Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in the back - More on the 'Hero'

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Yarcofin

 

I would like to more details about the arrival of the officer. Some say he was in fear because of Mr. Horn

He had every right to be fearful of Mr Horn.

The operator may have alerted the officer to the fact that Mr Horn was 'going to kill them'.

Wearing his civilian clothing would be just the same as painting a bullseye on his chest.

but I wonder if he could have controlled the situation.

No need. Mr Horn had the situation under full control!

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Let's review the facts:
-Illegal immigrants
- Previously deported and back again
- CONVICTED of possession and distribution of coc aine
- Fake IDs
- Part of fake ID ring
- Part of burglary ring

And at what stage did Mr Horn have these 'facts' to hand to review when he murdered the two strangers?

[edit on 10/12/2007 by skibtz]

reply to post by Sentinel 1


As relates to California, specifically southern California, fires, no, one does not hear the "propaganda" that you mention. The reason it's not heard is that California gets assistance from neighboring states to assist in the containment of its yearly fires. Not only are the vast resources of Californians (California has the sixth largest economy in the world) used, but also resources from, again, neighboring states. And the responses are quick enough and appropriate enough to avoid much negative press. The only negative press concerns the California's yearly alloted budget to deal with natural disasters. Anyway, as far as New Orleans is concerned, there CLEARLY wasn't an immediate, effective, and appropriate response during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This was so, REGARDLESS, of the issues of race.

If this officer is in such fear then it would seem he is not prepared for the job. Criminals are quite frequently armed and shoot at officers. There is a greater chance that Mr. Horn would realize the officer was legit and would back down if he stated who he was as compared to a criminal. If he can't deal with this situation, can he deal with others? Mr. Horn was acting because the police presence failed to arrive.

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Let's review the facts:
-Illegal immigrants
- Previously deported and back again
- CONVICTED of possession and distribution of coc aine
- Fake IDs
- Part of fake ID ring
- Part of burglary ring

No one is disputing that they were bad guys. The facts demonstrate they were very bad men. Not only were they engaging in the above activities, but they were specifically preying on immigrant families (the owners of the house they robbed were Filipino immigrants), because they felt immigrants were easier targets.

That being said, the fact they were bad guys doesn't matter, it does not provide justification for murder. Our entire legal system is predicated on the fact that even bad guys are given a fair trial.

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Also why does the article's title say that he shot them in the back, when the article says there is no evidence of that and the wounds were in the torso and left arm?

I've wondered the same thing. While I do not agree with the actions of Mr. Horn (I do believe he murdered the burglars), I think the Houston Chronicle is purposefully trying to stir up hatred for Mr. Horn. They know people are more likely to read the headline than the entire article. This is purposeful and malicious.

reply to post by skibtz


Besides "disagreeing with your government", what exactly are you doing to change the criminals running the UK?

Originally posted by jedimiller


Oh that's ok, I know it wasn't mean in a bad way. I for one wouldn't be found killing an animal or a human. unless I was being threatened with my life.

And I want everyone to know that I will NEVER carry a concealed weapon. Weapons of any kind are uncivilized.

The absurdity of that comment is amazing. Weapons are the tool that gave you the freedom you take for granted today.

Regardless of the clarity of what happened outside Horn's home between him and his alleged assailants -- Got that? ASSAILANTS = SELF DEFENSE -- Horn should not get away without explaining his comments to the 911 operator, "I'm going to kill them." That is strong evidence of premeditation. Murder is never the right thing. Manslaughter is never the right thing. Only justifiable homicide is permitted.

Were Horn's comments and subsequent actions justifiable?

If Horn was protecting his neighbor's property, why does he claim self defense?

If Horn was protecting his life, why did he not remain in his home when told several times by the 911 operator to do so?

If Horn asked permission from the 911 operator to "take care" of the suspects, why did Horn ignore the 911 operator's suggestion not to go outside and engage the suspects?

Why did Horn make the decision to kill the suspects saying, "I will kill them", before he left the relative safety of his own home?

What else could a man holding and pumping his shotgun possibly mean when he makes the statement, "I'm going to kill them"?

How does the protection of a third person's property legally figure into all of this?

The other point is that one does not necessarily become a criminal because one intentionally does bad things. Manslaughter is a perfect example. Two guys getting into a barroom brawl do not necessarily intend to kill each other, but one of them takes a left to the jaw, stumbles, slips in a puddle of spilled beer, falls and hits his head on the edge of a chair on the way down breaking his neck and later dying on the way to the hospital. The surviving fighter will to answer to the law for possible manslaughter, at least. It's also possible for the owner of the establishment to face civil charges. Still, though, in Horn's case, there's those pesky comments he made prior to going outside his home that may interfere with any possible murder charges being reduced to manslaughter charges.

The spin that the newspapers have on this case is that Horn was doing the right thing. That's the spin. Listening to the 911 tapes doesn't paint as clear a picture as the news outlets illustrate. His comments strongly suggest premeditation. The laws concerning the protection of a third person's property certainly do not aid Horn. And, so, self defense is all that's left for recourse.

To me, it sounds like Horn's attorney is looking for a way out for Horn. Of course, that's what lawyers are paid to do. Even though a PC cop was present, he has not made any public statements suggesting that the suspects showed intent to harm Horn. According to a report the PC cop gave (posted elsewhere in this thread), at least one suspect closed the distance between himself and Horn but the suspect's motion and direction angled away from Horn. Does that sounds like a reason for self defense? The suspect's foot touching the lawn doesn't cut it.

I have a few final questions. Does anybody believe that the Pasadena Police Department has any sympathy towards Horn? Is it likely that the PPD has the impression that Horn respects the authority and ability of the PPD? After all, it is better that the police are seen preventing crime than arresting a civilian who is perceived -- whether true or not -- to have prevented a crime. Maybe the PPD didn't arrest Horn to prevent further insult to their reputation?

Well, I'm all argued out.

Originally posted by Areal51
Horn should not get away without explaining his comments to the 911 operator, "I'm going to kill them." That is strong evidence of premeditation.

IMO, that one statement is going to do him in. There's no way his lawyer's going to be able to spin that statement, and to a 911 operator no less.

Peace

if I was teh plainclothes cop, I'd be wary of the situation as well. Thats just common sense. In any situation like what happened, theres going to be at least one person on an adrenaline rush from fear or any other emotion. when emotions are high, judgement gets impaired. Its like going hunting with a blind man, and how to you make a sound thats not like a rabbit in the bush? Now, after the shooting, did the man stand down, relatively speaking, or did he decide to go on a neighborhood shooting rampage? think about that one.

and for the bleeding hearts here. Sorry, but killing happens in this world, and death happens. you may not like it but you simply have to accept it. Sticking your head in the sand is not an alternative.

For those that try to equate shooting someone at walmart because the buzzer goes off with this, your logic is severely flawed in the matter. You're equating apples and oranges, since no one saw the people break into a walmart through a window to begin with.

i'm sure some mindless liberal do-gooder is going to try to get this man on a technicality because of what he said, but the simple fact is, so far, this guy seems in the right. how quick are cops to throw someone into the back of their car in cuffs for the smallest thing, and even the cops on scene wouldn't do it. think about that for a moment. holy jumping dinosaur crap, this guy didn't even get tasered, whats this world coming to?

I support the right of people who are capable to use a gun to have one if they choose to do so. I just think its lamentable that people have to live in places where the need to use one on another person is an unfortunate possibility. Yes, im a dreamer, I'd love to have a safer society, as well as have all our rights intact.

I may be one of the few people on this thread who has actually fired at another human being with a firearm. I felt justified because I witnessed a violent assault and purse snatching of an old lady ( black ) by a young hooligan ( black ) on a dark Miami street one night right in front of the City of Miami graveyard. The punk slammed the old lady to the ground and broke her shoulder, grabbed her purse and took off into the graveyard.

I was at the time a civilian in charge of a shoplifting and store security detail for a major private security agency at a major downtown dept. store, and was armed and carried a ' Special Officers ' badge from the City of Miami Police. I was authorized to make arrests without warrants for misdemeanors as well as felonies. I saw the entire attack happen, and I jumped from my car and laid down about 6 shots from my .45 Colt Combat Commander trying to hit the attacker as he fled. I was determined that he would not escape from doing that to an old lady, even if I had to kill him to stop him.

It was dark and he was running like the wind, especially when I started popping caps at him. I hit a few gravestones, and one bullet went so close to him that he shrieked and threw the purse down and fled..I never saw a human being run that fast in my life. Well, the cop's came and let the dog loose in the cemetery to try and catch him but he had gotten over a fence and melted back into the Overtown black section of Miami..gone.

The cop's were pissed at me..for missing!! It turned into an argument about auto's versus revolvers!! They told me if I had hit him it would have been totally justified as he was a violent fleeing felon..BUT:

I am GLAD as hell I did not hit that man..or kid. Sure, I could justify it, but deep down there was an element of rage on my part..I wanted that jerk to pay for hurting an old lady, and that affected my judgement about shooting or not. That is NOT the way it should be. I decided that I was legally Ok with it, and THAT was all I needed to know at that point..but now, many years later, looking back, I know I would never forget it or be able to erase the thought from my mind that if it turned out to be some 16 year old punk..or whatever, the thouight of ending his lfe..no more chances..no chance at changing, reforming..even to pay the price and go to jail..all that gone, with the pull of a trigger.

I thank God I missed that night, and although the old lady suffered and was hurt, killing the kid would not have helped her..revenge is for God, thats why He said to leave it to Him, because we will not see the big picture or the long term affects of our actions when we make hasty decisions based on adrenalin and revenge, even when done righteously, it still can carry a heavy burden for an entire lifetime. The decision to shoot should be narrowly defined and restricted to those cases where life is in ' IMMANENT DANGER ' and in NO other circumstances.

Simply catching a thief now rather than later does not justify ending a human life: When we get too cavalier with human lives, our own become less valued as well. Only when the fear of death is present does a shooting become justified, either yours or others. In any other case the gun should stay holstered and the cop's left to find the perps later. Life is too valuable for decisions that are based on technicalities and emotions.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
i'm sure some mindless liberal do-gooder is going to try to get this man on a technicality because of what he said, but the simple fact is, so far, this guy seems in the right.

Sorry, political affiliation has nothing to do with this case. As a matter of fact focusing just on what Horn said to the 911 operator prior to Horn leaving his home to confront the two suspects is as conservative as one can get concerning this case. Leave your political agenda out of the discussion.

reply to post by slackerwire


Now. Now.

Subversive artists and defiant minds never reveal their secrets.

And they certainly don't own up to them.

Nuff said on that matter...have you managed to form any reply on my previous rants or would you rather that we just forget I posted earlier?

Avoidance does seem to be your forte.

[edit on 10/12/2007 by skibtz]

From the Texas penal code:

§ 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly
produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person
of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool
reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by
and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another
acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of
the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits
an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than
manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the
commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission
or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may
raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the
immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate
cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a
preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second
degree.

It would seem if the self-defense and property code is found not to apply then the best he could hope for is murder second degree using the "sudden passion" defense. (b) 1 and 2 and (d)

i just wana ask what exactly are people defending on this thread are you defending the law breakers or soone who has the right to defend himself.
i dont think the guy just went up and shot them two just cuz they were trespasing also you people with the redneck bashing should watch your thongue because you are not displaying a better quality by calling people names like that. ok so he shot them boohoo newtons law at work i worry more about innocent people that get shot and blown up in other places than two morons who didnt think there be a consequence for invading somebody's life.

criminals thrive in this society because we have become too reliant on the law to keep us safe but the fact is the law cant be everywhere at once and although it might seems like a good idea to shoot at someone this can start escalating again to a point where everyone is carrying guns and shooting at each other once again.

taking guns away is not the solution either because there are other ways to kill people as well and some are a lot easier than others one well placed knife wound and wam! you're dead in a few minutes.

I think Mr shotgun jumped the gun but those guys had it coming and if it came to my safety being in question i wouldnt wait for the police to come either.

2 cents,

first, they were there to burglarize his house. i hear people say that is not worth killing over. yet if some nation walked into your country the country will defend itself ...tooth and nail!

does he have a right to shoot them, ABSOLUTELY! they are not supposed to be there in more ways then one. they are NOT AUTHORIZED to be in the US, NOT AUTHORIZED to be at his home. Horn is allowed to have a gun!

let put this in perspective, if horn would have asked them the following:
Gentleman, sorry to interupt your burglary, but i have spotted you and would kindly request you to return to your home.

Horn would now be dead...
lets see what would jesus do? he would shoot the bastards!
some offenders can be rehabilitated, these were repeat offenders, illigaly in the country with no other way of making money then stealing. why put them in a prison system and have taxpayers pay for them to get 3 meals a day. comes to $50.000 per year per offender. besides, they would have gone to jail over and over but lets say they stayed there one year. i dont know the price of those bullets he shot but i think they are not that expensive.

look through history, and be honest to yourself. as laws got weaker more crime comes along. 500 years ago if you went into someones house you got shot too, now you get slapped on the wrist.

and as was said before, now people will think twice before going to his house again. they should make stickers in that neighbourhood "HERE LIVES HORN! DO NOT ENTER!" haha

Originally posted by razor1000
I think Mr shotgun jumped the gun but those guys had it coming and if it came to my safety being in question i wouldnt wait for the police to come either.

He didn't have to wait for police, there was already one outside. Dude was itchin' to shoot the perps, he did, now he's got to pay the consequences. If he wasn't so dumb as to announce his intentions to the world beforehand, a case wouldn't be as prosecutable. It really has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with what he did, it has to do with the law.

Since Pasadena basically consists of petro-chemical refineries, I wouldn't be surprised if Horn's lawyer doesn't somehow use "the chemical composition in the air affected my client's judgement" excuse.

Peace

He will end up pleading guilty to a lesser offense and will either get probation or do insignificant time in prison. This Texas mentality of shoot first is a long one.After all, a guy who waited in the airport in Texas and in cold blood stepped out and shot a handcuffed man in the head, killing him instantly, was allowed to get off scot free, doing no time. The man had allegedly molested his son and kidanpped him..and when he came in on a flight, escorted and cuffed by two Rangers, he calmly steps out from behind where he was waiting and pops the guy in the back of the head..all on camera. I think it is on Youtube. He was unwilling to accept less than a death penalty for the guy, and all before any trial!!

So I do not see this guy having any real problems over this: IF he gets a GOOD LAWYER I guarantee that no jury down there will convict him..or at worst a voluntary manslaughter, which would hget him 5 years probation and loss of guns..a felon. That might really be what happens: The Prosecutor will demand that the guy lose his right to carry weapons forever, so the guy pleads to a felony charge and gets a deal on a short time and a fine..and the public is happy again and talking about the next outrage that has happened while all this is going on.

Of course, the guy deserves to spend, in my opinion, TEN years in a hard core pen for EACH dead man: Thats a 20 year sentence, with NO good time or parole. He should DO 20 to reflect on taking two human lives without good reason. Had he stayed in his home and obeyed the dispatcher, who was giving sound advice, the cops would have caught the burglars right on the spot( The PC cop was already there ) and they would be in jail facing charges commensurate with their crimes, as it SHOULD BE.

That is called DUE PROCESS, and it extends from the fist of every gun owner to thje Supreme Court with the titale of first and foremost among our rights. Without due process, no one has a fair chance. Killing men over minor amounts of stolen property when they presented NO IMMANENT danger to the gunner is INDEFENSIBLE. Totally. No excuse for gunning down men old West style because you felt like it. But justice, specially down there, has a whole different meaning than in some other places, and again I predict this guy walks or gets 5 probation at the most. We will see.

reply to post by zerotime


Because dude this is a flame War!!
_javascript:icon('')
Using relevant and reported first hand information gets in the way of our emotions and forces us to think before we call some one a murderer! Heaven forbid that should happen!
_javascript:icon('')

Originally posted by MrDead
Skibtz is a sane person in an insane world.

There's no property worth killing over.

These two guys were making off with a few hundred dollars of stuff, so they deserve to die? Just let em go.

What if it wasn't 2 guys, what if it was 2 kids stealing? 2 women? 2 unemployed soldiers who need money to eat? Your brother or your husband? WTF man. Come on these are human lives. Mr Horn has seen too many westerns and fancied himself as a hero. Gutless wonder and a coward.
The real criminals are the people who steal from you every day and they wear suits and wield pens. Those are the guys sucking your life blood away and stealing your honest dollars from your .05% chance of fatality job, working man. Don't you want to shoot them up too? Or is that an ok crime.

Lets break down what is MrDead said because it is basically the same argument from that side repeated over and over again.

1. No property worth killing over.
This is an opinion. Others have shown in this same thread that they would consider some property that is worth killing over. Either way it does seem that you are allowed in many circumstances to kill criminals in order to protect your property under the law. So, even the law recognizes that killing over property is justifiable.

2. The terrible hypothetical questions that always give the benefit to the criminals.
The "what if" stuff is plain dumb. We know what happened and we know who these people are. It doesn't matter if they were woman or kids. Anyone breaking into home has got to know that they could be shot. It is a danger of the profession. But the hypotheticals get almost absurd to a point. "what is these two men were secretly angels working for Jesus." These there two men breaking into homes in the middle of the day with a crow bar who stole over $2000 worth of cash and jewelry from the home.

Why not hypothetical questions that give the benefit to the homeowner? Who was inside the house? A mother? A baby? A teenager? Not this time but what happens at the next house these thugs break in to? Why are some of you so willing to keep rolling the dice until someone innocent person ends up dead?

3. There are other criminals in the world.
Yes. there are, but unlike MrDead I do consider these men "REAL CRIMINALS." These types of crimes are violent crimes. Innocent people get killed and tortured by these types of people. They were breaking into a home in broad daylight. They were dangerous. Home invasions are serious crimes and those who commit them are violent offenders.

If you have to analyze the 911 tape. Analyze what the 911 operator is advising. "don't go outside or you are going to get yourself shot." The operator isn't saying don't go outside and shoot them because you will go to jail. The operator knows how dangerous these criminal can be and the operator fully expects these criminals to have guns and be willing to use them against anyone who confronts them during their crimes.




It is this type of reply that I guess I will never understand. I don't understand where the sympathy comes from when dealing with criminals of this nature or why every hypothetical question gives the criminal the benefit over the citizens who are being robbed. Logically, this makes no sense to me.





[edit on 10-12-2007 by zerotime]