Quanell X humiliated, marginalized by large crowd in Pasadena

you're wrong. but it may not matter anyway. if it says theft during the nighttime, then it's not an option. theft and robbery are distinct. when stopping a robbery, it's not necessary that it be at nighttime to assert this defense...but when stopping a thief, it is.

but subsection B below it is where the defense has teeth for this guy. he's stopping burglars leaving a burglary...and there's no qualification that suggests that has to happen at night. that's his defense right there.​

 

i hated grammar but it can mean the difference between life and death as far as the law is concerned.​

 

More reaching....

Requested means requested. You can misinterpret a request and reason anything. But you would have to have been requested first. No proof has been submitted that the neighbor told Joe Horn anything. I did hear Horn say he barely knew the neighbor.

 

look...there's no clearer evidence of premeditation. it's a red herring because it doesn't matter with this defense. but when a guy says he's going to go shoot someone and then does, premeditation is inferred. i'm telling you, there's really not much stronger evidence for premeditation than a statement on tape right before you kill someone that you intend to kill them.

 

Except he didn't say he was going to make a citizen's arrest. He said he was going to kill them. You are trying to retroactively read Horn's mind when his statements are perfectly clear.

If I see a guy letting his dog poop on my yard and I say I'm going to kill him and I do that is motive. Now maybe I could've just been pissed and not meant to but if I get a gun go out and shoot him then the defense that I didn't intend to goes out the window as I had stated my intent.

If the prosecutor does file charges, and I don't understand the law enough to say he would or could, but if he doesn't use that to establish premeditation he is a poor prosecutor.

 

look up "reasonably belief" under the texas penal code. i am not reaching. the law on self defense was written very vaguely to allow for interpretation by those who will exercise seld defense and deadly force.

 

Actually . . . If it is not Racially motivated
and Quanell is out there to do what is right .. . that is something to respect
and he should do more of it

If you wanna be a great leader
you have to combat wrong . . when it is wrong
and
Quanell should have just came with that 1st and foremost
and let the other folx start screaming its racial . . ..

Rocket River

 

it is no coincidence that we lead in executions

Rocket River

 

Look up requested in websters....

 

Note that both sections 9.41 and 9.42 have references to "immediately necessary."

Immediately! Not tell the the operator what you're going to do...ignore her direction not to do it...go get your gun...and then go shooting.

I think that word's important. That's why it's there several times-- Doesn't let you use this statute if it's premeditated. You can't plan the shooting....but if you do end up using deadly force under reasonable circumstances you're protected.

So when did he decide to shoot? On the phone? -- no protection. Later? possibly.

Based on my reading of what went on --- I'd think he should be charged with something. He'd have to show he did not intend to use the gun when he went chasing these guys to be shielded by 9.41 or 9.42 -- and that's at odds with what he said. On tape, no less.

 

Not to mention **** the gun in a manner to make sure the operator heard it.

 

This is where it gets fuzzy. I agree with that. When the 911 dispatcher says, "no don't go do it."...and he does it anyway...does that kill the "necessary" argument? Particularly if the operator is saying police are on the way.

 

What I found odd about this law is that there wasn't more language about 'no reasonable alternative.' Or a threat to personal safety.

The test seems to be just whether it's *necessary* to stop the theft, or recover the property. Necessary's pretty broad, and I think that without the phone call he may have been OK. Must be a Texas thing

But the 'immediately' qualifier leads me to think that he could be offside.

We had a hangout thread about going into your backyard to stop burglars. The poster brought his gun...and...had he used it I think he would have been protected by this law. Even if he was in no physical danger, and even if it was his choice to go outside and chase the guys. However, had he told people before hand that he was going to go out and kill the intruders, and then did just that, I think he'd be in trouble. And that's what seems to have happened here.

 

I'm not sure it does. He could still go outside even if he's told not to, and even if the police are 'on the way.' And he still might have a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary -- but (I think) he could only make the deadly force assessment once he was outside....not while he was on the phone. And given his discussions with the operator -- the standard for that assessment would be much higher.

 

Who is "we"?

Are you from China?

 

Right. But he made his decision long before he stepped out the door of his house.

 

I tend to agree with this. I think it makes this case different.

 

i understand what your saying. but this is not websters...

this is the texas penal code.

the lawmakers who drafted this law intentionally wrote it vague in order to protect people like joe horn. thats why there is a specific section in the texas penal code dedicated to "reasonable belief"

Hence, you dont need a verbal request to reasonably believe that your neighbor doesnt want his property stolen.

 

he could justify that it was necessary if he "reasonably believes" that the stolen property cant be recovered in any other way. i read the stolen item was a bag of cash. you arent gonna recover bag of cash unless all the serial numbers are recorded...

lawmakers wrote this law very vaguely to protect the joe horns out there.

 

No way. We have to protest that they got shot when they were leaving the scene and who knows what else. It is something to really cry about. Nevermind that there are thousands of bugalires and home invasions a year. Let's focus about the piece of ****s that got shot because the were breaking into houses. I mean it's only stuff right? They would never kill anyone like Sean Taylor, right? They would have never of done it again if they got away. There is no way they would have harmed someone in the future. It is completely unimaginable. I'm all choked up about it. I want to protest.

"I SUPPORT HOME INVADERS!!!"
"I SUPPORT HOME INVADERS!!!"
"I SUPPORT HOME INVADERS!!!"
"I SUPPORT HOME INVADERS!!!"