MP-Pistol Forum banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,062 Posts
I expect most to have a different opinion but I agree with you.



There's one little piece of the story that should not be overlooked:

A dramatic 911 call from the Pasadena man who allegedly shot and killed two men accused of burglarizing his neighbor
This guy was not defending his home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
If they were not armed he can't use self defense and his home was not invaded. I don't think he will get away with it.



:twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
He is in Texas, couple of miles from my house, so don't speak of state laws you don't know about.



You have the right to defend your nieghbor's property in Texas.



So... it doesn't have to be HIS property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
I think this is the part of the Texas penal code Grimwulff is talking about:



§ 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

© 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.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.



I don't know how current this is, though.



If he was in Pasadena, CA, I think he would be screwed, blued, and tattooed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
910 Posts
"I ain't gonna let 'em get away with this... I'm gonna do it... I'm doin' it... You wanna make a bet? I'm gonna kill 'em."





Old bag ust wanted to play vigilante. I personally hope he gets charged with their murder. Not saying what they were doing was right, but what he did was clearly not right. He wasn't trying to stop them - he just wanted to kill them - he even said so before he did it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
The legal analysts on Fox News pretty much said he walks. That what he did was perfectly legal under Texas law. I love Texas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
sholling said:
The legal analysts on Fox News pretty much said he walks. That what he did was perfectly legal under Texas law. I love Texas.


So do I :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,268 Posts
The scary thing is...

The really scary thing was that he was on the line for over 7 minutes before the police showed up! If they were in his house and he wasn't armed he'd have been dead for nearly 7 minutes before the police showed up. I tend to think that shooting them with a shotgun was excessive, shooting them with a camera would have been a better option. By shooting them with the camera the government of Texas could have then been responsible for the investigation, apprehension, prosecution and (albeit pretty unlikely becasue probation would serve these victims of society, aka criminals, so much better) the incarceration of these upright citizens.



You can also bet that no matter what happens with criminal procedeings against Mr. Horn there will be a huge civil suit by the families.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
Re: The scary thing is...

Whoknew72 said:
The really scary thing was that he was on the line for over 7 minutes before the police showed up! If they were in his house and he wasn't armed he'd have been dead for nearly 7 minutes before the police showed up. I tend to think that shooting them with a shotgun was excessive, shooting them with a camera would have been a better option. By shooting them with the camera the government of Texas could have then been responsible for the investigation, apprehension, prosecution and (albeit pretty unlikely becasue probation would serve these victims of society, aka criminals, so much better) the incarceration of these upright citizens.



You can also bet that no matter what happens with criminal procedeings against Mr. Horn there will be a huge civil suit by the families.


No civil suits in Texas if the defender has been found legally within his right to perform the act in question.



Also, in Pasadena, good luck at actually finding the criminals in question. This is a statement to would be robbers to not think about it or you will never be able to do it again... or for that matter, anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
Call me heartless but what I think that what we have here is Darwinism at its finest. The thieves won't be around to pass on their genes, or create more welfare babies, or steal someone else's property. It's sad when anyone dies, but when you break into a home in Texas it's simply a form of suicide by proxy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
Wow what a tough one, I know here in Florida you CAN NOT shoot some one fleeing, and if they shoot back it is in self defense at that point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
sholling said:
Call me heartless but what I think that what we have here is Darwinism at its finest. The thieves won't be around to pass on their genes, or create more welfare babies, or steal someone else's property. It's sad when anyone dies, but when you break into a home in Texas it's simply a form of suicide by proxy.


On the radio today, the only channel that would come in (my antenna cable needs to be re-inserted into my cd player) was a rap channel... and all of the AA people who called in were crying about how it isn't right, that they don't condone stealing, but you should basically sit back and enjoy being robbed and not defend yourself. Literally, the AA callers wanted the citizens to just let themselves get robbed because it is just property and that they have enough money to buy more (I smell socialism in this somewhere...). I'm sorry, but that is condoning breaking the law... the police respond in *7* minutes to something that could, and all reason to believe, possibly be a murder + robber + rape + beastiality... who knows, but 7 minutes gives the criminal MORE then enough time to break in, still the stuff, kill the owners, and gtfo.



BTW, there is little proof that jail or other punishment would be a deterrent for robbery... but if the robbers now know that a gun barrel in the face presented to them by the owner and/or their neighbor... yea, now THAT is a deterrent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
mad212 said:
Wow what a tough one, I know here in Florida you CAN NOT shoot some one fleeing, and if they shoot back it is in self defense at that point.


Who said they were fleeing? You can't do it here, either, but if they walked into you on your neighbors property, that is a different thing. Also, private property has different rules/regs. We've always had the ability to shoot to kill on our own property, but we had to inform the person that they are not welcome and they must exit the property. If they don't, warn them again, and if nothing... they're sol. Now, with the new laws, if you see someone on your or your neighbor's property and they look like they're in the act of commiting a crime... well, they're sol.



Texas has a VERY good distinction between your rights on private property and your rights on public property. I can open carry anything I can legally own on my property, even in the city. Citizen's rights in action, imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
I dunno, tough call, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have retired them during a call to the cops. I think I could have solved the problem without killing anyone, but I wasn't there. I might get razzed by some of the tactical "purists" out there, but I think I might (from cover) have yelled "Hey a**holes, you're about to get shot". Maybe I'm just getting old...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
Welder said:
I dunno, tough call, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have retired them during a call to the cops. I think I could have solved the problem without killing anyone, but I wasn't there. I might get razzed by some of the tactical "purists" out there, but I think I might (from cover) have yelled "Hey a**holes, you're about to get shot". Maybe I'm just getting old...


I'd agree that that would have been a good start.



Personally, i'm getting fed up with the crime in the area, and so I have 0 problem with the person utilizing his rights to the fullest extent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
Grimwulff said:
[quote name='mad212']Wow what a tough one, I know here in Florida you CAN NOT shoot some one fleeing, and if they shoot back it is in self defense at that point.


Who said they were fleeing? You can't do it here, either, but if they walked into you on your neighbors property, that is a different thing. Also, private property has different rules/regs. We've always had the ability to shoot to kill on our own property, but we had to inform the person that they are not welcome and they must exit the property. If they don't, warn them again, and if nothing... they're sol. Now, with the new laws, if you see someone on your or your neighbor's property and they look like they're in the act of commiting a crime... well, they're sol.



Texas has a VERY good distinction between your rights on private property and your rights on public property. I can open carry anything I can legally own on my property, even in the city. Citizen's rights in action, imo.[/quote]



well in fleeing from the scene I suppose, no longer posing a viable threat. Until he presented himself, like I said, tough call I hope he will be a free man.



we also can shoot to defend during any forcible felon, ourselves and others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Our opinions on this forum are fairly well divided as reflected by the posts and there are no winners in this scenario. The shooter will (at best) have substantial legal expenses in addition to personal questions if the incident could have been handled more wisely.



If we are divided as to whether or not the shooter was justified with his deed, just imagine what the reactions will be in the anti-gun bunch or even the "fence-sitters". The repercussions will not be confined to Texas but will likely be felt in most if not all states and gun related legislation. Personally I wish that it had not happened and wildly spread throughout the national news media.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top