Better yet, say that your joe horn bike defender person missed, and, being that you rode your bike in a neighborhood, this fearsome vigilante instead killed a small child playing in the front yard. But hey, there is some hope that it might deter one criminal!* *Even though no data supports this assertion
What if they were better armed than Mr. Horn and ended up killing him? There is another side to this argument which is the potential threat to a good samaritan or to bystanders in a situation where a good samaritan decides to use deadly force. There is a reason police have fairly strict rules regarding using deadly force because of the potential danger of unintended consequences. For instance many police forces can't engage in high speed chases because of the danger to others. Whether or not you feel sorry for the burglers there still is a very good reason why you shouldn't go out and confront the burglars which is for your own safety. I have a hard time believing that Mr. Horn's neighbors would feel good if he died or got severly injured trying to protect their property.
That is an excellent point. Is it worth it to turn a neighborhood into a free fire zone to stop a burglary?
"can't stand petty unarmed thieves fleeing with my neighbors who are out on vacation's $2000 so they have to be shot in the back"
I went back and took a look at some of the previous Joe Horn threads and DD might have a point. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3294093&postcount=39 According to halfbreed it might not count as jury nullification for a juror to decide a case based on how he felt about how just the law was.
What we learn from this thread? 1.Whether a crime . . is indeed a crime. . is completely dependent on the Victims Status? i.e Horn is not a murderer becuase the victims were not theives. . . similarly you cannot rape a prostitute . . . because. . well who has sympathy for a prostitute . . similarly . . . .most pedophiles better be on the fricking P's and Q's . . cause who gives a ***** if someone shoots them in the face or not 2. If you happen upon a crime. . it is your prime opportunity to kill someone without any reprocussions . . .whether the police have been called or involved is pretty much irrelevent. . . shoot 1st and ask question later 3. It is esp good is you are old Rocket River
He's wrong - no offense to those who work as interns in the DAs office, but as someone who has actually tried criminal trials, the elements are listed in the jury charge. He's right about the last page of the jury charge - but that disregards the meat of the charge. The charge specifically tells juries what the charge is and says if they believe the defendant to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (from the evidence presented at trial) that they are to find the defendant guilty. I'm not naive enough to say that jury nulification doesn't happen - in fact it happens far more than it should. I'm saying the law doesn't allow jurors to make determinations on the law, that role is for the judge and judge alone. Of course if jurors want to disregard their oath as jurors and do whatever they feel like - there's not much that can be done about that.
I wouldn't let a summer intern try my murder cases and I wouldn't take their word for what is permissable vs improper jury conduct.
update: i highlighted some interesting points. Horn tells grand jury about fatal shootings, his attorney says By BRIAN ROGERS http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5859000.html Pasadena resident Joe Horn testified Thursday in front of a Harris County grand jury about fatally shooting two suspected burglars as they fled his neighbor's home in November, his lawyer said. "He was invited to testify, and he was hopeful that he could tell his side of the story," attorney Tom Lambright said. "It was really traumatic for him to go back through all this again." Lambright said the 62-year-old retiree testified for about an hour and a half. The grand jury is hearing the case, which has drawn national attention and public debate over whether shooting Hernando Riascos Torres and Diego Ortiz was justifiable. Earlier Thursday, a community activist also went to the downtown criminal courthouse with family members of those who knew the dead men. Case in second week Quanell X said he brought Stephanie Storey, who said she was Torres' fiancee, in his effort to make sure that Horn is indicted in the Nov. 14 shootings. A woman whom he identified as the widow of Ortiz was there, and the three left together a short time later. Thursday's testimony capped the second week of hearing evidence in the case for grand jurors, who work two days a week. Quanell X advised Storey not to comment to the media. He said Storey has not been invited to appear before the grand jury, but he wanted to make her available to the panel. He did not say how he thought her testimony could benefit the investigation into the shooting. The activist added that if grand jurors decide not to indict Horn, they will be sending a message to the nation "that Houston is the wild, wild West." "Nobody approves of what these two men were doing when they were murdered," he said. "We condemn that. But we also condemn any man who takes the law into his own hands as judge, jury and executioner." Shots heard on tape Horn shot the two men with a 12-gauge shotgun after reporting to a 911 operator that he had heard glass breaking at his neighbor's home in the 7400 block of Timberline. The operator instructed him not to confront the men, saying police were on the way, but Horn went outside. Moments later, he was recorded on the 911 tape saying, "Move and you're dead." Gunshots then were heard. Ortiz, 30, and Torres, 38, who were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia, died at the scene. Police said both were shot in the back as one moved toward Horn and then angled to the curb, while the other fled in the opposite direction.
Wow, thanks! I never said it was permissible or proper (at least I don't remember saying that). All I'm saying is that if a jury votes not guilty there are no appeals for the state so how is anyone going to fix it? Oh and don't worry, I'm not interning at the DA's office this year. Your kids are safe.
Fact: The house was already robbed. Fact: The police were already on there way. Fact: The 911 operator already stated multiple times that Horn should stay inside. Fact: Horn refused all instructions. Fact: Robbers were running away. Fact: 2 men shot in the back. Dead. Shotgun.
It sucks they died, but what if cops had done the same thing? I mean protecting one's property is paramount to have a civilized society.
cops are trained to not shoot people in the back obeying authorities who tell you not to go out on your front lawn blasting a shotgun is probably paramount to civilized society, as well.
No offense meant. Looking back, I think they misread your "possible" for it being "permitted" or "ok". And just because the wrong thing sometimes happens and the state has a very limited right of appeal doesn't mean that it doesn't constitute juror misconduct. That's one reason voir dire is so important, so you can educate a panel and hopefully weed out those who can't or won't follow the law.
What's funny is that most people overlook voir dire. In law school they teach students mock trial - which focuses on directs, crosses, opening and closing...but no one ever teaches voir dire. Television shows and movies rarely focus on it (I guess it's not entertaining enough). In my opinion, voir dire is the most important part of a trial. Most trials are won or lost (I don't mean that purely in the guilty/not guilty sense, but also in the amount of time someone gets) in voir dire.
No I understand. I mean I agree that you shouldn't let a summer intern try your capital murder cases, either. It's probably not sound policy. I also was not that great at mock trial so I guess it's good that I'm doing transactional work this summer.
And voir dire is garbage. I was in jury duty this past week for a Galveston murder. There was about 50 of us, half men. There were 9 women and 3 friggin men picked!!!
