:

[Dukkha]

109. right before they got your soul

moron. :eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

122. you have a real hard-on for gunning folk down, eh?

[Dimensio0]

96. Are you suggesting that police engage in negligent behaviour?

They know better to shoot fleeing criminals at the legs to take them down and apprehend them alive.

Such a tactic is extremely dangerous. Aiming for any part of the body other than the center of mass increases the risk that the fired shots will miss the intended target and thus increases the risk of collateral damage. Additionally, discharging a firearm regardless of the direction that it is aimed constitutes "deadly force"; as such, it is fundamentally irresponsible to discharge a firearm unless deadly force is legally justifiable, such as when preventing grevious injury to self or others or when a civilian is confronted with an invader on his or her property.

[jimmyflint]

83. Don't break into houses.

Or you might get shot. Seems reasonable to me.

[DefenseLawyer]

90. Don't let your dog crap in my yard

or you might get shot. Don't drive by my house with a really loud muffler or you might get shot. Don't burn the macaroni and cheese or you might get shot. Seems reasonable to me.

[Dimensio0]

97. Please explain your justifications.

How are the scenarios that you have stated analagous to breaking into a home, and why is the use of deadly force in such scenarios justified?

[DefenseLawyer]

101. Hey, I like my yard to be shit free as much as Joe liked his neighbor's stuff

He decides who deserves to die in his neighborhood, I'll decide who gets to die in mine. Seems reasonable to me.

[Dimensio0]

106. Your justification is hyperbole.

Your analogy is faulty. Criminal intruders on a person's property may reasonably be considered an immediate threat to the personal safety lawful occupant of the property. Please explain how your scenario would constitute an immediate threat to your personal safety.

[DefenseLawyer]

108. There was no one home for Christ's sake.

How can personal safety be implicated without a person? Your boy left the safety of his home and shot two unarmed men in the back in someone else's yard. You can say you support vigilantism, more power to you. You can say kill 'em all and let god sort them out. You aren't the first. But don't give me that "immediate threat to personal safety" bullshit. Under these facts, that dog don't hunt.

[geek_sabre]

110. Actually,

They were shot in Horn's yard. And died in Horn's yard.

Linked ad nauseum in the other thread in GD.

[DefenseLawyer]

111. Or at least the bodies ended up in Horn's yard.

Both shot in the back. Both unarmed.

[Dimensio0]

138. A police officer witnessed the shooting.

Do you have evidence that the police officer lied about the location of the criminals at the time of the shooting?

[LisaL]

99. Pardon me, but burning macaroni and cheese is not a crime.

Burglary is.

[DefenseLawyer]

102. What about snoring too loud, is that a crime?

My apologies to John Wesley Hardin of Time-Life Books infamy.

[pt22]

103. That would be funny if it weren't so abysmally fucking stupid.

...

[zanne]

142. Bye bye, gun troll. nt

[jimmyflint]

105. Well.......

I don't know how those are covered in texas law regarding use of deadly force.

But it seems under some circumstances you can shoot burglars or thieves.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

113. Exactly what I expected to happen.

This got a bit more press than usual, but no billing of homeowners killing in defense of their homes and property has been common in Texas for decades. The "he was in sore need of killin'" defense has been a winning defense in almost 100% of the cases.

[Danger Mouse]

117. Woohoo! Kill the fuckers! Gun em down! We don't need no stinkin' laws!

Let me be perfectly clear. If my family were threatened, I would not hesitate to kill if necessary. NOBODY touches my loved ones. However, the idea of shooting fleeing unarmed suspects in the back makes me ill.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. It used to be call "Lynch Law".

Amazing how many alleged progressives are applauding it.

[Danger Mouse]

124. I can understand if the guy was in any sort of direct danger.

If they were armed, if they weren't fleeing with their DAMN BACKS TO HIM. I just can't get behind that.

[LisaL]

131. You don't have to defend yourself in TX. You have a right to defend

property. Those are TX laws for you.

[Lisa0825]

129. If he has a conscience, I hope those two men haunt his dreams

for the rest of his life. I understand that he has said he regretted what he did. I hope it pains him deeply forever, not giving him a moment's peace.

[Danger Mouse]

130. At least he feels remorse...and having felt remorse, can find redemption.

Many people would do what he did and not lose a wink of sleep over it.

[aikoaiko]

134. I think Joe Horn pushed the limit of Texas justified use of force law.

I think one of the biggest things in his favor was how long he waited for the police to respond before interceding on the thieves.

[Subdivisions]

139. Right or wrong, the grand jury simply acted upon a vigilant

attitude in Texas when it comes to the safety of our homes and our children and that is the attitude that you DO NOT FUCK WITH MY FAMILY. Here in Texas, an invasion of one's home is a direct affront to the safety of one's family and the security of one's home. And the law provides for the protection of both up to and including the use of deadly force.

Though I don't necessarily condone what Joe Horn did, it is common knowledge in Texas that if you go into someone's home with criminal intent, you might get your ass killed.

[TexasObserver]

140. Joe Horn murdered two men. He didn't need to, and he shouldn't have.

The local District Attorney did what many prosecutors nationwide would do in such a circumstance: send it to the grand jury, and set it up so the grand jury no bills the case. That way, the prosecutor doesn't have to take the heat for not prosecuting. He can say "hey, the grand jury has spoken."

Under Texas law, it's not a resolved question as to whether this shooting would pass muster as a proper use of force to protect the property of another person. I don't like the law, but it's there now, compliments of the Republican party in Texas.

This case of Joe Horn involved a neighbor who had been hit by burglars before, it involved two perps two guys really were stealing - both guys who really were career criminals - and a community where criminals preying on older citizens was a problem. The next case will have its facts, and eventually, some kid will get shot stealing a bicycle. THEN, there will be calls to reevaluate the law.