Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm with you about lots of details missing, but my first blush was that she may be guilty of disorderly conduct under TPC Sec. 42.01(a)(8) and not much else, but after a discussion with another member of this forum, I'm starting to think that by brandishing the long gun and firing a warning shot into the ground she may have become a mutual combatant. In Texas, a mutual combatant DOES have a duty to retreat before the application of deadly force. The entire video has not been released, so it may be the case that she would still be justified, but the lines become much more blurry.
We have to look at who pushed this ambiguous law through and why. Right there is the problem with it and why it needs to be reevaluated. This case blew me away and should be the example of why this law needs to go...
In November 2007, a Houston-area man pulled out a shotgun and killed two men whom he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor’s home. Joe Horn, a 61-year-old retiree, called 911 and urged the operator to “ ‘Catch these guys, will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.’ ” Despite being warned to remain inside his home, Horn stated he would shoot, telling the operator, “ ‘I have a right to protect myself too, sir. The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.’ ”
Two months earlier, the Texas Legislature passed a Stand Your Ground law removing a citizen’s duty to retreat while in public places before using deadly force. In July 2008, a Harris County grand jury declined to indict Horn of any criminal charges.
Clearly, this guy's life was not in danger
Clearly, he could have held them for law enforcement
Clearly, the penalty for theft is not execution
Clearly, he took advantage of a ridiculous law
I'm not getting into the comparing every possible self defense case with the Zimmermann case.
In this situation, the fact that the dead guy brandished a knife immediately makes this a self defense case. There are two big questions here, thought
1). Did the shooter leave the confrontation, get the gun, then return to the confrontation? If so, that's not SYG, that's going on the offensive.
2). She's making this sound like she fired a warning shot, which bounced off the pavement, then struck and killed the guy. This may render this to be not a self defense shooting. Self defense cannot be an accident. If she said that she feared for her life, and consciously shot the guy for that reason, it's self defense. If the bullet hit him by accident, it's much more like criminally negligent homicide (or whatever they call that in TX) Firing warning shots is never a good idea. This is one of the reasons.
We have to look at who pushed this ambiguous law through and why. Right there is the problem with it and why it needs to be reevaluated. This case blew me away and should be the example of why this law needs to go...
In November 2007, a Houston-area man pulled out a shotgun and killed two men whom he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor’s home. Joe Horn, a 61-year-old retiree, called 911 and urged the operator to “ ‘Catch these guys, will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.’ ” Despite being warned to remain inside his home, Horn stated he would shoot, telling the operator, “ ‘I have a right to protect myself too, sir. The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.’ ”
Two months earlier, the Texas Legislature passed a Stand Your Ground law removing a citizen’s duty to retreat while in public places before using deadly force. In July 2008, a Harris County grand jury declined to indict Horn of any criminal charges.
Clearly, this guy's life was not in danger
Clearly, he could have held them for law enforcement
Clearly, the penalty for theft is not execution
Clearly, he took advantage of a ridiculous law
Believe it or not, I'm very familiar with the Joe Horn case. The key to the no-bill of the Joe Horn case was that he shot two men who were in the act of committing felony theft on his property (they were physically located on his front lawn at the time). That was an ugly, ugly thing and I'm 100% certain that Joe Horn would take a very different course of action if he had the opportunity to re-live that day, but it simply doesn't justify changing the law. Those sorts of high-profile, objectionable, politically charged cases just don't happen very often and there is no way to make everyone happy and no matter how great the temptation to "do something" may be, prosecutors must consider what precedent is being set, how it will affect people in the future and whether "doing something" is constructive or helpful at all. People get shot during home invasions on at least a weekly basis in Harris County and, for the most part, removing the homeowner or resident's protections under the law would be a major disservice to the people of the state, hence the no-bill of Joe Horn.
Believe it or not, I'm very familiar with the Joe Horn case. The key to the no-bill of the Joe Horn case was that he shot two men who were in the act of committing felony theft on his property. That was an ugly, ugly thing and I'm 100% certain that Joe Horn would take a very different course of action if he had the opportunity to re-live that day, but it simply doesn't justify changing the law. Those sorts of high-profile, objectionable, politically charged cases just don't happen very often and there is no way to make everyone happy and no matter how great the temptation to "do something" may be, prosecutors must consider what precedent is being set, how it will affect people in the future and whether "doing something" is constructive or helpful at all. People get shot during home invasions on at least a weekly basis in Harris County and, for the most part, removing the homeowner or resident's protections under the law would be a major disservice to the people of the state, hence the no-bill of Joe Horn.
I thought it was his neighbor's property?
That's totally different.
Did you not view the video? He never got within three feet of her. Usually a warning shot doesn't consist of several shots to the chest. Then she pulled out her camera, took a picture of him lying on the ground and then drove away. She will get 1st degree murder. She could have easily jumped in her car and drove away if she didn't like what he said. The gun was completely unnecessary.
I thought it was his neighbor's property?
That's totally different.
They had removed over $1,500 worth of his neighbors property from his neighbor's house and carried it across Joe Horn's lawn in several trips. On the last trip across Joe Horn's property, he shot them.
I didn't see a video, either. Just two photographs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
