Quanell X humiliated, marginalized by large crowd in Pasadena

the law is the law. may people disagree w/ joe horns actions, but under texas law, he had every right to defend his neighbors property using deadly force. if you dont like the law, petition the texas legislator to change it. but this a democracy and in texas the majority agrees w/ our current law.

now many question whether it was premeditated. its clear he stated that "he was going to kill them" but i dont think that can be determined as premeditation. im not sure of the exact legal definition. (ill google it if i get the time today)

he saw the burglars break in and he called 911. so as he was speaking to the operator, the crime was being committed. if joe horn had already determined in his mind that he was going to kill 2 people today... i think that would be considered premeditation. but he was making these statedments while the crime was being committed. the operator tried to calm him down to prevent him from getting hurt but in his mind, he felt threatened and he felt his neighbors property was threatened. so he exercised his right to use deadly force.

as another poster said, the criminals confronted joe horn on his property. if this is true then it makes his case even stronger. and as far as shooting the second criminal in the back. was he armed? was he running for cover? yes, shooting someone is the back is bad but if the second guy was armed and running for cover, i think horn would have to right to shoot him. also texas law allows the use of deadly force on a crinimal who is fleeing. so legally i think he is covered.

so basically it comes down to whether or not it was moral. yes, life should be valued more than property. no one is arguing that point. but in certain situations, one is justified in using deadly force to protect oneself or ones property. if you want examples of these situations, go search the other thread on this topic and read through them.

as far as arguing that it was unchristian for joe horn to shoot these two criminals. yes, the bible teaches us to turn the other cheek. but the bible teaches us not to steal either. (i heard from my pastor that the "eye for an eye" passage was placed in the old testament to prevent the israelites from going overboard on revenge. and in turn, jesus uses the cheek parable to teach us to be more forgiving.) i think the joe horn situation and its correlation to these passages should be loose at best. its a whole different topic and if you want to discuss that, start a different thread.

 

i think youre wrong there... "night time" appears in the section pertaining to defense of ones own property...


i wrote a long post on it on the previous pages.

 

For the record, I'm a white guy. I'm not slurring my race. I'm telling you what that guy is. Not every white guy is a redneck.

Most legal experts are saying this guy crossed the line. You may think he had good intentions but his words on that call say different.

 

It's burglars, DaDakota. Burglars...

You keep saying the same thing over and over again, but you are saying what everyone already knows. Yes, thieves know what they are doing is dangerous and wrong. No one is arguing that. Everyone already disagrees with their actions. It's whether the shooter that killed them was wrong in his actions.

 

and according to texas law, he was in the right.

 

its easy to make an argument when you claim the other guy supports criminals.

 

hell yeah! ... these scumbags get to rob stores, homes ... shot innocent peoples and polices but what? we can't do anything about it? just arrest them and put them in jail for a short period of time and LET THEM BACK OUT with ANOTHER CHANCE AGAIN??

no wonder the CRIME RATE HERE IS SO BAD

 

I just think we are arguing in circles, and yes, I think the guy overeacted, but no I would not convict him of anything.

DD

 

im not a big fan of QX. he has the right to protest, but he should take the protest to the court house or city hall. leave the neighborhood alone.

as far as saying he supports criminals. everyone has their own opinion. im not defending QX but you cant place that label on him unless you have listened to every speech he has given (in context) and attend every QX fanclub meeting...

i think hes trying to protest joe horn's actions rather than condone the burglars actions. but to me it seems ridiculous protesting against joe horn bc none of this would have happened if the burglars had not done what they did. they started the chain of events. if QX wanted to protest something, i think he should have picked something a little more clear cut rather than this incident.

 

"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

Give me a break. Not one report said either burglar had a gun. The second burglar ran because he was trying toget away. Was the guy going to get cover and throw his crow bar at a guy with a shotgun.

Case closed....

 

Your interpretation of the laws do not equal fact. You seem to think it does.

What law supports shooting a fleeing burglar in the back?

 

for all those out there who think joe horn is in the wrong...

i think he will only go to jail for 2 scenarios:

1) if you can show that he was recklessly endangering others by his actions. that is the only instance where he loses the right to use deadly force. seeing as he was the only witness; he and the 2 burglars were the only people around. so i dont see how it can be argued that he was recklessly endangering a 3rd parties life. so in turn he still retains the right to exercise deadly force.

2) the burglars surrendered and he shot them anyways. but hes the only witness so im sure hes not going to testify against himself. however, were the slug wounds hitting at a downward angle? from what distance did he fire?

legally, i think hes covered.


from a practical standpoint, i dont think the prosecutor will bring this to trial bc:

1) the legal gounds are shaky at best
2) this is texas, 100/100 juries would let this guy walk
3) the prosecutor would be committing suicide as far as his future legal/political career is concerned (unless he plans on moving to the northeast or westcoast.)

 

Except that the tape he clearly ignores the advice of the 911 operator and says he is going to kill them even before he says they are coming to his house. The evidence is clear.

True my personal moral code doesn't equate with the law in Texas and I admit to not fully understanding the law but what I have read I find troubling. The point though of the post you are responding to was specifically in the context of self-defense and whether it was self-defense or not.

 

Wow that video is amazing, I guess the majority of the people support Joe Horn in his actions, as do I.

Sure he could have taken the cowards way out and stayed inside his house and not confronted the burglars, but he chose to act.

Good for him, he is the kind of person that founded this country.

USA !

DD

 

i cant believe im agreeing w/ texx on something... but the law is the law.

your allowed to shoot a burglar who is fleeing. however, it appears in the section pertaining to defense of ones own property. dont know the expert legal interpretation of it but i think joe horn is still in the right.


from: http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"


Protection of the Property of Others


"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

 

In life almost everything we do involves certain risks and we have to take responsibility for our actions. The reason why I brought up the death penalty is that most people are talking about the responsibility of the robbers but what I am talkign about is the responsibility of Joe Horn. Joe Horn made a conscious, and premeditated decision to confront the robbers and according to the tape he had the intention of killing them. Therefore as soon as he grabbed his gun and ignored the operator he made a decision to kill them. My question is under his reasoning then those people deserved death for what they did. My question then is do you accept that reasoning and feel that death is an appropiate response to robbery?