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

Originally posted by apc
The violated homeowner is who he was protecting by stopping the theft of their property.

The homeowner was not in any danger, and from the sound of it he was not even home. You all can try and twist this to make it sound like someone was in danger, but the fact is that he killed them over a property crime, and the only person he put into danger was himself.

I didn't say the homeowner was in danger. I said their property was. And by stopping the theft of their property, this man was protecting them.

Originally posted by apc
I didn't say the homeowner was in danger. I said their property was. And by stopping the theft of their property, this man was protecting them.

Ok then I guess in your estimation it would be acceptable that the next time you walk out of a Wal-Mart and the alarm accidentally goes off that it would be ok for security to shoot at you?
After all property is in danger…


[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]

reply to post by Blueracer


How can anyone not agree with that? It doesnt mean it was legal or right.

reply to post by defcon5


If the alarm goes off because I'm carrying a TV with no receipt, yes.

>
OK OK OK aaaaaand some employee comes running up screaming that I stole the TV. Gotta have that proof, yah dig?

[edit on 8-12-2007 by apc]

Something just dawned on me and it is a little off-topic from the discussion but what it the off duty plain cloths officer was the getaway driver? The robbers had no vehicle that could be found. No one else was seen fleeing from the scene. This cop happens to be sitting outside or somewhere close to the house. And the police department doesn't comment on the officers presence for some time after the fact. They might have been investigating this officer themselves.

Originally posted by apc
I didn't say the homeowner was in danger. I said their property was. And by stopping the theft of their property, this man was protecting them.

Oh, or maybe one of your children shoplift a couple dollar item from a store.
Would it be ok then?

Or you put another person in danger on the road by exceeding the safe operating speed limit?

Where do you plan to draw the line on this type of thinking?

reply to post by defcon5


OK now you're just being silly.

Are you seriously attempting to draw a comparison between a child pocketing a candy bar and a grown man climbing out someone's window carrying their TV?

If that is your line of thinking then I bid you good day, sir. Ma'am. Whatever.

reply to post by defcon5


They are using warped logic, he is either going to be a hypocrite and say his child shouldnt be killed or look an idiot for saying his child deserves to die.

Edit - or even better admit defeat and not even answer the question.

FWIW, I was in this situation where two guys were trying to break into my house through a window, I called the police and armed myself with a thick end of a snooker cue. I was in a situation where I could have killed them too, there was a 3 story drop so just opening the window would have probably killed them.

I decided they werent worth me risking any time in prison myself and let the police arrive and take care of it.

I hope this guy is happy that he did the right thing and has the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison over 2 deadbeats and some minor possessions.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Flyer]

Originally posted by apc
OK now you're just being silly.

Are you seriously attempting to draw a comparison between a child pocketing a candy bar and a grown man climbing out someone's window carrying their TV?

If that is your line of thinking then I bid you good day, sir. Ma'am. Whatever.

No I am proving a point.
There are legal guidelines to this sort of thing.
In this case legally you are allowed to protect your own property and family, but not your neighbors. In most states your not even allowed to do that much, if someone enters your home and you can escape you have to get away.

Originally posted by Flyer

I decided they werent worth me risking any time in prison myself and let the police arrive and take care of it.

HUH? so, let me understand this...people were breaking into your house. You have no idea who they are or what they want or if they have weapons. If they get into your house they might hurt or even kill you before police arrive. But you were thinking that if you tried to stop these men from getting inside and they got hurt that you would go to jail???

Really? That's what you were thinking in that situation?

reply to post by defcon5


Actually in this case that is exactly what you are legally allowed to do.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Taken from this post.

Originally posted by Flyer
I hope this guy is happy that he did the right thing and has the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison over 2 deadbeats and some minor possessions.

True enough..

Originally posted by apc
Are you seriously attempting to draw a comparison between a child pocketing a candy bar and a grown man climbing out someone's window carrying their TV?

So at what point is stealing not stealing then?
At what point is stealing a death penalty offence, or just a slap on the wrist?

reply to post by zerotime


I had a snooker cue and was waiting in a darkened room and would have got them had they entered. I knew I could have killed them in self defence had they entered, however, I dont think they were technically on my property while they were outside, I was living in a flat at the time.

I knew they didnt have guns because people dont carry guns here. in the end, the police got there before they succeeded in getting in.

Two problems with that:

would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42

What are these sections?
And…

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care

Did he have the right to attempt to protect that property?

Bbl, got to grab some food.

Oh good. apc posted the actual law. Now that we can see the law it seems like the discussion might be over.

tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us...


[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]

reply to post by defcon5


There's an "or" in there. See, right there. Before that word. Next to that other word.

zerotime sourced the actual statutes so you can read 9.41 and 9.42. There's more "or"s though, so try not to get confused.

reply to post by roadgravel


so if the crooks survived their holiday in prison would they return to their same old habits?----------obviously its too late for us to find out now---------------if they were shot in the back it would appear they didnt want to wait around till the police arrived with their tazers.people make bad choices every day-----the crooks made the wrong choices-------and they paid for it-------and they wont be robbing or terrorizing anyone else------------i feel sorry for their wives and kids but not for the crooks---------- their parents?--------thats another matter----------the cops called my wife and i one night and said they had our son in their lockup----drinking and fighting in a public place----------we told the cops to keep him there because he wont listen to us so thats the best place for him----------the cops didnt believe us and drove him home an hour later----------they should have kept him at least a week longer-------------it would have smartend him up more.

The plainclothes cop said he DUCKED because he was afraid that the shotgunning killer would mistake him for a member of the gang..the wheelman. Lot of good he did..because he was not in uniform, he had to hide instead of jumping out and taking control of the matter.

The killer citizen is a cold blooded murderer who lusted to kill, and killed. I hope his blood lsut has been satiated sufficiently so that the next time some petty thief makes the mistake of getting near him they may leave with their lives. I could not shotgun a man to death unless he was making me fear for my life. Some petty property is not worth the loss of life. The thieves would have been arrested on the scene if the man had not fired; the cop that was hiding from him would have arrested the men had the killer just held them there.

Shame on anyone defending this man for a cheap, low down, bushwhacking back shooting coward who cannot tell the difference between adrenalin and courage..he watched too much TV and thought killing men was like a game..May he see the faces of those dead men every time he looks in a mirror for the rest of his cowardly life. Backshooters get no respect, nor do men who kill when not necessary.