Quanell X humiliated, marginalized by large crowd in Pasadena

Didn't the police officer say he saw the man shoot them in the back? How is it self-defense to shoot a man in the back?

I can understand how you can possibly claim self defense for the first dude approaching you (even though you went outside with a gun after you claimed you were going to kill someone on tape...but whatever), but not a dude running away.

If he was shot in the back please just answer how that is self defense?

 

legislative intent is absolutely something the courts consider.

 

"Pro-burglars" LOL..

I guess if I condemned Joe Horn's actions, I would be UNPATRIOTIC as well. LOL (USA! USA! USA!)

Quit throwing names around, Pro MURDERER.


1. Guy with gun
2. Guy walks out with gun to confront burglars
3. Burglars are unarmed (may or may not been facing him)
4. Guy with gun feels threatened by unarmed burglars
5. Guy shoots both (atleast one attempting to flee)
6. Guy claims self defense

**Guy also has psychic powers and predicted he would be threatened and must perform self defense. (this amazing ability evidenced by tape)

***Guys only flaw, despite the psychic ability - leaving the safety and security of his home putting him in inevitable threatening circumstances. Must shoot to survive.

 

I think you're misreading. One was shot in the neck...you can be shot in the back of the neck. The whole point of these stories, including the headline, was that the autopsy revealed they were both shot in the back.

Sorry...but self-defense and shooting in the back don't mix. Neither does going outside to engage the situation while repeatedly making it known you are going out there to "kill them." You should really read up on self-defense law.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html

The two burglary suspects killed by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn were shot in the back after they ventured into his front yard, police disclosed Friday.

 

No...they don't have an obligation. I'm just surprised. This event actually happened a couple of weeks back. It's been all over CNN and other national news networks...I'm just surprised we're just now hearing that plain-clothes policeman was there to witness the entire thing.

 

It's hysterical that you think you've proved your point.

It can't be self defense when you tell the police you are going outside because you are "not going to let them get away with this" and that you are going to "kill them". It's also not self defense when you shoot someone running away from you. Joe Horn is damn lucky he didn't shoot a cop, get shot by a cop or get shot by a get away driver. If he kept his ass in the house, the cop would have caught these guys and most likely gotten them to roll over on whomever was waiting in the getaway car.

No one is pro-burglar. We are pro law enforcement handling their business. We are pro law and order. I despise Quannel X but he's an American too and has the right to free speech the same as everyone else. You, on the other hand, are probably some gun nut worried this will lead to tighter gun control laws.

You can keep my your stupid analogies and keep ignoring that they are irrelevant to the facts of this case.

Your blabbering points in#1 and #2 don't mean a damn thing if Horn does as he was asked to do by law enforcement.

 

If you ask me, this smells to high heaven. There's no way this plain-clothes officer just sits there and does nothing if Horn stays in his damned house. He would have arrested the two unarmed men. Instead, he feared for his life, because of Horn, not the two burglers. The Chronicle doesn't say at all what the officer did after hiding while the men were gunned down. Did he finally get out of his car and confront Horn? Did he drive away? What??



Trim Bush.

 

Let's pretend that the facts did support your argument Max. They don't, but let's pretend they do. mkay? So the exact moment that two burglars in your yard turn their back on you, they immediately become NO THREAT. What a joke! I mean seriously, who believes this? How do you know they aren't running to go get a weapon? How do you know they aren't running to alert more felons that are waiting in a car somewhere? How do you know that Horn aimed at them when they were coming at him, but the bullets didn't hit until they had turned around? You simply don't know any of this, which makes your attempts at speaking with authority ring hollow. Sorry.

So in the bizarro world of the pro-burglar/Quannel X crowd, a Colombian drug-ring felon who just got done robbing a house and is now IN YOUR YARD is NO THREAT whatsoever so long as his back is turned -- even for an instant. Just think how incredibly naive and ignorant that is. Think about it.


And once again, the autopsy did not find that the burglars were shot in the back. And that's a fact.

 

Man, you're terrible. mkay?

You're saying people can move faster than a bullet?

An immediate threat would be if they pointed a weapon at him. Notice how cops only shoot when a criminal points a gun or knife at them? Not when a criminal tries to run away on foot? I'm not saying the Colombian drug ring felon is not a criminal. I'm saying Joe Horn is also a criminal. I don't care what kind of euphemism you use, Joe Horn is a MURDERER! He's going to hell.

 

No I'm not saying people can move faster than a bullet. But they can move faster than someone can raise a gun, aim it, and shoot it. That point was tangential to my argument anyway.

Cops are trained in how to handle these situations, and they experience them on a semi-regular basis. Civilians are not, and therefore are held to a lower standard of self-defense. It's that simple.

I'm just glad that we've got confirmation from the pro-felon crowd that if two Colombian drug felons finish up a robbery and come into your yard, they are NO THREAT if their back is turned.

 

Colombian drug lords have huge jungle mansions with fine women inside them. They would not make me go Joe Horn on them inside my yard.

 

You keep saying pro-felon pro-felon pro-felon. Funny how you support a murderer.

 

Shooting one of the robbers in his yard - yeah he could have pulled that off, but shooting the second guy in the back while he was running off -- he'll at least get charged.

 

This is just silly.

No, it is not possible that two guys can run faster than somebody can shoot. The fact that you say that is proof positive that you have never fired a gun. It just doesn't take a lot of time. You can raise your gun and fire it in a matter of a couple of seconds. Unless the guys running are NFL DBs, running a 4.4 40 yeard dash, then they are sitting ducks.

Even in the old West, plugging somebody in the back would net you a lot of trouble.

The drug connection has nothing to do with this. Thanks for the red herring though.

I have stated that Joe Horn should not go to jail, but that does not mean that what he did was right. As more facts have come out, it appears that the legality of what he did is a much closer question than what it first appeared.

It is possible that all parties involved have committed a felony. That is possible, but since you are wanting to state the legal standards to be applied...I'm sure you knew that already.

 

They were suspected of being part of a burglary ring. so far you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE that they were in any way involved in a drug ring.

 

Despite the fact it's been reported differently, huh? In the very article referencing the autopsy it opens with the sentence that they were both shot in the back.

You continually avoid the part that this man was told by the authorities repeatedly to not go out there. He said he was going out there to kill them. He formed his intent right there. Not in any measure of self-defense.

 

not to jump to the defense of tradertexx, but the chronicle article stated that one of the thieves did time for cocaine distribution and was subsequently deported back to columbia. both thieves were in this country illegally.

the whole plainclothes officer witnessing the whole thing is really strange. why didnt this info come out earlier?

 

has the guy who's house was robbed made any statement

 

Well that settles it!

LOL at the ridiculous irony of challenging the legal underpinnings, then falling back on the 'what would happen in the "old West(?!)" scenario. A very powerful argument!

The pro-burglar crowd is really grasping for straws at this point... typically what happens when the facts are dead set against you...

 

Dude, police reports say he shot the dude in the back. Now all of a sudden you go from the facts say he didn't shoot anyone in the back to it's cool to shoot someone in the back because you don't know where they are running to, or whatever.

We get it...you won't agree and that's fine. But please save us the BS reasoning......