TexasCHLforum.com

flb_78 wrote:Because he did nothing wrong. He stopped a burglary in process.

This is where we would have to agree to disagree. Listening to the 911 call, it appears the Mr Horn intended from the beginning of the call to shoot the two men. And that makes a HUGE difference. In his case, it has cost him the past six months of his life to keep himself from being prosecuted at this time. But I doubt this will end here.

SCone wrote:

flb_78 wrote:Because he did nothing wrong. He stopped a burglary in process.

This is where we would have to agree to disagree. Listening to the 911 call, it appears the Mr Horn intended from the beginning of the call to shoot the two men. And that makes a HUGE difference. In his case, it has cost him the past six months of his life to keep himself from being prosecuted at this time. But I doubt this will end here.

Listening to the long 911 call, you could also say the police could have prevented the shooting by showing up and arresting the career criminals in the act.

Horn did nothing illegal. Where he took the best course is debatable, but he certainly made some tactical and procedural mistakes.

boomerang wrote:

SCone wrote:

flb_78 wrote:Because he did nothing wrong. He stopped a burglary in process.

This is where we would have to agree to disagree. Listening to the 911 call, it appears the Mr Horn intended from the beginning of the call to shoot the two men. And that makes a HUGE difference. In his case, it has cost him the past six months of his life to keep himself from being prosecuted at this time. But I doubt this will end here.

Listening to the long 911 call, you could also say the police could have prevented the shooting by showing up and arresting the career criminals in the act.

The detective was in his car in front of Horn's house, spotted the two men between the houses, was assessing the situation, and at one point ducked down concerned that Horn would thing he was the wheel man and shoot him. (You can't make this stuff up -- ok a journalist might but this is a near quote.)

When seconds count, 911 is only minutes away.

For you lawyer types out there: What are the chances of someone bringing civil action, for example for wrongful death? (God forbid.)

Isn't part of the Castle Doctrine that it provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill?

CHL/LEO wrote:

For you lawyer types out there: What are the chances of someone bringing civil action, for example for wrongful death? (God forbid.)

Isn't part of the Castle Doctrine that it provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill?

This most likely wouldn't be castle doctrine, it would be under an old statute that really is hardly ever tested (you can shoot as a third person would if the third person would do the same)

Pinkycatcher wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote:

For you lawyer types out there: What are the chances of someone bringing civil action, for example for wrongful death? (God forbid.)

Isn't part of the Castle Doctrine that it provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill?

This most likely wouldn't be castle doctrine, it would be under an old statute that really is hardly ever tested (you can shoot as a third person would if the third person would do the same)

The detective testified that he was in his yard, and they move towards him, at least one entering his yard, he was in fear of his life, he was authorized to be there.

Doesn't that make castle doctrine? (I am confused in this case -- but believe the argument can be made.)

True, you do make a point, that is castle doctrine, but the shooting a neighbor's robber is an older statute.

§ 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) [/b]to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary[/b], 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.

§ 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.

When the criminal meets the criteria for the good guy to use deadly force it doesn't matter if he does a double gainer out of a window after bouncing off the trampoline from the backyard and shoots em from the front back or underground in a popup spider hole...the occupational hazard of scumbags is now death...if they are lucky the police will get them 1st and arrest them before the goodguy homeowner ventilates him

We need to get bigger license plates and bumper stickers superimposed over firearms

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!

Pinkycatcher wrote:True, you do make a point, that is castle doctrine, but the shooting a neighbor's robber is an older statute.

The older law isn't going to "take away" the protections (if) he is offered (them) under the new law without a specific conflict.

If both apply he will get the protections of both, or the greater protections, right?

Try this:
He was justified to use deadly force under the old law, he was justified to be where he was, they ran AT him leading him to be in fear of his life (which means murder was a reasonable presumption, and they were in the commission of a felony), therefore he is covered under Castle Doctrine?????

It's an argument -- I don't know if it is sufficient to be compelling.

Charles,

could you elaborate on what type of civil liability Mr. Horn might have given that he was just no-billed? For instance, does the castle law apply now given that the GJ seems to have let him go on the grounds of self defense? I'd like to hear it from someone who didn't get their law degree out of a cracker jack box (unlike myself).

I have to admit I'm confused here...

Texas PC 9.42 and 9.43 are pretty clear... please educate me... WHY would a grand jury have indited Mr. Horn? What would be the basis?

Thanks

Chuck

SCone wrote:The 911 tapes are going to be the issue here.

0:20 - Do you want me to stop them?
3:09 - I'm going to shoot, I'm going to shoot
6:07 - I'm gonna kill 'em
6:50 - Move, you're dead
6:52 - 1st shot
6:53 - 2nd shot
7:01 - 3rd shot

The timeline shows Mr Horn making his decision to shoot long before he goes outside. And he makes the statement, "If I go outside... I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot" a full three minutes before he goes outside.

I feel for Mr Horn, but I don't understand why the GJ didn't indict him.

“A mistake from a legal standpoint, no. A mistake in terms of his life, yes. It has affected him terribly. And if he had it to do all over again, he would stay inside,� Lambright said. < Mr Horn's attorney

dustyb wrote:

57Coastie wrote:Joe Horn was nobilled by the grand jury, Dusty, not "acquitted." He is "innocent," as he has been presumed all along, since he has not been convicted of anything, but, again, he has not been acquitted. A grand jury has no power to acquit someone.

I don't mean to be nitpicking, Dusty, but a statement like this can zoom around the Internet at a gillion miles an hour, adding more heat than light.

Jim

I never said he was acquitted. I believe that came earlier in the thread by someone else.

Dusty,

Please accept my apologies. I made a stupid mistake, which I do so often as I stumble around on the keyboard. I have no idea how this happened, but it should not have.

I have edited my earlier post to remove your name.

Jim

I think Joe Horn should offer a defensive shotgun course!

LedJedi wrote:Charles,

could you elaborate on what type of civil liability Mr. Horn might have given that he was just no-billed? For instance, does the castle law apply now given that the GJ seems to have let him go on the grounds of self defense? I'd like to hear it from someone who didn't get their law degree out of a cracker jack box (unlike myself).

With respect, we have no idea why the grand jury decided to no-bill Mr. Horn. The grand jurors need not, did not, and, most likely, cannot, report their reason or reasons. While it may "seem" that they "let him go on the grounds of self defense," that is speculation.

Along these lines, I will observe that earlier a forum member asked a question about the likelihood of a civil action. The question was not about the likelihood of success of a civil action. Whether or not, for example, Mr. Horn has civil immunity for his acts I would suggest is a legal question which has not been answered by a judicial forum, be that either a judge or a jury, and the question is still up in the air.

Lastly, I must take the time to comment on an earlier comment here by a member who I consider to be a personal friend, who suggested that one reason why a civil action is unlikely to follow is because there is no obvious evidence here that it would be to an attorney's financial advantage to bring an action. I cannot say this is an untrue observation with respect to some attorneys, but I can say that this is not the only reason attorneys take on a lawsuit. I think Mr. Heller's case itself, at least to some extent, is an example of my point.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:Lastly, I must take the time to comment on an earlier comment here by a member who I consider to be a personal friend, who suggested that one reason why a civil action is unlikely to follow is because there is no obvious evidence here that it would be to an attorney's financial advantage to bring an action. I cannot say this is an untrue observation with respect to some attorneys, but I can say that this is not the only reason attorneys take on a lawsuit.

I did not mean to suggest that all lawyers are motivated by profit, though taking cases on contingency is very common. It is possible that an attorney could take the case pro bono as a matter of principle.

Then the question becomes whether some lawyer licensed in the state of Texas is willing to take the case, knowing that it would be difficult to get a jury sympathetic to the plaintiff (this is a supposition on my part).

- Jim