TexasCHLforum.com

Here is the text of the email I sent to the author

You obviously failed to do any research prior to writing your article. Your source of information is apparently the master racist himself Quanell X. Had you done even the smallest amount of research you would know that a warning shot is not required in any state in the US, even good ol liberal California. Texas state law permits the use of deadly force to the protect the property of third person under certain circumstances. Rather or no those elements were met will be for the grand jury to decide, not the liberal un-informed ignorant media, especially those from California.

Mr. Horn’s actions regardless of right or wrong which the judicial system will decide are reflective of the attitude of many Texans, We are sick and tired of being crime victms. We are tired of those that are to damn lazy to work taking what we work for. Like a sign at my house says, there is nothing in here worth dying for, but everything in here is worth killing you for.

Next time you write something get off your lazy tail and do the research first.

How did you write to this guy?

Stupid, follow the link in the original post, to the right of the article is link to email the author. Seemed like a good idea to me!

Here's my email.

**********
You should have researched Texas law before you blabbing out this article. I do not intent to educate you about TX law, but here and I quote:

§ 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;
(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;
(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


You are entitled to your own opinion, but I believe the Texas grand jury will make the right decision. Stirring up racism in your article is utterly disgusting - mind you, I am a minority myself. In Joe Horn's case, it's crystal clear that it's NOT about race, it's about CRIME. Since you pretend you cannot see that, I must seriously consider that you have other agenda.

Sometimes i feel people like you is far more dangerous than real criminals. Real criminals may hurt a few people and then they will be captured and stopped. People like you would let the just-captured criminals loose and go on hurting more innocent. The thought process you present is dangerous to society as a whole.

However, if you post a sign in front of your house saying:"Gun free zone! No resistance to any crime committed at my house!" I would be gladly retract everything I said here.

THATS a good one.

I have not cared what the Kaliban in Kalifornicastan have said, thought, or done in the last 40 years.
No reason to start now.

Jungle Work

An interesting and somewhat civil blog in the DMN on this incident...

http://www.dallasnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4225

I wonder if any "TexasCHLforum" participants are moonlighting over there??? I get a feel some of those folks are better informed than the rest of the unwashed masses discussing this over there...