Posted on 11/16/2007 12:03:36 AM PST by tlb
Moral, don't take a television set to a gunfight.
“There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy.” — Ambrose Gwinett Bierce
Does it have to be justifiable to be praiseworthy?
Pasadena police used to be faster and meaner.
Oh well, the hazards of home invasion in the U.S. I will say this—Mr. Horn has got some big, brass ones. I wouldn’t want to mess with him.
It doesn't matter that his life was not threatened. In Texas you are fully justified in the use of deadly force to protect your property from theft in the night and you can also use deadly force to protect someone else's proptery from theft in the night.
From the Texas Penal Code concerning the use of deadly force to protect property:
§ 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(3) he reasonably believes that:(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
(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.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property
Mr. Horn mentions that they were doing this in the “broad daylight”. Do you know how this affects it?
I’m just asking as far as legality goes. I’d hate to see Mr. Horn have to do time over this.
I refer you to post #6.
Well the poster specifically mentioned it applying to night time so that’s why I was a little confused.
Or if the DA understands the world it'll go before the grand jury and no further.
Ping
Well, he told them not to move!
Well, he told them not to move!
Correct but he fired instantly so i suggest that he wanted
to kill those burglars anyway.
Wasn’t there, can’t say, but they probably moved.
He did the wrong thing: discussing the shooting with the 911 operator beforehand. Almost certainly every syllable admissible in court. Laws don’t count like they used to, it will be up to a prosecutor, a judge, and a jury. He’ll be made to suffer.
Right thing would have been to clam up. (And go hunting.)
you are right. it´s difficult to tell what exactly happened if not an eyewitness, but it would be interessting how they moved. did they run away or did they just move their head in his dirrection? (which would be normal if someone shouts at you all at once). but at all i would not want to be his neighbor. that´s for shure!
excuse my english
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.