When the law can't protect you

[TxLnghrn]

Originally Posted by bubb2

The difference is one is a property crime (no bleeding victims) the other could have dead people associated with the crime.

And how many houses do these two dirtbags have to break into until they come upon a single mom in the house, or your loved ones alone and decide not to leave witnesses?

I can say for certain that these two will not be attacking my family, and for that I say thank-you Joe Horn.

You are willing to kill someone who might cause injury or death while driving drunk.... I submit to you that left unchecked it was just a matter of time until these two escalted from property crimes to violent crimes, if they haven't already in the past and just not been caught.

[crosseyeddreamer]

Too bad Cheney wasn't playing cards with Mr. Horn that night, they might have got a lawyer or two as well...........................................

[wchevron]

i agree with joe horn's decision. i'm not going to go into a long discussion defending my position. this is just the way i feel. i also like freesail's idea.

[SEMIJim]

Originally Posted by danjarch

For any who think Mr Horn got off. He now is being sued by the criminals families. No court appointed lawyer this time either. He's going to have to start shelling out bucks for a lawyer. May even loose his home before it's over. Even if he wins, he'd have to fight an additional counter suit to get any money back from the families. This presums they got a pot to piss in. I'd bet they're case is being tried on contigency. Some rent-a-smuck trying for a big pay off from his home owners policy.

This is an example of why Michigan's lawmakers put into its Castle Doctrine law a provision that provides immunity from a civil lawsuite brought by the assailant or the assailant's family for damages, injury or death resulting from a shooting that is deemed legal under the law. IOW: If there's no criminal prosecution, no civil suit is possible. (I'm sure the land sharks fought something fierce to try to kill that provision .)

Jim

[sailaway21]

Thanks, CP.

I don't know that I would have shot them but then, I wasn't there. They certainly were in his front yard and I'd say prettty close to him. I thought the investigating officer was leading in his questioning of Mr. Horn and I'd have asked him about what type of movement the burglar made, ie...fleeing or aggresive and threatening. I found Mr. Horn's final words to the officers, where he showed the corner of his house where he attempted to peer around compelling, much more compelling than his earlier statements.

For me, once they were fleeing I certainly would not have fired at that point or again, but I have to remind myself that I wasn't there and I don't know for certain what I'd have done.

From what CP posted, the law seems pretty clear that, in Texas, it was a justifiable shooting. I'm sure that, as Mon6 states, in another state he would have been indicted.

I have absolutely no doubt that Mr. Horn knew exactly what those two were up to and that he was trying to do the right thing. I'd still be glad to have him for a neighbor. I doubt he sleeps well and I also expect that he'll question himself for the rest of his days. And I expect that he'll be forced to move, I know I'd sure be thinking about it given some of the community reaction. I hope things go well for him in the civil suit.

[sailingdog]

I'm still waiting for Plumper to tell me exactly how the prison system is working as a deterrent. If it was truly working as a deterrent, wouldn't the number of criminals we deal with be going down, not up???

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[Plumper]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

I'm still waiting for Plumper to tell me exactly how the prison system is working as a deterrent. If it was truly working as a deterrent, wouldn't the number of criminals we deal with be going down, not up???

This argument is like mud wrestling with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Shooting someone in the back is just plain wrong.

'Nuff said.

[sailaway21]

The phrase, "'nuff said" can be used in two different ways. One implies that you have nothing further to add to a conversation and the other is that there can be nothing further added to the conversation. Those seeking to leave the impression of the latter are sometimes members of the former group.

[SEMIJim]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Those seeking to leave the impression of the latter are sometimes usually members of the former group.

There: I fixed it for you, Sway

Jim