Yes, Another Gun Free Zone....A lot of Good that Sign Did

[Army_of_One]

They just played the tape on o'reilly...

[wordsmythe]

YouTube - Man Kills 2 on Neighbor's Land" title="View this video at YouTube in a new window or tab" target="_blank">YouTube Video

at about 6:06 he says "I'm gonna kill em"

He was doing EVERYTHING in his power to insert himself in this situation.

[Flying Dutchman]

He did say "God---they just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, i aint lettin them get away with this......"

That is him putting himself in a situation.

"They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!.....you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

That is premeditation. They still did not pose any threat to him. Like I said, we are talking legality, not wether he did right or wrong. Justice is blind for a reason.........justice, to be effective, must be cold and unemotional, lacking a compassion and a sense of guilt. It has to apply to all, evenly and fairly, or it is useless. What if these thugs were instead a couple of stupid teenagers who never did this before. Would you still say it was ok if your kid was killed over a "bag of stuff"?
I do not think he is a malicious killer, I think he is an old man who decided to do something. While the smartass side of me says those dipshits picked the wrong day to be stupid, the rational side says if he broke the law then he should be charged wether I agree with him or not.

[TexKan]

I know his community is behind him but I think he's in real trouble here. Pasadena just passed an ordnance whereby there is no protesting allowed in residential communities. It's getting crazy - I'll tell ya that. The kids have a friend who is a Sgt in Pasadena and he was all for it when it happened. He can't speak to that but sure didn't waste any time to call and tell everyone to watch the news! Funny thing bout those laws - they don't always protect those that should be protected. There are times though that you just need to let the cops do their job and if you have a choice - you need to lie low. I think this might be one of those times. BTW these guys were from Columbia - not by way of a legal paper trail. That's what they reported on the news this week or last. So the question rises - who broke the law first?

I didn't mean to high jack this thread off the topic but I just thought it kinda fit in - perhaps someone could put this into another thread - I don't know how.

[Highwayman]

While we’re debating this we need to remember that Texas changed the law recently and I hear it hasn’t been tested yet. This might be its first test.

You can bet a lot of folks will be watching.

[TexKan]

I did hear something about that - but can't remember what the change was now. I really don't think this guy was thinking too clear at the time - I fear he was more emotional that logical with this shooting. Either way his life as he knew it is over - something to think about before you pull a trigger or pump the shotgun!

[Highwayman]

This is from the second link in TK’s post. The analysis that is posted there (and I’m NOT assuming by a lawyer) suggests that Horn would be fine if what he did was after dark but not in the daytime. If so, its really nuts.

§ 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; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


*


§ 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.

Poplicks.com: JOE HORN: NEIGHBOR OF THE YEAR?

[TexKan]

I don't know why I was thinking it was something else. Course I'm only a shooter IF I feel personally threatened. This "property" stuff just kinda bothers me. To me it's reasonable to fire if I'm in danger - that's about it. The rest is just "stuff" - and I have insurance for that.

Course I also realize the Pasadena PD is greatful that they won't have to be conducting a theft investigation on these two but it is still a loss of human life and I don't think they would have been shot for stealing.

Funny how life takes it's twists and turns. Even folks we consider "bad" are still very important to thier family and those that knew the loving side of them. As for Quanell - well he's just an issue waiting to happen.

[jeezeweeze]

We have such double standards in this country. I just wonder if the criminals had have been white, who would be marching with signs for them.

Laws are made for the law abiding.But how many of us have a law library. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. BS...... Hell we can't even understand our credit card "laws".

Put yourselves in Horn's shoes. He is probably seeing for the first time in his life a crime being committed. He knows to call 911. He has an adrenaline rush from hell and he has a gun.
The stereotypical "Texan" is noted in just about every thing you read, he has a mind set and then a judgement call and he acts on it.

It is a pre-meditation in one sense but he aint thinking of the consequences of the law. I don't think he had time to say hold on a second, I have to go get my copy of the law and make sure I am doing the right thing, and even if he did the damn thing is confusing.

We cannot have it both ways. What is it.....you can protect property, or you can't.

[Made in the USA]

Don't EVEN get me started!
After getting ripped off so many times, and the authorities seem to not be able to do anything about it, it can grit on your nerves. However, not knowing both sides or all of the details, i would have thought that he could have detained them without having to kill them. That way, they could have had their hands slapped and been back out on the streets the next day robbing people again!