TexasCHLforum.com

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:ove.

You just can't stop can you. OK.... You win the Internet battle. by the way... Allow me to firmly straighten you out here. I am not insinuating anything. I am flat out saying that cop was a waist of uniform if he actually sat there like a coward while watching a house get robbed. Does that clear up my perspective on it for ya? I sure hope so.

Oh yeah... Like you keep preaching but not doing... I agree... Let's get back on topic. This compares to the joe Horn case in that both parties shot a BG that was not actually breaking into their homes(castle). The difference in the two is Joe Horn was smart enough and lucky enough... Maybe both.... To leave no witness to give a different story. Joe Horn could argue he felt threatened. This guy cannot really do that.

I don't think the sarcasm is really necessary. I have been respectful in all my responses to you. No one said the plain clothes officer witnessed the break in. The facts are he saw the shooting and reported what he saw, my point was he didn't arrest Joe Horn as a result of what he witnessed. His report on what he viewed wasn't even in Joe Horn's favor. The burglars were carrying a bag of loot out of the neighbor's house as Horn reported during the 911 call. He went downstairs to go outside to see which direction they were going and to maybe get a license number. When he opened his door they were mere feet away from him (maybe 8-12 feet judging by the videoed investigation by the Pasadena Police Detectives.) in his front yard facing him, NOT running away. The coroner couldn't positively state they were shot in the back, but I will concede the possibility that Horn could have shot as the guy turned. The fact remains they were facing Joe Horn as they came from the neighbor's (unless they walked backward) and could have closed the distance very, very quickly. Being in fear for his life he shot because they moved after he warned them stop. The question of whether Horn would have been justified in shooting based on protecting his neighbor's property wasn't tested as you alluded. We'll have to wait to see if protection of property warrants the use of lethal force in the FW case.

jmra wrote:I know others feel differently, but I'm calling the cops and securing the house. I just don't see the upside of leaving the protection my home offers in order to confront a BG. Now if he breaches the house, all bets are off.

jmra wrote:IBTL

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:IBTL

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:IBTL

Y'all keep it up. I haven't stopped laughing since y'all started.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:IBTL

Y'all keep it up. I haven't stopped laughing since y'all started.

Where is that pot stirring smiley?

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:IBTL

Y'all keep it up. I haven't stopped laughing since y'all started.

Where is that pot stirring smiley?

[ Image ]

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:IBTL

Y'all keep it up. I haven't stopped laughing since y'all started.

Where is that pot stirring smiley?

[ Image ]

Yep, that's the one. I know one thing. I wish I had picked the guy who shot the black girl through the door instead of joe horn. joe has some serious fans.

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:IBTL

Y'all keep it up. I haven't stopped laughing since y'all started.

Where is that pot stirring smiley?

[ Image ]

03Lightningrocks wrote: Look. You started out this silly exchange by passing judgement on my post rather than commenting on the thread. Yes, you are beginning to get annoying, I admit it. Stop already. Don't quote a post of mine to pass judgement on or "correct" if you can't take me responding. Now... Knock it off already... Pretty please.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

puma guy wrote:I am going to do some research, but I am almost certain in the Joe Horn case he was preventing the crime of theft of property , i.e. goods being carried away. There's too little info in the article for the FW case for me to draw any conclusion.
Edit: I checked and the burglars were carrying away property stolen from the neighbors house when he shot. They had also moved into his yard.

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: Look. You started out this silly exchange by passing judgement on my post rather than commenting on the thread. Yes, you are beginning to get annoying, I admit it. Stop already. Don't quote a post of mine to pass judgement on or "correct" if you can't take me responding. Now... Knock it off already... Pretty please.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

puma guy wrote:I am going to do some research, but I am almost certain in the Joe Horn case he was preventing the crime of theft of property , i.e. goods being carried away. There's too little info in the article for the FW case for me to draw any conclusion.
Edit: I checked and the burglars were carrying away property stolen from the neighbors house when he shot. They had also moved into his yard.

Please indicate where I am passing judgement on your post. You're the one judging i.e. "silly exchange". I have been respectful to you, factual and have offered no opinions. Other than my original response to you I always brought it back on topic and even then I mentioned the topic.
I will bring it back on topic by stating an opinion. The laws of this land guarantee the right to protect life and property. My view is if some one's pink flamingos are worth protecting by what ever force they deem necessary it's up to them to decide and the justice system to work out. I live in Pasadena and wasn't too broken up when two career criminals were removed from the gene pool and the cops I talked to weren't either. But neither you nor I nor the police get to decide, the courts do. So like Joe Horn the guy in FW will have his day in court and there will be a lot of discussion no matter which way it's decided..

The Dude wrote:

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:IBTL

Y'all keep it up. I haven't stopped laughing since y'all started.

Where is that pot stirring smiley?

[ Image ]

[ Image ]