Texas man no-billed by grand jury - Joe Horn

[Tejas]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

June 30, 2008, 2:49PM
Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings
Panel issues no-bill after two weeks of testimony


By BRIAN ROGERS and RUTH RENDON
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two suspected burglars he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.


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

According to some, this was a pretty stout test of the updated Castle Doctrine that took effect last Sept. 1st

[aikoaiko]

1. Are we allowed to know what happened in the grand jury room?

Transcripts of testimony? Has the DA talked about how he presented the case and what questions he answered?

Otherwise, it seems to me, its so hard to say what this was a test of.

[Tejas]

12. darn good question

"Otherwise, it seems to me, its so hard to say what this was a test of."


Very good point you have there. Many suggested Horn had a duty to retreat, apparently not.

[iverglas]

15. a duty to retreat????

How about a duty not to leave the safety of his home with firearm in hand and THE STATED INTENTION of killing the other people??

[bossy22]

20. that is the duty to retreat

[Georgia_Lass]

150. Not in Texas!! You shoot until you run out of bullets. Remember the Alamo!!!

[Tejas]

172. I doubt that even Charles Schumer would disrespect the Alamo

He might shamelessly disrespect Mrs. Hupp by rolling his eyes as he (imho) did in Committee hearings on gun control, but there are some things that are off-limits.

Volunteers from your great state of Georgia died at the Alamo, and as Texans we are eternally grateful for that, please find it in yourself not to joke about such hallowed ground.

[Tejas]

22. Maybe in Canada, or Chicago, or Moscow

[iverglas]

32. ^^ if either of you or anyone else would like to buy a clue

I've linked to the audio recordings on youtube.

Please don't even try to explain what you thought you were talking about in the meantime. It would be a waste of everyone's time.

[Tejas]

34. ah, keep clinging to the 911 call iverglas - Grand Jury said: FAIL

[iverglas]

54. well, I did recommend you give it up as a bad job

I'm not giving a crap what the jury said. Someone here said something about the "duty to retreat" or lack thereof, and on the facts -- you know what a fact is? -- this individual INITIATED a confrontation with the INTENTION of killing someone. So you keep clinging to what some tiny number of probably racist morons in Texas said as if it means something about something, 'k?

[Tejas]

97. "I don't care" and knee-jerk accusations of racism - you'll go far

"I'm not giving a crap what the jury said. Someone here said something about the "duty to retreat" or lack thereof, and on the facts -- you know what a fact is? -- this individual INITIATED a confrontation with the INTENTION of killing someone. So you keep clinging to what some tiny number of probably racist morons in Texas said as if it means something about something, 'k?"


Granted, you don't live in this country so you don't have to care what the laws are or what a jury decides, but if you did, I don't believe you would do very well if involved with the legal system.

[iverglas]

100. Upstanding White Man

Blows Away Two Thieves

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uf0beXPYxc

with five-minute version of the call.
A lot of people need to listen to it and stop lying and denying.


Don't miss the comments.


Joe Horn Supporters Run Off Black Panthers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEZ9s0ZBAu8&feature=related

Don't miss the comments. And the links offered by the person who posted.


Lying down with dogs.

[solinvictus]

147. Blah blah blah blah blah...

...as Nelson Muntz on "The Simpsons" says...
Hah-hah!

[Georgia_Lass]

157. This Horn guy, like lots of his ilk, probably substituted his gun for his..err... wits and thus two

men are dead due to this "coward of the county."

[Georgia_Lass]

151. Joe Horn(blower) gave himself the "courage" to go out an gun them down, due to the 911 call. Its....

a physiological workup that all soldiers and football players go through.

Basic psychology, really, except he was convincing himself to go outside an blow the hell of of these two non-whites, after his "chat" with the 911 operator. Down her in GA he would not have been able to do what he did without a trial followed by a long prison term.

[bossy22]

58. excuse me

you are the one in need of a clue- or a new pair of reading glasses....

"Please don't even try to explain what you thought you were talking about in the meantime. It would be a waste of everyone's time."

ohh yessa masta....

no i think i will, because you obviously didnt take the time to figure out what i said in my one sentance

so hear i go...

you replied to a post regarding the duty to retreat. your post basically outlined a basic principle behind the duty to retreat laws- if the law states that if a situation can be remediated by leaving the situation OR NOT GETTING INVOLVED- you must do that- then it is called a duty to retreat...hence why my next post stated that what you were talking about was a duty to retreat

my post had no comment on whether the guy's actions were right or wrong- all i stated was that what you stated- was just the duty to retreat

so i think you owe me an apology for such a rude remark

[iverglas]

86. oh, well, that is just bizarre

I truly do think you need to look up "retreat" in a dictionary.

It doesn't actually mean "not move forward".


your post basically outlined a basic principle behind the duty to retreat laws- if the law states that if a situation can be remediated by leaving the situation OR NOT GETTING INVOLVED- you must do that

Think carefully now.

If the situation can be remediated by not getting involved ... there is no situation.

If there is nothing to retreat from, there could be no duty to retreat, or no absence of duty to retreat.

We're taking about SELF-DEFENCE, if you'd care to remember.

If there is nothing to defend against, then ... uh ... what is there to defend against, and in what circumstances might there be a duty, or no duty, to retreat from ... uh ... nothing?

Duh.


I mean seriously. I decide to go confront somebody who is doing something I don't like, with a firearm in my hand, after announcing my intention to kill them to a third party. They take offence at my conduct. They do something that I interpret as menacing. I kill them. Let's just use our noggins here for a minute, and consider where this leads.

I'd be perfectly within my rights to go stand on the sidewalk and shout at my neighbours to stop their damned dog barking. Their damned barking dog constitutes a violation of municipal bylaws here. But first, I call the bylaw enforcement office and announce that I am going to go out and kill them. I take my trusty popgun, and I stand on the sidewalk and shout at them. And the come out and start walking toward me. And I shoot them. Dead. Both of them. In the back, as they try to run away after seeing my gun. Any problems so far? Let me know.

My advice is that you go back to the beginning where it says my neighbours' damned dog is barking, and tell me where the issue of self-defence arises.

And then look at the case of Joe Horn, before he decided to go outwaving a shotgun at somebody, and answer the same question.

[MyRV9]

136. It's not about self defense...

My advice is that you go back to the beginning where it says my neighbours' damned dog is barking, and tell me where the issue of self-defence arises. And then look at the case of Joe Horn, before he decided to go outwaving a shotgun at somebody, and answer the same question.

It's about protecting property. In Texas you may use deadly force to protect property from theft during the nighttime AND to prevent a person from fleeing with property after a theft during the nighttime. Yes indeed, you may shoot someone in the back as they are fleeing with stolen property.

The issue here is whether he can protect /someone else's/ property with deadly force. He can only do that if his neighbor asked him to. I suspect his neighbor wouldn't say differently if asked.

My neighbors and I have an agreement to protect each others' property as if it were our own - for exactly this reason.

Edited to add: I looked this up and it happened at 2 P.M. So he can only rely on self-defense, not protecting property. He has a right to confront the burglars, who were committing a felony, and can defend himself if need be. But this sounds more like a case of (grand) jury nullification than anything else. Good for them. We have too many damned thieving criminal illegals here as it is.

[tburnsten]

125. He was trying to stop a crime in progress

His neighborhood had been the target of a rash of crime, and the operator said they might be able to get someone out that way in ten or so minutes. When he called for them to stop, they were on his property, advancing on his position with a crowbar. hardly him going out specifically to kill them, and don't forget that there was a plainclothes detective sitting there watching the whole event unfold right in front of Mr. Horn's house. Why didn't the detective intervene in the burglary before mr. horn came outside? who knows. He didn't though and if he had the burglars may or may not have advanced on him as well. Mr. Horn singlehandedly put an end to the wave of crime in his neighborhood, as well as saving the future victims of that home invasion team from whatever villainy they would have committed. If you are in your late twenties and your only job is committing crimes, you are not going to "clean up".

[iverglas]

127. isn't it just too bad, so sad for YOU

That he clearly announced his intention to kill them?

Awww.

[tburnsten]

131. Whatever.

I'm not losing any sleep over the burglars departure from the mortal coil. Less resources tied up in their asses anyway, brings the ratio of producers/consumers up in that area, good for them.

[tburnsten]

134. Oh, I thought I had changed that title N/T

[MyRV9]

138. It doesn't matter...

isn't it just too bad, so sad for YOU That he clearly announced his intention to kill them?

It doesn't matter what his stated intentions were. All that matters is whether he was justified in using deadly force. I'll admit that is far from clear in this case.

He had an absolute right to attempt to stop a felony in progress. If by some action of the burglars he would have been justified in using deadly force, his previously stated intentions (however stupid and unwisely spoken) are irrelevant.

That said, it sounds to me like he wasn't justified and this is a case of a runaway grand jury. I personally don't have a problem with it.

[Georgia_Lass]

156. Its all there right on the 911 tape. The dispatcher warned Horn time after time NOT to go outside,..

but he was determined to "bag" some hispanics, no matter what he was told to do by a trained professional.

[tburnsten]

160. Dispatch warned him not to because

they didn't want him to become a murder victim, not for the safety of the burglars. And don't forget they were in his front yard when he shot them, there was a detective sitting right there in a car watching the whole thing happen.

[Joe Holmes]

75. Joe Horn had a "duty to retreat?"

I didn't know he was French!

[Spoonman]

82. Did you mean

French Canadian?:rofl:

[Tejas]

24. Transcript

Hopefully they'll be available after the dust settles.

[iverglas]

30. got youtube?

I believe the audio recording has been available for some time. Are you actually commenting on a story with no clue what it's actually about?


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5864179.html

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You wanna make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm gonna kill 'em."

After the shooting, he redialed 911.

"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."

"I'm gonna kill 'em." Please do give us your translation.

[Tejas]

35. that's not the Grand Jury transcript (another clue: GJ said 911 call is moot)

[iverglas]

55. I do beg your pardon every so humbly

Now, if only you'd given a tiny clue somewhere that the transcript to which you were referring was the transcript of the grand jury proceedings ...

[Tejas]

95. um, you might try......oh, let's see....oh yes: post #1

(your slip is showing)

[Joe Holmes]

88. Here's my translation, Miss Iverglas-

Horn- Hello, I'm an American male with a big pair of balls who is currently exercising his constitutional right to own a firearm. There are two low-life criminal dirtbags next door, trying to steal the property that my neighbor worked his ass off to buy. Is there any chance that you can send some officers around in a timely manner to prevent the low-lifes from being successful in their criminal endeavor?

Dispatcher- Well, I'm workin' on it, Mr. Horn. I hope to get a couple of officers over there in 10 or 15 minutes, but don't hold me to that.

Horn- Whats to stop the low-lifes from coming over to my house next, and steal all the property I worked my ass for, and do me physical harm?

Dispatcher- Well, I'm still workin' on gettin' some of the boys out there, Mr. Horn. Now don't do anything stupid, ya hear? Them criminals are probably just victims of a broken home or some such, and takin' to a life of crime really isn't their fault.

Horn- I see. So its kind of 50/50 whether you'll be able to get somebody out here to arrest the low-lifes before they commit some mayhem on my neighborhood.

Dispatcher- Now, don't you go outside Mr. Horn, and for Gods sake, if them fellers see you outside and come after you, pretend you're Canadian, and go hide under the bed! Make yourself real small-like, and there's a good chance they won't see you hidin' under there! But whatever you do, don't shoot the low-lifes! Imagine all the paperwork my department will have to do then! Just throw the gun in the toilet and pretend you're Canadian! It sure works for them people up there! Hide, Mr. Horn, go hide now! Officers are coming any hour now!

[Georgia_Lass]

152. Translation from Texanish to English: I'm a gonna shot the "H" out of them until they are dead!"

[iverglas]

31. Here ya go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuM_XAo2BE


"full tape": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0&feature=related

Going to listen to that one now ...

[Tejas]

37. 911 call is a red herring, deal with it - n/t

[Georgia_Lass]

153. Not a Red Herring: Joe Horn(blower) was convincing himself that what he did was OK"..

to kill two hispanics, and it worked. But ONLY in Texas.

Out here in GA he would be looking at intentional homicide and 20 years or more behind the prison bars.

[Tarc]

123. I was glad to hear this this morning

Two dirtbags thought that breaking into an empty house and robbing it was going to be easy pickings. Karma gave them a deserving reward.

[Hangingon]

159. Grand jury proceedings are secret.

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 20. DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE GRAND JURY

Art. 20.02. <374> <425> <413> PROCEEDINGS SECRET. (a) The
proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret.
(b) A grand juror, bailiff, interpreter, stenographer or
person operating an electronic recording device, or person
preparing a typewritten transcription of a stenographic or
electronic recording who discloses anything transpiring before the
grand jury, regardless of whether the thing transpiring is
recorded, in the course of the official duties of the grand jury
shall be liable to a fine as for contempt of the court, not
exceeding five hundred dollars, imprisonment not exceeding thirty
days, or both such fine and imprisonment.
(c) A disclosure of a record made under Article 20.012, a
disclosure of a typewritten transcription of that record, or a
disclosure otherwise prohibited by Subsection (b) or Article 20.16
may be made by the attorney representing the state in performing the
attorney's duties to a grand juror serving on the grand jury before
whom the record was made, another grand jury, a law enforcement
agency, or a prosecuting attorney, as permitted by the attorney
representing the state and determined by the attorney as necessary
to assist the attorney in the performance of the attorney's duties.
The attorney representing the state shall warn any person the
attorney authorizes to receive information under this subsection of
the person's duty to maintain the secrecy of the information. Any
person who receives information under this subsection and discloses
the information for purposes other than those permitted by this
subsection is subject to punishment for contempt in the same manner
as persons who violate Subsection (b).
(d) The defendant may petition a court to order the
disclosure of information otherwise made secret by this article or
the disclosure of a recording or typewritten transcription under
Article 20.012 as a matter preliminary to or in connection with a
judicial proceeding. The court may order disclosure of the
information, recording, or transcription on a showing by the
defendant of a particularized need.
(e) A petition for disclosure under Subsection (d) must be
filed in the district court in which the case is pending. The
defendant must also file a copy of the petition with the attorney
representing the state, the parties to the judicial proceeding, and
any other persons required by the court to receive a copy of the
petition. All persons receiving a petition under this subsection
are entitled to appear before the court. The court shall provide
interested parties with an opportunity to appear and present
arguments for the continuation of or end to the requirement of
secrecy.
(f) A person who receives information under Subsection (d)
or (e) and discloses that information is subject to punishment for
contempt in the same manner as a person who violates Subsection (b).
(g) The attorney representing the state may not disclose
anything transpiring before the grand jury except as permitted by
Subsections (c), (d), and (e).

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1011, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1,
1995.

[pt22]

2. Just as I predicted. And hoped.

:D

[depakid]

3. Easy to predict

but absolutely sick to hope for.

[pt22]

10. I realize it's unfashionable around here to be against criminals.

Don't ask me to explain why, though.

[iverglas]

16. when did you first realize

that there are cows jumping over the moon, while pigs fly gaily around them?

[Tejas]

17. some call those "targets"

[MyRV9]

140. Pull! n/t

[depakid]

28. That's a riduclous thing to say

but all too typically American (which is why you have the worlds largest and most expensive prison system, but no universal healthcare).

[MyRV9]

139. You are right...

which is why you have the worlds largest and most expensive prison system, but no universal healthcare).

Prisons should be made less expensive, hopefully by removing amenities and making the conditions a little more austere. And large, yes, it is. We need even more prisons, though. If criminals would just stop committing crimes we wouldn't have to lock them up. It's quite simple actually.

We have the best healthcare system in the world. No lines, no waits. I pay approximately $200 per month for health insurance for a family of three. Why would I want to also have to pay for other people's healthcare?

[Ian David]

5. Don't ever lock your keys inside your house in Texas.

Also, be careful where you walk while trying to get a cellphone signal.

Reporter Threatened With Gun Near President Bush's Texas Ranch




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/03/reporter-threatened-with-_n_89524.html

[Longtooth]

6. That is a total mischaracterization of that incident!!

She did NOT threaten him. He did not even know she HAD a gun till his budies acrosse the street told him. The old lady saw someone pass by her window and went to investigate. She prudently armed herself first but kept the gun low and mostly out of site to see what was going on. She told him to get and he did. THERE WAS NO THREAT WITH A GUN!!!

[Ian David]

8. She was probably afraid Vikings were attacking. n/t

[depakid]

13. If someone comes up to you branishing a gun it sure is a threat!

In fact, it's common law assault, and in sane parts of the country not only is it prosecutable- but you can also be sued for it.

[Longtooth]

18. She was NOT brandishing! She had it low and just behind her hip.

It was NOT illegal it was prudent.

[depakid]

26. Sorry to have to legally correct you- but that picture is BRANDISHING

And you can and will be charged for that in sane states.

Pointing goes even further- that's criminal (as opposed to civil) assault.

[Longtooth]

33. Don't know where you got you law degree but you need to get your money back.

[Longtooth]

36. Defination of Brandish by the American Hertage Dictionary

TRANSITIVE VERB:
bran�dished , bran�dish�ing , bran�dish�es

1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.

NOUN:

A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English brandissen, from Old French brandir , brandiss-, from brand, sword, of Germanic origin; see gwher- in Indo-European roots

OTHER FORMS:
brandish�er (Noun)

[depakid]

40. Not a legal definition, sorry to tell you

Walking outside and confronting someone with a gun in your hand like this woman did is classic brandishing and if she behaved that way in California, she'd have gone straight to jail.

You don't have to wave it around or point it at someone. The implied threat is enough.

[Tejas]

42. That example was in Texas - your California point is useless

[depakid]

45. Here's federal staute on point

and last I heard, they still apply in Texas:

Brandishing:

"display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise mak the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(4)

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Your own citation disproves your argument.

She did not use it to intimidate him. He didn't even know she had it. She didn't brandish the weapon.

[Longtooth]

50. Nor did she even claim to have a gun.

[depakid]

51. She totally went out there to intimidate him! Look at the freakin picture!

Would you be intimidated? Come on now.

[Longtooth]

52. You mean the picture of her holding the gun behind her hip

and the trespasser not seeing it. FAIL

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Did you read the article?

The man didn't know she had it, till someone showed him the telephoto shot from a photographer across the street.

[depakid]

57. Her good fortune

Show that pic to a prosecutor, and he or she will say- yup, I could charge her.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Yeah, a lot of people seem willing to jump to conclusions these days N/t

[Hangingon]

64. And that grand jury would also no bill.

She was on her own prpoerty.

[pipoman]

89. In most states

even brandishing a firearm on your own property is indeed quite legal. Find one case brought in fed court of a person brandishing a gun on their own property. Most states give a lot of latitude to a property owner while on their own property.

[Longtooth]

117. Uh, no, by your OWN defination of brandishing she is NOT ingaged in criminal behavior.

[MyRV9]

143. She has an absolute right...

to carry a firearm on her own private property. The fact that a trespasser could be alarmed by it does not make it illegal.

[Thortin]

163. Denends on the County

I seriously doubt charges would be filed in San Bernardino county.

[tburnsten]

104. Apparently depakid feels threatened by the idea

of an old woman who is capable of taking care of herself. In the reporters situation (not noticing she was armed) I would have apologized for disturbing her and carried on my way, although I might have introduced myself very briefly, just so she would know I was working and not some cultist trying to recruit people. Had I noticed she was armed I probably would have asked her what make and model she was carrying, and maybe recommend a good defense load for it. Then again I have had mostly good experiences with old ladies in my lifetime...:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Longtooth]

118. LOL, good point.

[Longtooth]

48. It's settled then. She did not do those things. Hence no brandishing.

[Longtooth]

119. I see there is no response to this one. POINT

[slackmaster]

69. Hey depakid, the section you quoted applies only to federal drug trafficking cases

In which brandishing a firearm can lead to a sentence enhancement.

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000924----000-.html

Not applicable in the situation being discussed.

[jody]

70. Darn in slack maser, there you go again using facts to argue with a gun-grabber. That's not fair! nt

[depakid]

87. There are similar state statutes throughout the US

The notion is the same- confront someone with a gun, and you risk arrest. And in fact I know someone who was charged for precisely that (and was quite fortunate to only get a fine and probation).

Here's the california statute:

Any person who exhibits a firearm or any deadly weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses the same in any fight or quarrel is subject to prosecution and imprisonment in accordance with the specific subsections of this law. (Penal Code Section 417).

[AtheistCrusader]

101. Again you are making assumptions.

"There are similar state statutes throughout the US"

Cite them. Then also include any relevant statutes regarding drawing a firearm when you witness someone in the commission of a crime. (Such as trespassing)

[depakid]

109. What is it with you gun folks?

What's so hard to accept about the fact that you can't go around bransishing your weapons and intimidating people

You know what I think? A lot of you all are cowards- living in fear of your own shadows.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. I think you are projecting.

Brandishing means implying threat. There are a couple ways to accomplish that, either by pointing it at someone, or some 'subtle hint' like showing it to someone, if it was concealed in your waistband or something.

Having it in your hand, while investigating something generally does not qualify. What she did was not reckless or even unusual in my opinion. Local law appears to support it, in Texas. Most likely here in WA as well. (though I am not a lawyer)

I don't necessarily recommend it, but she was within her rights. Nothing 'bad' happened. The reporter was in the wrong, wandering onto her property. He had no right, and no excuse. He might as well have wandered into oncoming traffic. Would you blame a driver that accidentally hit him?

[Longtooth]

121. What is it with you? You cannot accept that she does not meet YOUR definition of Brandishing?

[Georgia_Lass]

158. Exactly. They see the boogieman around every corner. Not in my shop they don't.

Come in here armed and my husband takes that gun and shoves it up..err.. before the local police, who
we are well acquainted with, show up with some handcuffs and escort the gun-owner out of the premises.

These gun owners talk about their so-called rights to own a gun but never about others rights to say "NOT ON OUR PROPERTY", you don't !

[Thortin]

164. I find it intersting

that you feel the need to physically threaten those who are following the law, and yet are not following you desires.
You have every right to deny someone service.
You have no right to physically attack them.
Dangerous ideas and thoughts.
Did it ever occur to you that someone MAY have knowledge (hand-to-hand combat experience, say) that may prove detrimental to your husband’s health??
You really need to think some of this stuff though.

[tburnsten]

105. California is not a great state to

use as an example, many of California's rules and regulations are completely out of touch with the rest of the country. Such as the May-Issue permit system, WTF is up with that anyway? Do Californians think it is a good idea to use a system destined to become corrupt, and one that has a track record of being used illicitly?

[Longtooth]

120. Thanks for the definition. She did none of those. FAIL

[slackmaster]

124. So even in California the behavior being discussed would not amount to brandishing

Thanks for that.

[MyRV9]

145. You aren't reading the law...

It says (your quote):

Any person who exhibits a firearm or any deadly weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses the same in any fight or quarrel is subject to prosecution and imprisonment in accordance with the specific subsections of this law. (Penal Code Section 417).

The fact that someone feels threatened DOES NOT mean you were exhibiting the firearm in a threatening manner.

The law above clearly recognizes that it is possible to exhibit a firearm in a non-threatening manner. How could she exhibit the firearm in a less threatening manner but still be exhibiting it?

[Longtooth]

46. Look, I've laid out the evidence. You have mischarachterized the incident

and refused to accept definitive proof. The only thing you have yet to do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening".

Now I don't know what the laws are in California, or what crazy definition of brandish they may have, and quite frankly they are not germain to this incident that took place in Texas. Fact is she did not threaten, she did not point the gun, and she did not wave it around. The secret service did look into it and found no wrong doing. The guy in the photo, as I've already said, did not even know she HAD a gun.

No matter how you slice it she committed no offense. You may WANT her to have committed an offense and try to rationalize it but she did not. That is the way it is and in my opinion the way it properly is.

[depakid]

56. The woman's brandishing a gun! How clearer does it have to be?

if you engage in that behavior in California (I know for sure) and probably Oregon and Washington, you'll be arrested. And rightly so.

Because you'd be a tragedy waiting to happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. I live in Washington and I would dispute that.

First off, this is an open carry state. Second, she did not show it to him, nor threaten him with a gun, or in any way indicate she had a gun. It could have been in her back pocket, and it would be functionally the same. (though she would need a concealed carry permit to place it in her pocket)

Having it in her hand to investigate why someone was trespassing on her property was a fairly sensible thing to do.

[tburnsten]

106. If you feel a shot home invader is a "tragedy"

then you would be absolutely right, however, she went to check out a stranger on her lawn and brought her revolver with her, not to scare him away with it but Just In Case. Good to know you are reduced to a quivering mass at the thought of an old lady armed on her own property.

[Longtooth]

116. No, by your own defination of brandishing she is NOT brandishing a gun.

[tburnsten]

103. when you have an active imagination,

lots of things are "implied". Strangely enough the big fact you missed out on was that she was not implying anything at all, she was investigating a strange young man outside her house and she wasn't about to do it unarmed, because unlike many people in our society, she has learned a valuable lesson from the horror stories from the news. That she is responsible for her own safety, whether she likes that fact or not, and that there is only one tool which can with practice equalize or tip the scales in favor of a far older, weaker individual in a deadly conflict.

[Thortin]

166. Question

Why does your bio say Oregon, but you say California?

I am one of those rarities, a native born Californian.
You would not be arrested in most places doing what that woman is doing. The cops have discretionary powers, and I don’t see most cops charging her.

[Hangingon]

60. Sorry to correct you. It is not brandishing.

[tburnsten]

102. I'm sorry for your loss

seeing a picture of an old woman with a revolver in her hand, not held in a threatening manner at all, not pointed at anyone, not waved around, and taking that as "brandishing" is pretty out there. Especially since you feel the best response to it would be to sue the old woman who was investigating a stranger wandering around on her property. Pointing it at him without cause would be brandishing, as would waving it in a threatening manner, but discretely held straight down, aimed at the highly resilient earth, by a woman in her 60s or 70s is not a criminal matter. especially not when she is in her own yard.

Are you one of those people who feels that concealed carry is a threat to your safety? I bet you feel "threatened" knowing that there may be skilled and licensed citizens carrying guns right under your nose all around you. Betcha didn't feel threatened before, when it was only far less responsible and friendly criminals who were carrying near you. And yes, you have been around guns without knowing it more times than you could ever possibly imagine.

[MyRV9]

141. Um...

Sorry to have to legally correct you- but that picture is BRANDISHING And you can and will be charged for that in sane states. Pointing goes even further- that's criminal (as opposed to civil) assault.

You know nothing. It is perfectly lawful to carry a weapon on your own property. There is no such thing as a 'civil assault' in Texas when the action is not also a criminal assault. Where you are allowed to carry a weapon on your own property, the fact that someone finds it threatening doesn't suddenly make carrying it a criminal -or civil- offense.

It would be unlawful to point it at someone unless you were justified in using the threat of deadly force to stop that person's activity.

[Tejas]

19. clue: she was on her own property

Am I to take it that you regularly trespass on private property? If so, do you claim it as a right or something? Not exactly a sane thing to do.

[depakid]

27. If you brandish a gun on me on your property or not

I'll file a criminal complaint and sue your ass off.

[Longtooth]

38. See post 36

[Tejas]

41. Not if you're on my property, you'll go to jail for trespassing

You need to think these fantasies out just a little more before you go get yourself in trouble testing your local laws.

[depakid]

43. I have absolutely no intention of EVER going to Texas again

not even to Houston or Dallas airports, so I reckon that won't be a problem.

[Tejas]

44. Sorry to

hear that, we have a lot to offer.
Lots of hunting, plenty of gun shows.....and good neighbors.

[depakid]

49. Been there already several times

I guess I can the armadillos were pretty cool.

[tburnsten]

107. My wife really wants me to move to Tejas

but I can't take the heat or the citations over printing/loss of CC Permit. Otherwise I think it would be an awesome place to live!

[bossy22]

61. the law is the same in new york

if you are on my property the duty to retreat does not apply

i can confront you with a gun, and i will not get in trouble for it

[HALO141]

110. On behalf of the rest of Texas,

thank you.

[bossy22]

65. well dont try that in new york

you will just be hit by a frivolous law suit fine

in almost all states what she did is perfectly legal

and no matter what that guy was the one at fault- he was on his cell phone not even paying attention where he was walking

...so lets change this around- if this guy lets say was on his cell phone crossing a busy road- not paying attention to his surroundings- and got hit by a car- would it be the drivers fault?

its your responsibility to be aware of your surroundings

[Spoonman]

81. Not in Texas junior!

You'll have only one legal remedy....... get the fuck off the property!

The law in Texas is very clear;

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.


The cops will not even take your complaint, but they will arrest you for trespassing or give you a ride to the hospital, your choice!

[pipoman]

91. Another total misunderstanding

Civil complaints usually require showing a loss of some type. Fear while in the commission of a crime or a civil tort is not actionable in any jurisdiction I am aware of, there is simply no loss. If someone pointed a gun at you at WalMart or on a city street while minding your own business is one thing. Someone pointing a gun at you while you are trespassing on their property is quite another story.

[krispos42]

113. Can you be brandishing if you're on your own property...

...investigating a stranger who is also on your property?

[MyRV9]

144. Not in Texas

You can carry a gun on your private property and it makes absolutely no difference that someone (a trespasser or not) happens to be alarmed by it.

Pointing it at someone is a threat of deadly force, which is allowed under some circumstances.

[krispos42]

154. Okay, thanks

And welcome aboard! :hi:

[solinvictus]

148. Not to a trespasser...

..which is what Mr. Reporter Dude was doing.

[Hangingon]

59. PT let me disagree respectfully

The no bill by the grand jury simply leaves Horn subject to later grand jury action and additional legal costs. As you see here, it is not accepted as a legal precedent. Better for Horn that he be tried. I am pretty confident that a jury would acquit him and we would have a legal precedent with an open transcript.

[Tejas]

98. Excellent points you bring up there n/t

[MyRV9]

142. True, but...

The no bill by the grand jury simply leaves Horn subject to later grand jury action and additional legal costs

True, but grand juries never investigate crimes on their own (they can but they don't). A prosecutor would have to bring it to a grand jury. Any D.A. that brings this up down the road will be 'unelected' if not worse.

[Georgia_Lass]

155. Thank GOD I don't live in Texas where you still live by the law of the gun !!!!

[jody]

4. 41 states allow the crooks' heirs to sue Horn in civil court however 9 states have laws to prevent

such civil suits.

Castle Doctrine law

Although anti-gun groups, politicians and newspaper editors in 2005 screamed of blood on the tracks in Florida after passage of that state’s Castle Doctrine law, the legislation has proven beneficial to not only Florida’s law-abiding citizens, but also to citizens in other states who have seen the light at the end of the tunnel.

Castle Doctrine, in essence, simply places into law what is a fundamental right: self-defense. If a person is in a place he or she has a right to be—in the front yard, on the road, working in their office, strolling in the park—and is confronted by an armed predator, he or she can respond in force in defense of their lives.

Castle Doctrine also protects the law-abiding from criminal and civil charges for defending themselves against an attacker whereby, after enduring the trauma of a violent attack, they aren’t again tied to the tracks of a drawn-out, nightmarish legal battle that could derail their financial future.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Aside from Florida, Castle Doctrine is now the law in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota.

[Tejas]

14. now that's a "reasonable gun law" we can live with

Can't imagine not being able to legally defend yourself on your own property.





eta: apologies in advance for future thefts of cliches from the antis & gun-grabbers.


"reasonable gun law"

"common sense gun law"

"sensible gun law"

[iverglas]

29. lucky thing jody knows how to make clickable links

Otherwise, his source might have been too obvious.

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=199

That isn't the NRA. That's the National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action.

That's the one that works tirelessly to DEFEAT DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES.

http://www.nraila.org/

On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.


Register To Vote or Register Your Guns!

With the 2008 campaign already well underway, it is critical that gun owners and gun rights supporters are registered to vote in advance of respective deadlines. Make no mistake, opponents of our freedom will be working hard over this next year to gain momentum they need to attack our rights. It is critical that we as gun owners are registered to vote and that we most assuredly vote on Election Day.

Hell. Why would anybody NOT want to swallow whatever LIES the LYING NRA-ILA might want to tell them??

Even when they're telling you that what is actually the "stand your ground" doctrine is really the "castle doctrine":

Castle Doctrine, in essence, simply places into law what is a fundamental right: self-defense. If a person is in a place he or she has a right to be—in the front yard, on the road, working in their office, strolling in the park—and is confronted by an armed predator, he or she can respond in force in defense of their lives.

Shell games. Something the anti-choice brigade is somewhat overfond of, too. They seem to work. An intelligent person recognizes them for the lies they are, and an honest person calls them the deceitful demagoguery they are.

Some people think they're good things to post at DU ...

[Tejas]

39. Did you have a point?

NRA bashing is 2 doors down on your left, next door to the 911 phone call conspiracy theorists.

[iverglas]

93. jody has a champion!

Lucky jody.

Maybe you can explain to him how to answer posts for himself. He seems to have lost the knack somewhere along the way.

If you could also mention that his habit of writing great long sentences that run on from subject line to post body is just annoying and went out with ivillage ...

[beevul]

108. NRA gives endorsement to (DEMOCRAT) Schweitzer

NRA gives endorsement to Schweitzer
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON
Gazette State Bureau

HELENA - The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund on Tuesday endorsed Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer's re-election, citing his strong support of the rights of gun owners, hunters and sportsmen.

"He's just done a great job defending the Second Amendment, hunting, fishing (and) access on the part of the public to public lands," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in a phone interview after a press conference in Billings.

"He also had legislation that secured $10 million for public access. He ended the moratorium on the buffalo hunt after 16 years."

Schweitzer, a lifetime NRA member, received an A rating from the NRA.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/05/28/news...

Democrats have nobody to blame for being held accountable for the votes they make, except themselves.

In cases like that of Obama, they get taken to task on it.

In cases like that of Schweitzer, they get endorsed.

Yep, sure looks like "working tirelessly to DEFEAT DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES" to me, yessirree. :sarcasm:

You really do need a new routine, rather than the bald re-tread you keep trying to pass off as one.

[tburnsten]

122. Yes but Schweitzer is a rural democrat

Now the approach will be to claim that any "true" democrat would be living somewhere other than the (insert a paragraph of snobbery and elitism towards people who don't live in eastern and western cities here) area that he lives, and would be fighting to save the right of transgendered multi-sexual people to marry kittens or some other nonsense. It will be a massive F-A-I-L, but the approach will be taken.

[iverglas]

130. ^^^ nobody wants to miss this post, really

Now the approach will be to claim that any "true" democrat would be living somewhere other than the (insert a paragraph of snobbery and elitism towards people who don't live in eastern and western cities here) area that he lives, and would be fighting to save the right of transgendered multi-sexual people to marry kittens or some other nonsense.


Nothing to do with me, of course, or any approach I might take to anything ...


But it sure does tell us WHAT THIS POSTER THINKS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. And about people whose interests the Democratic Party stands up for.

[tburnsten]

132. Last I checked the democratic Party was

most interested in looking out for working class people and protecting the rights of all americans. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is that candidates take flak for not being an urbanite. Good try though ma'am.

[iverglas]

137. actually, what you were doing

was hurling abuse at people like those who are, or who support, gay men or lesbians who wish to marry the partner of their choice and be accorded the same rights and RESPECT as anyone else.

You thought maybe you hadn't made it obvious enough?

[tburnsten]

161. No I wasn't.

I was picking on the FACT that there are some people who love to take it on themselves to find the smallest group of people who live an off-the-beaten-path lifestyle and use them for a little "tolerance" crusade, instead of focusing on real problems that affect all but the most rich. The fact that I strung together a chain of appelations in my example doesn't change what it was, an example. I fully support equal rights but I can't help noticing that the path to them would be easier if the shrill minorities (in this case the far right is much worse with all the hoohah about the end of civilization if gay marriage is legally approved, the far left seems to be trying to mandate acceptance of something, can't mandate feelings) were not there. I think the largest chunk of the population either supports gay marriage or doesn't care one way or another. You might think that not caring is "bad" or "intolerant" or "nonprogressive", but the truth is it doesn't affect that many people and so most of us don't care one way or another.

[Spoonman]

63. Texas too! n/t

[jody]

71. Thanks for adding Texas to the list. n/t

[MyRV9]

135. I'd Countersue

41 states allow the crooks' heirs to sue Horn in civil court however 9 states have laws to prevent

I'd countersue for any actual damages I incurred including the cost of biohazard (blood) cleanup, infliction of emotional distress, and the cost of the bullet(s) I expended while defending my property. I'm in Texas - I'd probably win.

[Longtooth]

7. I wish Mr Horn was my neighbor.

[Ian David]

9. I wish he was your neighbor, too.

Then, you could ask him how he feels about what he did.

Apparently, he feels awful about taking the lives of other human beings.

If it were me, I might have aimed for their legs.

Or, if they were facing me, for the nuts.

[Longtooth]

21. I'd proudly call him my neighbor. But what you suggest is not

very responsible. Once you pull the trigger, no matter where you are aiming, you have employed deadly force. To shoot to wound is a very bad thing to try and can get you into mucho hot water.

[Tejas]

23. and......

"To shoot to wound is a very bad thing to try and can get you into mucho hot water."


It can get you shot/stabbed/beaten to death by the perp.

[Ian David]

25. Yeah, but that way you get to see the looks on their faces after you shoot them. n/t

[Hangingon]

67. Good way to get yourself killed.

No arms instructor will tell you to shoot to wound.

[Ian David]

76. I don't do everything my driving instructor taught me, either. n/t

[Spoonman]

84. Only one survivor

means only one side of the story that the jury hears!

Think about that before you draw that weapon.

[iverglas]

94. defensive driving

There just ain't no dooty to yield that right of way. Stand your road!

[HALO141]

111. ah jeez, here we go.

Then, you could ask him how he feels about what he did.

Apparently, he feels awful about taking the lives of other human beings.


Strange reaction for a cold-blooded killer, I would think.

If it were me, I might have aimed for their legs.

Or, if they were facing me, for the nuts.

Oh, yeah , good plan. Not like anyone could bleed to death from a bisected femoral artery.

There's no such thing as "just a little bit deadly" force. When firearms are involved, it's all deadly. Further, if the application of deadly force is appropriate then the only suitable goal is to end the threat as quickly and decisively as possible. If the attacker does, in fact, end up dying from his wounds, well, that's a shame.


I used to be amused by the nonsensical pontifications of those who've never received any sort of training in deadly force encounters. Sadly, the spectacle lost its novelty a long time ago.

[pt22]

11. He's like most all our neighbors!

:D

[Hangingon]

68. Mine too.

[Spoonman]

72. I have avoided this issue until now

You see, I am from the same area as Mr. Horn. (Deer Park)
Very close family friends live three doors down from him, and they have nothing but very nice things to say about him.
The neighborhood in which they reside *had* become crime ridden with burglaries, assaults, stolen vehicles etc.
People were fed up, and since this occurred, almost no crime!

Mr Horn was well within his LEGAL rights to shoot these two criminals.
(I am not saying he should or shouldn't have done so, but he had the legal right to)

Texas penal code September 1, 2007
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code

The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.


Mr. Horn will not have to endure any civil action either.


SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.




For all those people who want to cry, piss and moan - don't do criminal shit in TEXAS!
We are sick and tired of criminals, we have no tolerance for them, and if you don't like that attitude don't come here!

If you are honest, want to live where neighbors look out for one another, welcome!


If you are a Democrat, please move here cause we are still a red state!!!!!!!!

[jody]

74. Is it possible the DA presented the case to the grand jury to block later efforts to prosecute

or persecute Horn and to make certain he is protected against civil law suits?

[Spoonman]

83. A no bill in Texas

does not mean the case was dismissed.
It simply means the Grand Jury did not find sufficient evidence *at this time* to hand down an indictment (prosecute).
If new evidence is discovered later they can still prosecute.

This rarely happens.

[jody]

85. Thanks, n/t

[Tippy]

73. Well the last few elections

"They're going to take our guns away" Dems didn't bite......"Not from my cold dead hands"...well Hestons hands are now very cold and Dems still didn't bite...I really didn't want to believe the SCOTUS would go this far...to swing this election to Bush/McCain but they have.......My advice Stay the hell ot of Texas.....a lot of gun owerners are every responsible citizens but...this guy is a trigger happy nut case pure and simple...

[jody]

77. I doubt that Texas will miss those who stay away and their absence raises the average IQ in TX. n/t

[Spoonman]

80. Absolutely!!!!!!!!

Thank you very much Mam (in my most southern accent)!

[jody]

90. Thanks but I'm not a Mam. When the movie "The Yearling" came out in 1946, my family and relatives

thought it was great that the movie was about a blond haired boy named Jody wandering among the slash and long-leaf pines with dense palmetto under-story. The forest scenes were shot not many miles from my home.

I was called Jody before the book "The Yearling" was written by Marjorie Rawlings but the book and later movie made the nickname stick.

I'm quite a bit older now but at family reunions, everyone still calls me Jody.

Have a wonderful evening, :hi:

[SteveM]

92. That's why they call 'em "Ol' folks at home."...

Our ancestry came to Florida just before the Civil War (wonder why). Last week, I was on the Ocklawaha, porting just east of Silver Springs at the public landing. My dad hunted Ocala Nat'l Forest; the rest of us sons hit most every dove and duck flyway from Levy, through Alachua and into Marion. Do read the book (if you haven't) and find out why the Yearling got the Pulitzer in '38.

We still have reunions in Hillsborough State Park, Pasco Co. and in Alachua Co. I live in Texas, now.

[jody]

96. 1980, my family canoed the entire Suwanee River, ten days, and arrived at the Gulf on Father's Day.

It don't get no better than that! :pals:

[spin]

115. The Suwanee River is probably a lot more shallow today..

but it's still pretty. I spent some time there on Sunday, swimming and watching my 13 year old grandson diving into the water from an overhanging tree, a 30 ft drop. The river was about 18 feet deep under the tree, but 40 feet upstream it was only knee deep.

[iverglas]

99. snork

And I get "dude".

I know a Jody in Texas. And a Jody from Texas. The Jody from Texas ... well actually, he never made it to Texas. The family was ... families were ... still in California when the babysitter ran off with him when he was a baby when his mother failed to appear to pick him up.

His big brother, an ex of mine, never believed that story. He believed the story his mother told years later, when she was slinging drinks in Vegas: that his father had sold him as the blond blue-eyed baby boy he was, for adoption by some couple in Germany.

Father (an alcoholic bipolar reloader) and his new wife (an abusive viper), his remaining 3 kids, her 3 kids, moved to Plano, had 3 more kids ... many years later, who shows up? Well, if it isn't little Jody. Now 40 yrs old, having been reared in Joplin by ... the babysitter who ran off with him.

He didn't actually show up at first. That was delayed until all the camera crews could be there, to make the reunion into an episode of Dateline, I believe it was. That would be after his stepbrother, my ex's stepmama's favourite recovering cokehead, ODed snorting heroin and died ...

Anyhow, the other Jody is my ex's son, in the Austin area, last seen by me living in a mobile home in the middle of the barrenest landscape I'd ever seen in my life. With a stepdaddy. And of course his guns. Last heard of doing time for something or other. Haven't kept up since the ex died three years ago in Illinois, which just happened to be where he fell off the bus I put him on 15 years earlier.

Little Jody had his own moment of fame. After falling off the bus, the ex was in detox -- just as George I was commencing Gulf War I. The ex announced to the world at large, in the detox centre in Illinois, that if George Bush tried to draft his son, he would shoot George Bush.

Now, any intelligence service worthy of the name would have said to itself:

1. These are the self-righteous ravings of a pissed off drunk.
2. The son in question (it would know, because it's an intelligence service) is 10 years old.

and gone back to doing important intelligent stuff. Of course, any healthcare professionals in any place not already a police state would have given the ex a valium and locked the door. Not healthcare professionals in the USofA; not the secret service. The secret service came in a pair, with their sunglasses and earwigs, and conducted an investigation. Shortly after that I sent the ex a florist delivery, but rather than the prosaic flowers, a quite good-sized umbrella plant. He took one look at it, named it George and checked it for bugs.

One wedding and a funeral in Texas, and what a gas they were. Parking lots full of pickup trucks and beer, and people so devoid of curiosity about anyone and anything I was dumbfounded. The Christ child, the littlest half-sibling, got married to his true love in full military regalia. The favourite son, the step-brother, got buried in a tissue of lies told to his mother about how he'd had a heart attack. And I endured a total of about a month of their company. Not that I would call it that.

One bright spot there was: a step-grandfather. Not the step-mother's father; the father's step-father. He'd been needed when the original grandfather tried to kill the grandmother by an axe to her head. She survived, he got life. The step-grandfather from California was a charming and interesting old guy. He's the one, some may remember, who was the only survivor of the WWI Halifax explosion I ever met. I very much enjoyed our talks.

Then there was the aunt with the foot-long twisted bizarre painted fingernails ...



And I solemnly affirm that this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of my encounters with Texas, absolutely honest to god.

[spin]

114. Fascinating story...

Now I can better understand why you have made derogatory comments about American gun owners in the past. Fortunately, not all Americans and not all American gun owners resemble the people you describe.

To be fair to the Secret Service, they take any threat on the President seriously. With good reason.

[iverglas]

126. no, sorry, no connection whatsoever

These people were ... I don't know really what to say. On the surface, a completely ordinary middle class family in Plano, Texas. This was all circa late 80s-1990, and I'd never given much of a thought to gun owners in the US at that time. I didn't ... well, I was going to say I didn't see guns when I was there, but I must have. Daddy had a room in their house where he did his reloading. Off the master bedroom. Would lead poisoning account for any of this? So maybe there were guns there, which I would have seen in the room. Maybe there were guns locked securely away in a safe so I couldn't see them. I don't know; no recollection whatsoever.

Maybe you people do base all your public policy positions on personal experience and nothing else. I just don't. Not really at all. I had no experiences in Texas that affected my positions on public policy relating to firearms even an iota.

So when you say

Now I can better understand why you have made derogatory comments about American gun owners in the past.

First, a false statement: that I have made derogatory comments about firearms owners in the US, by which you obviously mean generalizations, and not statements about specific individuals. That statement is simply false. I am sure that there are quite a lot of people in the US who own firearms for the same reason many people in Canada do: to hunt and/or to protect themselves or their property or livestock against predators and pests, for instance. And who genuinely do regard their firearms as "tools", and not as some fetish object associated with some loony "right".

Second, an attempt to portray someone's positions on public policy as an emotional reaction to personal experiences (particularly interesting that this is attempted when the person is a woman, of course). Nope, sorry: if I were to advocate public policies based on my personal experience, I would very certainly be a pretty right-wing loonytarian, because that's where my own experiences would lead me and that's where my own interests would lie.

So it just doesn't work, whatever you intended by it.

[spin]

162. Interesting reply...

Trying to find out what you really believe is a challenge. If you lived in the states you might have a great future as a politician. Your ability to dodge and tap dance is admirable.

First, a false statement: that I have made derogatory comments about firearms owners in the US, by which you obviously mean generalizations, and not statements about specific individuals. That statement is simply false. I am sure that there are quite a lot of people in the US who own firearms for the same reason many people in Canada do: to hunt and/or to protect themselves or their property or livestock against predators and pests, for instance. And who genuinely do regard their firearms as "tools", and not as some fetish object associated with some loony "right".

But in another post you replied:

Question:
Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

Your answer:
You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.

Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=174189&mesg_id=174378

Can I therefore assume that you only feel dislike for firearms owners who own a weapon for self defense? If so why? If it's OK for someone "to hunt and/or to protect themselves or their property or livestock against predators and pests", why do you oppose using a weapon to defend oneself from a human predator? Is a bear or a mountain lion that much different from a criminal who intends to do a person bodily harm? Is a person who owns a firearm to defend against a criminal a racist/misogynist or a dupe while another individual who carries a firearm to ward off a grizzly bear a normal mature balanced individual? Does a person have a right to defend against animal attack but not human attack? I genuinely do regard my firearms as tools, but I'm not a hunter nor do I own a farm with livestock. I therefore by your standards must be racist/misogynistic or merely a dupe of the NRA or the far right.

In reality, most firearms owners in the states own a firearm, especially a handgun, with the intent to use it for self defense against criminals if necessary. Therefore, I feel that you have indeed made derogatory statements about the majority of gun owners in the states. To be sure some are racist, some are misogynists and some are dupes. The great majority are simply people who feel that if the shit hits the fan they want some means of survival.

You may argue that they are merely fools who have been deceived by the propaganda of the far right and any attempt to defend themselves will be useless. While this may indeed be the result in some incidents, many other confrontations will result in a successful resolution to a violent confrontation often without a shot being fired.

And as for your comment: Second, an attempt to portray someone's positions on public policy as an emotional reaction to personal experiences (particularly interesting that this is attempted when the person is a woman, of course)., allow me to say that I have the greatest respect for women.
Both women and men have emotion. Men often attempt to hide emotion, but believe me they feel it. Showing emotion may be far more healthy than suppressing it. This may explain why women live longer than men. Emotion is NOT a weakness.

"There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.”
Arnold Bennett

Could this quote sum up your view of the typical racist/misogynist gun owner:
“Love is bullshit. Emotion is bullshit. I am a rock. A jerk. I'm an uncaring asshole and proud of it.”
Chuck Palahniuk

[iverglas]

167. and your own ability to rewrite history

would stand you in excellent stead.

You said:

Now I can better understand why you have made derogatory comments about American gun owners in the past.

Now. Let us suppose I had made a derogatory comment about Ron Paul. Would you later say:

Now I can better understand why you have made derogatory comments about middle-aged white men in the past.

I hope not.

So now, having said what you said, you come along and offer this as some sort of proof of the accuracy of your statement:

Question:
Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

Your (my) answer:
You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.
Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons.

Looks to me pretty much like offering my derogatory comment about Ron Paul as proof that I have made derogatory comments about middle-aged white men.


Can I therefore assume that you only feel dislike for firearms owners who own a weapon for self defense? If so why? If it's OK for someone "to hunt and/or to protect themselves or their property or livestock against predators and pests", why do you oppose using a weapon to defend oneself from a human predator?

We could start with the fact that I find the very term "human predator" to be ugly and noxious, and part and parcel of the entire ideology behind the guns-for-"self-defence" movement. You are setting up an equivalency that does not exist.


Does a person have a right to defend against animal attack but not human attack?

Since I have consistently and in great detail and very patiently and over and over explained my views on the right to self-defence -- the basic point being that the right to life, and the duty of a state/society to respect that right, requires that no one be punished for acting reasonably to avert death or serious injury -- I don't even know why you would ask that question.

A person defending against attack by an animal (or protecting property from damage by an animal) does not have any duty to that animal. A person facing a human being whom s/he believes is about to cause him/her harm is obliged, by the laws against assault and homicide that implement a society's duty to respect the right to life, not to cause harm beyond what is necessary (with all the qualifications about reasonableness and circumstances).


In reality, most firearms owners in the states own a firearm, especially a handgun, with the intent to use it for self defense against criminals if necessary. Therefore, I feel that you have indeed made derogatory statements about the majority of gun owners in the states.

Well, there ya go. That's what you think. If it's accurate, then there are a lot of people in your world that I don't want in my world, be they vicious or stupid, I don't know. Your world is evidently one in which bogeymen lurk around every corner ... except that it isn't, really. And the extent to which it is, is largely a result of the policies applied by the very people promoting the fear of bogeymen, and the people who vote for them and then arm themselves against the bogeymen.

No, really, I just don't buy into it. Create a world of horrors, whether real or imaginary, and then become part of the problem -- no, really, not how I choose my world to be ordered.


Could this quote sum up your view of the typical racist/misogynist gun owner:
“Love is bullshit. Emotion is bullshit. I am a rock. A jerk. I'm an uncaring asshole and proud of it.”
Chuck Palahniuk

Not really.

I am a member of a society that places little value on individuals' lives and collectively refuses to act in such a way as to enhance both individual and public security in so many areas -- health, community safety, housing, the welfare of children, basic economic security -- that it is little wonder that I see myself as an island and the world around me as a threat, full of people whose constant and only thought is about how to get what I've got.

That might better sum it up.

[DrCory]

174. There May Be...

...a way to continuously posses a firearm in your home for the purpose of self-defense and yet escape condemnation by her as a racist/misogynist/RW dupe. Simply SAY you're keeping it for pest control. If you happen to use the "pest control" firearm for self-defense, no matter, you're still in the club.

However, she never did answer my question regarding this contradiction, so exploit this apparent loophole with caution should your heart ache at the thought of being labeled a very bad person.

[bossy22]

78. huh?

"I really didn't want to believe the SCOTUS would go this far"
the decision was as narrow as it could reasonably be

and i dont see how this swings it to the rethugs, i think it does just the opposite- it takes the "take your guns" off the table completely- the best thing for obama- in my mind mccain just lost a wedge issue

[Spoonman]

79. And you know he is "trigger happy" how?

I will assume you personally know Mr. Horn.
You do not know the full story, and to cast judgment is very narrow minded.

The same type of narrow mindedness that that some refer to as racist.
The same narrow mindedness that causes swing voters to vote against Democrats.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE THE SWING VOTE!

I hear it constantly, your one of *those* fill in the blank because some hot head, misinformed numnuts spewed a bunch of BS as though it it is the definitive party platform.

People stereotype very readily, so keep that in mind before engaging the mouth.

[iverglas]

129. gosh, I wonder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And you know he is "trigger happy" how?

Could it possibly be ... and this is just a theory, now ... because he announced to the 911 operator that he had a shotgun, he referred to the sound of a shotgun being (whatever one does to a shotgun), he made that sound, and he announced that he was GOING TO KILL the individuals in question? And argued at length with the 911 operator about what he was going to do?


You do not know the full story, and to cast judgment is very narrow minded.

You apparently have a somewhat odd notion of what it means to "cast judgment". Ordinarily, forming an opinion based on facts in front of one's face isn't referred to as casting judgment.


The same type of narrow mindedness that that some refer to as racist.

That's fascinating. Well, actually, it's lame. But it's still fascinating, as a fine example of demagoguery at its finest. Or ugliest.

[tburnsten]

133. In many cases

telling an operator that you have shot a burglar has resulted in the police who were formerly unavailable swarming the house and capturing criminals in action. Whether or not you actually did, is pretty irrelevant. The operator in this case couldn't get anyone but a single detective to the scene before the men approached Mr. Horn on his property.

[Spoonman]

165. Did someone pull your chain?

You are easily in the top 3 posters on this board that demonstrate narrow minded stereotyping of people in the southern states on a regular basis.

*Your* opinions are rarely based in "fact", and are more often than not, nothing more than emotions run amuck!

[iverglas]

168. oh look!

A random post by a random poster full of random thoughts about moi!

I luv my fan club.


You are easily in the top 3 posters on this board that demonstrate narrow minded stereotyping of people in the southern states on a regular basis.

There must be so many posts of mine to that effect -- could you quote one for us?

[Spoonman]

169. There is no need for me to quote you to provide proof

EVERYONE has seen it enough to know it's true.

Trust me, your "fan club" exists only in your mind.

How's that for a random thought.

[iverglas]

170. "How's that for a random thought."

Well, not knowing the criteria for judging random thoughts, I wouldn't know.

For an actual thought, pretty sad and smelly, though.

[handydandy]

128. Thank God

Finally, after all of our politicians abandon us there is a place to live that is working on taking back the rights of private citizens. God Bless Texas! You people should be lucky to live here. On top of that, you should be lucky to have a neighbor like Joe Horn. Let the CRIMINALS get away you all say... mabye they will come back... mabye you and your family will be home next time. Like the football player who was killed in Florida after criminals REPEATED their home invasion and finally ran into someone at the house. Should we have any sympathy for ANYONE who is killed in the commission of a criminal act. Whose choice was it to commit these acts in the first place? Oh and I am sobbing in my pillow for the poor (widow?) of the criminal who will have to raise her child alone. If she would shut the hell up and quit complaining mabye she will raise her child to not commit crime, as we see what the end result of that is. Im sure she is doing fine letting her child sleep on a blanket on the floor of her southwest houston apartment, paid for by our tax dollars, with a 52 inch plasma tv in the living room given to her by our federal aid, like all the other moochers down there. Im sure she will sue in civil court to get more money out of a taxpayer to replace her fiancee's income. Oh wait, he probably did not have one anyway. I pray to God that anyone who thinks Joe Horn should have charges pressed against him does not find themselves starting down the barrel of a gun of a criminal who might have thought against committing the crime if there was a real fear of death in his heart. Let this be a lesson, stay out of my yard, and keep your freeloading hands off my property. As it should be nation wide, so it is in Texas, if you leave your place of residence out to do no good... you just might not be coming back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NYC_SKP]

146. I LOVE IT.

Illegal Aliens, having broken laws to get there, now breaking more laws...good for him and good for the country.

I've never been in his position, exactly, but I've interrupted crimes and I've been victims of crimes, including a knifepoint mugging by four individuals on the lower east side of NYC.

While Joe Horn may not have been under an immediate threat of personal harm, he certainly wasn't going to be free from threat had he merely told them to go away.

And if anyone thinks he should have just been silent and called the police must never have had much experience with getting a busy signal when dialing 911 or being told that unless someone is bleeding there won't be an immediate response.

[the_real_38]

149. A good day for the 2nd amendment, and the Castle Doctrine ...

.... when the Washington Redskin Sean Taylor was shot to death in his home in Miami, the killers said they 'were just looking to steal'. Instead, they created a dangerous and volatile situation where Taylor was gunned down in his own house with his pregnant girlfriend hiding upstairs.

Mr. Horn didn't take any chances - he put the situation right. Kudos.

[high_and_mighty]

171. Video of Joe Horn giving a walkthrough with detective

I scanned all the posts. Don't think I saw this video linked anywhere. Sorry if I'm wrong.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/07/templates/lineuppop.html?mcVideo=1631239835

[Xela]

173. Good link

I still feel ambivalent about the whole thing though.

I wouldn't have left my house lest the jury would think I was looking for trouble.

But that's just me.

If I had been in that jury, I'd have been very concerned about the 911 calls.

But then again, the defense attorney would have used other arguments and I would have to consider them as well.

Tough situation, wouldn't want to be in those shoes.

But I am damn glad the law is there to back me up as a home owner/victim.

Xela

[JMackT]

175. Horn set a good example

Dont steal peoples shit and you will not get shot by those people.

Crime is a risky business