I agree. They chose to be burglars. Burglars are aware that they run the risk that if they are caught by a home owner there is a strong possibility that they could be killed while committing the act.
Joe Horn chose to be a vigilante and shoot two people, I'm sure he knew there were risks associated with that too.
The problem with this is .. . DISCRIMINATION this is why Minorities IMO get stiffer sentences and then people want to act like it don't happen When you leave it to the discretion of people Juries or Judges. . .their bigotry/prejudice/bias come into effect Rocket River
It isn't vigilante justice to protect your neighbor. I think common sense, reasonable doubt and the law are in his favor, but that's my opinion, an opinion that would likely bar me from serving on his jury.
His neighbor wasn't anywhere around. this wasn't self-defense or defense of another. it was defense of another's property. property that would have likely been covered by the guys homeowners' insurance policy, anyway. It's vigilante when the authorities tell you not to get involved...you tell them you're gonna go kill the guys anyway...and you pull out a shotgun and engage them out in the neighborhood...shooting one in the back while he's fleeing.
I would be happy to convict Horn of at least reckless endangerment. He put the neighborhood at risk when he deliberately went out and started blazing away. I think a manslaughter charge might be warranted, but I'd have to study the law regarding that. Horn is a dangerous lunatic, in my opinion. I'm damned glad he isn't my neighbor. Trim Bush!
That's false. When a person goes to trial they have the choice of going to the judge or the jury for punishment in the event of a conviction.
not always true. and sometimes there are mandatory sentencing guidelines for certain offenses that take it out of their hands.
Just out of curiosity, how do you get shot in the chest as you were running away? All reports I've read say the two burglars were shot in the chest at a distance of 15 feet. Sounds to me like they were running AT him. If that is indeed the case, then Horn is obviously innocent of any wrongdoing. Pretty simple, really. A couple of guys that just got done robbing a house then start running at you... uh, yeah, that's clearly self defense, even if castle doctrine doesn't apply -- which it sounds like it does apply here. Quanell X has been repeating the lie that they were shot in the back, which I simply have not read. But then again, Quanell X also has publicly said that Jews need to be killed and whites in River Oaks need to be mugged. It's interesting to see that so many poll voters are siding with Quanell on this issue.
For you COMPLETE AZZHATS that think he should be prosected...... I hope some clowns come into your house and start stealing your stuff and no one does anything about it.
People are not siding with Quannel X. Quannel X has nothing to do with whether or not I think Joe Horn broke the law. I listened to the tape and read the law. Quannel X is a troublemaking azzhole. That still doesn't make Joe Horn a hero for breaking the law. I heard it reported on TV (not from Quannel) that one of the burglars was shot in the back while fleeing.
Ummm..that has happened to me. Insurance covered all the crap they stole. I'm not about killing people over stuff.
Uh. I think you are talking about something totally different than what actually occurred. Not that such is all that suprising.
