When you have a loaded weapon, and you tell the person on the phone that you're going to go outside to kill people, and then you do that?

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of premeditated murder. The question is, whether the judge will interpret the poorly written law as that premeditated murder being JUSTIFIED or not under Texas state statutes.

That law WILL then be rewritten based upon this case, so that it cannot be questioned again.

I don't know how anyone who is killed while committing a felony can be called a vicitim of premeditated murder. Maybe in CA, NJ or MA, but not in real America.

Their history has ZERO to do with how qualified a homicide is or isn't, and it has LESS THAN ZERO to do with how a citizen can then deal with a person. Part of having a free and stable society is the fact that we long ago agreed to remove decisions of justice from the hands of the common man and put them into the hands of a carefully constructed judicial system...ALL decisions of legality and rights are decided THERE, not on the street.

No one has any right, nor justification, to kill a person over another just because they're a criminal.

Ok, being gang bangers may not have been legal justification for deadly force. But being engaged in the commission of a felony pretty much deflates any case for calling them innocent victims. Seems to me you think deadly force is never justified and all perps are, in fact, victims. I can tell you right now that I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who breaks into my house, whether they're armed or not. So I've already confessed that I would do it and I have plenty of means around the house for actually doing it. But I have no idea who the intruder might be one day and I pray it never happens. Does that make my killing an intruder an act of premediated murder? Or do I need to wait and see if they try to rape my wife first?

Can I please have some of the drugs you're on? They must make life so interesting...

Read this clearly now please. I did not, and do not, call them innocent victims. I did ONLY state that Joe Horn committed premeditated murder or two people. Period, end of story. That's true. I'm not questioning the legality of his actions or of the two dead guys, because...well...that's why we have a legal and judicial system.

Now, would you care to calm the fuch down and stop acting like the drooling rabid mouthbreathers that seem to populate this forum?

Under the section, which has been in place at least since 1973, a person is justified in using deadly force to protect a neighbor's property from burglary if the person "reasonably believes" deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

He will walk. IMHO. If he needs a place to live, he is welcome in my neighborhood, ragamuffing thieves and/or MS 13 need not apply.

If it's that simple, why is there a Grand Jury involved?

Because...it's not that simple. The code is quite convoluted, has lots of caveats, and the real question is how to read a single line in the statute...what does the comma mean in that line. If you read it one way, he's 100% free and clear and was within his rights to shoot. If you read it the other way, then he committed felony homicide. The Grand Jury will have to decide what the intent of the law was, and therefore, which way the the correct interpretation of that single line.


Doesn't seem quite as clear cut as your statement.

Wait! How could that be when Pazuzu says it's premeditated murder, period, end of story?

Oh, and how the hell does telling the 911 operator that you're about to stop two perps fleeing the scene of their felony (where TX law states that deadly force can be used) constitute premeditated anything? Horn didn't premeditate anything. He reacted to criminals' premeditated crimes.

"I did ONLY state that Joe Horn committed premeditated murder or two people. Period, end of story. " Pazuzu words.
"Now, would you care to calm the fuch down and stop acting like the drooling rabid mouthbreathers that seem to populate this forum?" Pazuzu words


IMHO, he will walk because a TX grand jury will decide the evidence is not strong enough to bring charges.
It would seem the statue is worded in a way the gives more power to the property owner. Both the robber and gun owner know the rules going into the game. If the robber loses and pays the ultimate price then the gun owner is absolved of any crime. This seems fair to me, and may deter future robbers. Help me understand your point of view.

Yep, you guys are right, I'm wrong. The average person now can define their own laws, and dispense their own justice in the streets. They are MORE justified in taking action against someone who is or might be a criminal in other unrelated ways, especially if they have no CLUE what that person's background is when they take these actions. If it's fortunate enough that the person who is being judged happens to be a gangster, or an illegal immigrant, well then, the person defining their own justice can also now be called a hero as well, even when they had no clue.

There's no longer any reason to read an interpret the state laws...hell, why even have them? They' just waste paper.

Better?

Your posts in this thread contain many references to the backgrounds of the two dead guys. It is true that they were criminals with previous records. They were also illegal immigrants, one having been deported at least on one occassion. There were more arrested following thier deaths that were linked to a group of organized criminals. Yes, these were bad men by any measure.
If they dead guys ended up being two teens from the neighborhoood who were robbing for kicks or to support their playstation habit, the story would be tagic.
It is fortunate, I suppose that it was not the latter ending. It would still not be a crime to do what Joe Horn did.
The law does not discriminate as to the backgrounds of the dead guys.

Ah ha!

An agenda rears it's ugly head!

Actually you are COMPLETELY WRONG.

Citizens of the US have the right to defend themselves and others with lethal force when there is a clear threat of imminent death or grave bodily harm. What's more, we also have a right to non lethal self defense when it seems reasonable as well.

I would call that putting justice in the hands of people. Where the hell did you learn about US self defense laws? On the Handgun control Inc. website?

No, that's called giving them the chance to keep all of their limbs intact in a situation of dire emergency, it has ZERO to do with dispensing justice. Are you so daft that you cannot tell the difference? What Joe Horn did was decided that he would dispense justice instead of the police...he was not in any way protecting his life, limbs, or castle, because none of those things were in danger.

Red herring arguments will get you nowhere. How could you, in any possible way, seem to think that I'm for handgun control, and what does that have to do with this subject anyways?

Now, please keep to the discussion at hand, which is whether the grand jury should continue with the process of taking him to court for homicide.

Well, if you have never had to enter into handgun combat in your own home you do not know what this old guy did. Premeditated murder, well your assertation is only as revolting as the arrogance indicated in the manner of what you made the statement.

Sniper is dead nuts on. Two bad guys, or who knows what type of nutcase is on your propertly at night. You call the cops and they tell you to bugger off. Defending yourself with the confrontation is proactive, not premeditated. The key thing to survival is do not let them have the advantage nor take the initiative. This guy acted in such a manner so as the perps had the opportunity to not confront the old guy. You have a two on one situation with the two criminals standing together. A situation whereby, taking a proactive measure in this case confronting them, and guaraunteeing you are controlling the situation, denying the two their numbers advantage and assuring your own safety. He spoke to these two, they did not comply they indicated an immenent assault, the victim feared for his life. That is the only defense he needs. If you think that this is premeditated, well YAAFM! A reasonable man in this situation would act in this manner. A reasonable crook, caught in this situation would expect the same, he would be dead.

In Texas, and defnitely in Harris County, all shootings by civilians are referred to a Grand Jury.

Actually, we've discussed the Texas law here pretty extensively and

You do not have to be in fear of your life to protect felony theft with deadly force.

Joe is an older guy. Hi only means to stop the felony theft was threatening and using deadly force. If the criminals had complied with his lawful order to stop, they would be alive. If the Police detective in the unmarked car had shown up earlier, and announced his presence, then things might have been different.

I wish I had neighbors like Joe. I'm the Joe on my block.

In this case, Pazuzu does not know the facts or the pertinent law. He does seem to know that this is premeditated murder...looks to me he is trolling for an argument.

Here ya go mike, read all about it
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/380530-following-man-who-shot-2-burglers.html?highlight=joe+horn

Joe Horn didn't do anything that I suspect most real MEN would do and then we would "let the chips fall where they may...". A next door neighbor's front door was kicked in a while back (middle of the afternoon) before I got home. I (and quite a few of my neighbors) just wish we would have been there. I wonder where Pazuzu relocated to Texas from?

What you guys are missing is that Pazuzu is a "caring sensitive liberal of the new millennium." Thoughts, reason, logic & accountability are unknown to such people. Attempts to reason with a CSLONM will result in frustration. Proceed at your own risk.