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

Originally posted by Blueracer
These were not good, upstanding citizens who were shot. These were criminals breaking the law. If they had not been breaking the law, they would not have been shot.

And if the police had shot them I don’t think half the people in here would be arguing the point. The point here is that a civilian got involved and escalated the situation. I assume that you personally have never broken the law, never drove above the speed limit and endangered other drivers, never blown a stop sign? How would you like it if some person decided to enforce their won brand of justice on you for a misdemeanor traffic violation?
What about the driver who got away because this guy went on his shooting spree?

If the police had shot them none of us would have even heard about it.

A citizen has every right to defend his life, his body, his freedom and his property with deadly force.

THAT is civilized. Saying "Go ahead. Take everything I have. I won't stop you" is not civilized. That is anarchy.

Protecting ourselves and our property is not only our right, it is our duty.

reply to post by defcon5


If I broke into someone's home, I would expect that I might get shot. It would be my own fault if I did get shot. These guys were commting a criminal act. If they wouldn't have commited that criminal act, they would not have been shot. They brought it on themselves.

If a civillian had a gun in the mall shooting in Omaha and shot and killed Robert Hawkins would you be upset about that too?

reply to post by Blueracer


You cant see the difference in circumstances of a mass murderer and a couple of guys stealing a TV?

Hell why stop there, lets start blowing people away for speeding or jay walking.

Originally posted by Blueracer
reply to post by defcon5

 

If I broke into someone's home, I would expect that I might get shot. It would be my own fault if I did get shot. These guys were commting a criminal act. If they wouldn't have commited that criminal act, they would not have been shot. They brought it on themselves.

If a civillian had a gun in the mall shooting in Omaha and shot and killed Robert Hawkins would you be upset about that too?

Come on, mane.

2 completely different circumstances, homeboy. Going Trenchcoat Nobody Likes Me Mafia is way different than stealing. Come with something better than that, mane.

I'm sorry but the comparison to misdemeanor crimes is plain stupid.

This case is not about a small crime and we aren't talking about a small crime. We are talking about home invasions and burglary. These are extremely serious crimes. Can everyone agree on that point?

I have known friends here in Columbus OH who have lived through home invasions and they are a traumatic, horrifying experience. No one expects, nor should they expect, to be shot by someone when they are jaywalking, HOWEVER, if you are breaking into another person’s home to terrorize and/or steal you should worry about being shot. Can we agree on that too? Or no, you shouldn't expect to be shot when breaking into another person's house?

I guess I will post this information again.

The men, who had just burglarized Horn's neighbor's house, faced him from seven to 10 feet away when they ignored his order to "not move"or they would be dead, police said.

The two men — Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48 — collapsed and died not far from Horn's home on Timberline in a Pasadena neighborhood.

Both were illegal immigrants from Colombia, authorities said. Torres had been deported to Colombia in 1999 after serving time for possession with intent to distribute coc aine. Both were also using fake identification cards and aliases, and their backgrounds are now being scrutinized by federal authorities to determine if they were part of a Colombian fake ID and burglary ring, authorities said.

they were carrying a sack filled with more than $2,000 in cash and assorted jewelry believed taken in the burglary, police said.

The fact that a police officer witnessed the shooting but did not arrest Horn is further evidence that he acted in self-defense. "You've got a trained police officer sitting there watching this, and he doesn't arrest Horn,"

www.chron.com...

[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]

[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]

Originally posted by zerotime
I'm sorry but the comparison to misdemeanor crimes is plain stupid.
[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]

as is the comparison between Mass murder and burglary which was exactly my point.

Originally posted by apc
A citizen has every right to defend his life, his body, his freedom and his property with deadly force.

Therein lays the problem. If these guys had been breaking into HIS house, then he would have a legit self-defense claim, but not when he is getting involved in something going on at his neighbors house.

As I posted already above the two criteria for self-defense are:
1) Your life must be in immediate danger.
2) You have no way to escape that danger.

reply to post by Flyer


sorry, I wasn't replying to you - even though it seemed that way. I was writing my stuff before I even saw that you used the term jaywalking in your example.

Originally posted by Blueracer
If I broke into someone's home, I would expect that I might get shot. It would be my own fault if I did get shot. These guys were commting a criminal act. If they wouldn't have commited that criminal act, they would not have been shot. They brought it on themselves.

A possible misdemeanor which at the time was not threatening anyone’s life. Therefore there was no legal grounds for the defendant to shoot the perpetrators.

Originally posted by zerotime
I have known friends here in Columbus OH who have lived through home invasions and they are a traumatic, horrifying experience. No one expects, nor should they expect, to be shot by someone when they are jaywalking, HOWEVER, if you are breaking into another person’s home to terrorize and/or steal you should worry about being shot. Can we agree on that too? Or no, you shouldn't expect to be shot when breaking into another person's house?

I did not get the impression that anyone was home as the victimized house. If no one was home then there was no one in any danger, and the shooter is in the wrong 100%.

If there had been people in the house next door, he might have gotten away with saying he was in fear that they had harmed the people next door, and he needed to enter the scene to render aid.

Felony or Misdemeanor varies from state to state, and often involves the value of what was taken.

Originally posted by zerotime
I guess I will post this information again.

There is nothing in that quote which changes the facts for me, so its pointless to repost it. The only reason he was ten feet away from the perpetrators is because he put himself in that location despite the advisement of the police officer, at dispatch, not to do so.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]

okay, it is obvious that everyone has their sides on this issue and no one is going to change their minds so I'll leave.

If these guys would not have been living a life of crime they would still be alive.

If these guys had not decided to break into someone else's home they would still be alive.

If these guys would have stayed in their own counties after being kicked out of the USA the first time for committing crimes they would still be alive.

If they hadn't decided to sneak back into the USA using fake documents and then commit more crimes they would still be alive.

Their deaths are entirely their own responsibility. The only reason these guys are dead is because they were living the life of criminals. Eventually, that life catches up to you.



[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]

defcon5 said "The point here is that a civilian got involved and escalated the situation."

Where is the line, in defcon5's opinion, is it okay for civilian involment?

I am sure that there are some people who would disagree if Robert Hawkins was shot and killed by anybody, much less a civilian.

The point is, if the two people that Joe Horn shot were not commiting a crime, they would not have been shot.

Blame them. Not Joe Horn.

Just so everyone is aware of the law in Texas - because I havent been in Texas in 4 years...I was not aware of this until recently. Im not defending or supporting the Horn issue here, just posting what the law is in TX now. The law NOW allows one to protect house, employment and car:

Texas has protected the right to “stand your ground” and use deadly force to protect oneself at home without first trying to retreat since 1995. And a law that took effect on Saturday expanded that so-called “castle doctrine” to apply to public spaces.

“These duty-to-retreat laws provide legal protection for those who are out committing criminal acts,” Mr. Dark said. Under the new Texas law, “the protection of the law falls on those who obey the law not those who violate the law.”

www.nytimes.com.../X Gt0x+Kb3/2T9oUrA

www.governor.state.tx.us...

Mar. 27, 2007

Gov. Perry Signs Law Allowing Texans to Protect Themselves
SB 378 Permits Texans to Use Deadly Force in Self Defense

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law Senate Bill 378, extending Texans’ rights to use deadly force for means of self-defense, without retreat, in their home, vehicle or workplace. The law takes effect Sept. 1, 2007.

“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force.

“I thank Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Joe Driver and the Texas Legislature for their dedication to ensuring Texans’ rights to self-defense.”

In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. Senate Bill 378 extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances. The use of deadly force is not lawful when it is used to provoke or if a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor is committed by the victim.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by greeneyedleo]

[edit on 8-12-2007 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by cloakndagger


The moral to the story is...repent now because tomorrow may be too late.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


How can it be defending yourself when

a) he went to them created the situation?
b) he shot them in the back?

The police staying away gives you a clue as to what kind of nutter this guy was, they didnt even feel safe in the situation and the situation would have been 100% under control without this idiots actions as the police were on the scene.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Texas has protected the right to “stand your ground” and use deadly force to protect oneself at home without first trying to retreat since 1995. And a law that took effect on Saturday expanded that so-called “castle doctrine” to apply to public spaces.

“These duty-to-retreat laws provide legal protection for those who are out committing criminal acts,” Mr. Dark said. Under the new Texas law, “the protection of the law falls on those who obey the law not those who violate the law.”

That is still not going to save his butt, because he was not defending his own public space. As he put himself in harms way, none of the “self-defense” pleas are going to work for him.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]

reply to post by Flyer


I am not commenting on the Horn issue.

I was just posting what the law says so people can draw their own conclusions.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Well you can see what my conclusion is and I dont see how anyone but gun nuts will see it otherwise.

reply to post by Flyer


I know. I just thought peopel would want to be aware of what the law is in Texas. That they have expanded it. It was news to me.