Quanell X humiliated, marginalized by large crowd in Pasadena

As usual MadMax has stated it eloquently.

I don't fully understand the law and Joe Horn very well could've acted legally under Texas law and if that is the case then I think the law is very problematic.

I don't know what the law is regarding police using lethal force in Texas but in most states even police cannot shoot a fleeing suspect unless they have very strong reason to believe that that suspect represents an ongoing threat. It strikes me as odd that a civillian would allowed to do so in a situation not involving a violent crime.

Here in Minnesota just last week a 16 year old girl was almost killed by a stray bullet from a hunter going through the wall of her house and hitting the pillow on her bed. Last year in Minneapolis a 12 year old girl was killed in her house when a bullet meant for someone else missed them and went trough a window and killed her. There is a reason why allowing people to shoot it out near homes is a very bad idea. Granted that Horn used a shotgun but the law seems to allow any weapon.

In the previous thread I mentioned a situation where I saw somebody I didn't know climbing through a friend of mine's window. This guy happened to be a friend of his from his hometown but that could be a situation where I could've overreacted thinking he is a robber. This law to me seems to be one where misunderstandings could lead to very grave consequences. While burglars might be on notice about Horn's neighborhood if I was a mover, meter checker, dog catcher I might be nervous about a trigger happy neighborhood.

Finally this law potentially could put people thinking they are doing the right thing at risk. As it turns out the robbers weren't armed, or at least enough to stop Horn, but what if the situation had been different and they killed Horn instead? Cops are trained to minimize harm to themselves and others but even they still end up getting injured and killed. Would it have been worth it to protect the neighbor's property if Horn had been killed?

I don't think his friends and neighbors would think so.

 

Not sure about the other guy, if he was fleeing, if he was confronting him, if he was on his property, etc., but their is clearly (pun intended) a case against him in regards to the burglar who was fleeing, because he was shot in the daytime. Also, there might not be any reasonable reason for him to believe that there wasn't any other means of recovering the property, he did get a clear and long look at them so he could have identified them, and the police were on their way.

 

nice post! from the source. ill highlight a few things.

 

so it was legal for joe horn to

1) defend his neighbors property - he wasn't asked by the neighbor to defend the neighbor's property

2) shoot burglars who are fleeing - Applies only to night time

again, case closed

 

i think nighttime is an option as opposed to the only time when deadly force is allowed. (just my interpretation)

read the max's post from the texas penal code.

 

Wait wait wait....after further review, I don't think this meets the letter of the law...I don't think the defense works for him.

This is theft. He's stopping the theft.

He can't stop the burglary....that's already happened. And the guys are on the way out.

But he is trying to stop the theft. And the statute provides only that he may do so at night. It's not a defense if it's during the day.

If the D.A. decides to bring charges, there is not a defense for him under this, as best I can tell.

Caveat is that I don't practice criminal law and intentionally stay away from it!

 

1) you dont need a verbal command to reasonably determine your neighbor doesnt want his property stolen.

2) once again, i think nighttime is an option as opposed to the only time where deadly force is allowed.

 

What are you, some kind of lawyer or something?

 

this isn't an option. it's presented as the circumstances within which he can take advantage of this defense. this falls outside of those circumstances.

option doesn't even begin to make sense. there would be no qualifier for night or day if it was optional and he could use the defense whether at night or day. that makes no sense at all.


EDIT:

but subsection (B) right below that does NOT put on the qualifier about night regarding someone fleeing from a burglary.

 

tough to interpret. what is the legal definition of burglarly vs theft. my understanding is burglary involves breaking and entering, which the burglars did do.


to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;

 

If someone says "I am going to kill..." and does I don't see how that could be any clearer indication of premeditation.

The problem with that though is that would be only if you are trying Joe Horn as a psychopath who was just looking to kill for the sake of killing. You can kill someone on purpose and it will still be murder. That would be called motive.

Whether he is covered under Texas law I can't say for sure but if that is the case then that is where texas law allows someone to kill someone with premeditation. Whether that is murder or not its up for the legal system to decide but I think a law that allows that is a bad law.

 

I don't think there's even a question about that. I can't imagine Joe's best friend even arguing that it wasn't premeditated. He made it very clear what he intended to do...and that conversation was recorded.

But under the statute, it may not matter anyway.

I just can't believe we codified a system for people to kill people over stuff...and find justification. Again, I can't imagine there are even 5 other states in the Union that have a law like that.

 

Nice post because it destroyed your argument. What makes you think Joe Horn had his neighbors permission to defend his property. Joe Horn has said he barely knew his neighbor. Don't you think his lawyer would be screaming that Joe had their permission to defend their property?

And all that stuff applies to night time.

 

Thanks, I appreciate that but I will defer to MadMax for eloquence.

Anyway I still haven't gotten much of an answer to taht question.

 

What does "has requested" mean to you? Geez, you are reaching......

He used deadly force and it was not night time. You do the math....

 

you make excellent points but i can see how in the heat of the moment someone can make rash statements. im sure we've all done it. but your right when you say we all dont act on what we say.

but its possible that joe horn made these rash statements w/ the intention of making a citizens arrest. and unfortunately he was forced to shoot and kill.

if the prosecutor can equate these statements as premeditation then i think hes better than david blaine. also, if he is willing to bring this case to trial, then the prosecutor must have some huge stones and he must be one hell of a prosecutor.

 

how did it destroy my argument? please explain.

 

what does "the actor reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of the land or property"

like i said you dont need a verbal request. as long as you reasonably believe that your neighbor doesnt want his property stolen...

 

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
​

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

​

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

​

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:
​

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
​

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



i dont know if yall can see it but i bolded the commas. thats why i believe that deadly force at nighttime is an option as opposed to the only instance where it can be used.

this is jut my opinion so i may be wrong.​

 

i tried to format it clearly...