If Joe Horn is prosecuted under Texas Law, could you or would you convict him? Let's assume for the sake of argument that because the shooting happened during the day, he is not wholly protected under law, and that because he said on the 911 call that he was going to shoot them, it takes away his immediate danger. So, would you as a juror, convict Joe Hall? Yes, or No? DD
Nope, no conviction. He didn't break any law. 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
Under those conditions, it's a slam dunk isn't it? Why would you go against the law and not convict him? You believe more in yourself than the law? You're basically saying, screw the law, do YOU BELIEVE he was RIGHT in killing them?
No way I can vote. Reading a story in the paper and then seeing it play out in court are two entirely different things.
Just to be clear here, the poll presuposes that what he did was a violation of the law, right? I guess it doesn't make a difference because as I read it he did violate the law, but your initial post seems to take it as a supposition that the law as written was violated. Or are you asking whether people think he broke the law or not?
Under those conditions, yes I would convict him, it's clear that he broke the law, according to DaDakota. However, I'm not going to vote, because we don't know exactly what happened, and we can't even come to an agreement on what the laws mean or even which laws apply to this case. If this case goes to trial and I am forced to be a juror, then I can accurately judge him, right now, I can't say a yes or a no.
Assuming the conditions you mention were proven in a court of law, then yes. He broke the law and should be punished. He deserves the maximum punishment possible.
He would probably die if he was sent to jail, but he should get some sort of punishment for cold-blooded murder. Like seriously, daytime in the back shotgun blast. What I'm saying is that the guy was torn open all over the rich person lawn, his blood and pieces of bone decorating the lawn. As in, feeling the sun's warm rays inside of your lungs for a brief moment, in unbelievable pain before you die because some old rich guy wants to be John Wayne
no, i have read the penal code pertaining to deadly force and self defense 30x now. i dont see any law that he has broken. moreover, i think he did the right thing.
I am saying if he is held accountable and put on trial, would you convict him. My answer is no, I would go against the law, and let him walk. DD
The two lives forfeited that discussion when they decided to burglarize a home. So, yes it was worth 2 lives. Joe Horn walks with me on his jury. Let God decide later on if he needs to be punished. DD
I'm passing on a vote as I don't understand the law enough or have seen all the evidence but it sounds like there is a strong case that he may have acted according to the law. I think this is a very reckless law and if this was any other state I strongly believe there is enough evidence to convict of at least manslaughter.
In that case you aren't fulfilling your duty as a juror. I don't agree with what he did but if the law exonerates him then as a juror I would uphold it and advocate that the law needs to be changed.
So everyone is ok with vigilante justice all of a sudden? This sort of ends justify the means argument is silly. On that note, when I was little a bounty hunter broke into a house a few houses down from mine, captured who he thought was a rapist, beat them, and took them to the police only to find it out was the wrong person. There are two sides to a lot of stuff like this and vigilante justice is a double edged sword. Even if this instance the outcome was ok (and I'm ignoring the question of whether killing the two robbers was ok), the vary idea of unilateral law enforcement like this is what we've always been taught is wrong. Furthermore the 911 operator told him not to go.
Sorry to bring race into this but I Joe Horn probably wouldn't die in jail, at least violently. An older white guy who killed two hispanic guys. I can imagine there's a group in prison that would protect him.
