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.
There is a law, "The Texas Castle Doctrine," and this will certainly be a test case of its limits.
The problem with the Texas Castle Doctrine, is that it states very clearly (I posted it somewhere in this posting) that you have a right to defend yourself, in your own home, if you feel your life is in danger. What will make this law not apply is that they were not in his home..
He will however claim duress, and self defense, quite possibly a legal defense, but the Texas Castle Doctrine wont apply, and he should be charged. Let a jury decide if he had justifiable homicide..
The problem with the Texas Castle Doctrine, is that it states very clearly (I posted it somewhere in this posting) that you have a right to defend yourself, in your own home, if you feel your life is in danger. What will make this law not apply is that they were not in his home..
He will however claim duress, and self defense, quite possibly a legal defense, but the Texas Castle Doctrine wont apply, and he should be charged. Let a jury decide if he had justifiable homicide..
ON THE OTHER HAND - if, as some reports are inferring, the thiefs were on HIS PROPERTY, and APPROACHING him before he fired, then, IMO, the statute may very well apply to him -
ON THE OTHER HAND - if, as some reports are inferring, the thiefs were on HIS PROPERTY, and APPROACHING him before he fired, then, IMO, the statute may very well apply to him -
The law states IN his property, AND stealing from him.. The law, as written does not allow people to shoot because someone is on their lawn, and it surely doesnt allow someone to kill someone because they burglarized the neighbors property.
Not stating he doesnt have a valid defense on what a reasonable individual would do, since he clearly was adjitated, all I'm stating is that the Castle law just wouldnt be the one that would apply, especially since the tape shows that he clearly went looking for the thugs.
Per the letter of the law, since he went looking for the thugs, with a weapon, the thugs at that point had a right to defend themself, which would be the prosecutors defense for why they were going towards him. May not like it, but that is how the law was written.
In "his property" does not necessarily mean in a physical structure
Actually it does.. Its quoted in Texas law as
Reasonably believing that force was necessary
AND (it does not say OR, it clearly says AND)
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force (shooter was in no danger)
AND
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter, unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business, or employment;
AND
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
OR
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Since the thugs were not in the shooters home AND not removing property of the SHOOTER 1 and 2 is not a valid defense, leaving kidnapping, murder, sexual assault. Nothing indicates that 3 would be a valid defense because I have not heard he was being raped or robbed..
Before I hear that the the law meant "his yard", the definition of habitat isnt yard.. its
a place of residence; dwelling; abode.
lodgings, home, domicile, quarters
and laws arent written (or shouldnt be) to be open to interpretation. They have to be very clear as to the intent of the law.
The law states IN his property, AND stealing from him.. The law, as written does not allow people to shoot because someone is on their lawn, and it surely doesn't allow someone to kill someone because they burglarized the neighbors property.
Not stating he doesn't have a valid defense on what a reasonable individual would do, since he clearly was agitated, all I'm stating is that the Castle law just wouldn't be the one that would apply, especially since the tape shows that he clearly went looking for the thugs.
Per the letter of the law, since he went looking for the thugs, with a weapon, the thugs at that point had a right to defend themselves, which would be the prosecutors defense for why they were going towards him. May not like it, but that is how the law was written.
Here is the Texas law from the Texas website, I have it copied/pasted here on the forum somewhere else but here is the link. 80(R) SB 378 - Introduced version - Bill Text
That is a good point. Since we are innocent until proven guilty you cannot automatically assume that the two guys were criminals simply because Mr Horn said so (I know that afterwards the evidence really proved they were, but Mr Horn is not judge and jury for them so he cannot use future discoveries to defend himself). A 61 y/o suspecting you is not a conviction. I know the later facts proved him correct, but that's just great to use hunches to kill people.
Now look at it from their perspective. They were doing nothing directly to Mr Horn or his property and Texas doesn't have a "gun toting NRA people can deputize themselves at will and then go fight crime" law, Mr Horn had no right to go over there.
Now these two guys see a non-law enforcement individual coming at them with a shotgun. Under the "Castle Doctrine" they have the right to draw a weapon and kill anyone who threatens them with deadly force (and "move or you're dead" is a pretty clear threat). Legally they could shoot and kill Mr Horn, since they have no legal obligation to flee and are allowed to "stand their ground".
Wouldn't that have been a fun result for this stupid law?
They don't have to be in the structure if your vehicle is being threatened -- they could have attempted to break in the car or truck and been running away...right?
Bravo!!!! and I understand, it's a grandfathered law or something like that, right?
I personally think, this guy became frustrated with all the crime in his neighborhood and decided to defend his neighbors home...like I said before, wish he were my neighbor...in my mind, he's a hero.
Criminals usually do not change, you give them a chance, and they go right back out and break the law, again and again....
My son is a police officer, and our tax money is being spent to defend these criminals and put them back on the street, jeprodizing the lives of police officers and causing more paper work, when a police officer could be out on the street catching more criminals....repeated offenders has become a career.
A lot of diferant sort's of people commit serious crime at some point, -not just cronic "criminals". -And many people of ALL sort's change big time, -but that can be for good OR ILL. And more change less so (socialy that is.), -but it really depend's on the person.
I'm a gun owner. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, think the use of force to defend oneself is more than justified, and have zero sympathy for criminals of any kind. With that being said, I think the man in question was flat wrong to do what he did.
It is clear from the transcript of the 911 call that his life was not in imminent danger. He was not being threatened in any way. The crime was not being committed against him but rather his neighbor's property. He was told repeatedly by the 911 operator to stay in his home but he refused. The last exchange between the caller and the 911 operator before the burglars were shot was this:
911: "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with the gun."
Caller: "You wanna make a bet? I'm going to kill them."
I'm sorry, but how can any reasonable person say that this man's actions were justified? He didn't have to go outside and confront these criminals, but he chose to. He created a possible "self defense/deadly force" situation that would not have existed had he simply stayed in his home and let the police handle it. I realize that Texas law may be on his side in this matter, which I guess is fine. But to my mind it doesn't make what he did right.
It is incidents like this that involve questionable judgment in using a weapon that anti-gun advocates jump all over. How long do you think it will be before it's used to promote some half-baked gun control law somewhere?
Maybe some see this man as a hero. All I see is a man that tossed reason out the window and did a very stupid thing that just makes the vast majority of his fellow gun owners look bad.
Thank goodness... finally a SENSIBLE, real perspective on this shooting. I heard the 911 tape and I absolutely agree; he was not in any danger at all. He seemed hell-bent on shooting those guys and he did just that. He should not be allowed to get away with this. He murdered two people. Period.
Thank goodness... finally a SENSIBLE, real perspective on this shooting. I heard the 911 tape and I absolutely agree; he was not in any danger at all. He seemed hell-bent on shooting those guys and he did just that. He should not be allowed to get away with this. He murdered two people. Period.
This is what a lot of us having been saying.
I'm anxious to see this law tested in court.
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.
