It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in the back - More on the 'Hero'

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
What a screwy set of laws they have in Texas. In the other 49 states this man committed premeditated first degree murder, with no question or doubt. I still think he is going to be charged, and here is why right here:



§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. 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.

§ 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 (C) 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.


If his neighbor did not ask him to watch his property then he is going to be SOL, also since the police were telling him they were on the way he had no reason to believe that the property would not be recovered. 9.41 does not apply at all since its about personal property.

Either way I bet this law gets repealed after this incident, so I hope you all enjoyed the freedom you were granted for a short time out there, because I will bet you Mr Horn ruined it for everyone.


Thank you for posting the law Zerotime.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
There's an "or" in there. See, right there. Before that word. Next to that other word.

zerotime sourced the actual statutes so you can read 9.41 and 9.42. There's more "or"s though, so try not to get confused.


I know how to read state statues.
I am not sure what you are getting at with the ‘or’ bit, I asked to read the other two statues as that statute is based upon the other two. Meaning you have to read them as well to understand the statue itself. Also the definitions of each term are included in the opening of each statute section and you must read those as well.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Perplexed
 


Wow, 2 people starred someone wishing rape and murder on someone totally not connected in any way with this.

You people are pathetic and proof that you gun toting hicks are just ignorant morons.




(Mod note: Warning issued. No more insults, please. -- Majic)

[edit on 12/8/2007 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Perplexed
We can only hope...

You my fine friend are the first and only person to ever make my ignore list.

Congratulations to you…


[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Here's my take:

These two were here in this country ILLEGALLY, they violated our boarders, and were here to commit crimes. The way i see it, they're foreign nationals here to cause damage to, and or steal the property of an american citizen. As far as i'm concerned, they're enemy combatants, and shooting them dead was acceptable, whether they were fleeing or not.

i'm tired of these people coming to our country illegally, and acting not only like the law doesn't apply to them, but also like we owe them everything. They come here, refuse to speak the native language, act rude, arrogant, and disrespectful to those of us who actually belong here, they drop their garbage everywhere, drive their illegal cars with their illegal tags and plates, and their illegal fake licenses, they mooch off the state, which drives up our taxes, and lowers the standards of care and assistance that actual citizens can get. And to top it off, they deal drugs, break into people's homes, steal their things, kill people, and beef up gang membership numbers. I'd go so far as to label them terrorists.

The guy didn't NEED to go outside, but i can understand how he felt. i'm tired of these people getting away with everything too. He could have stayed inside, and let them get away with yet another crime. But he took a stand. He said "no more...not on my watch, not while i can do something about it." He gave them a chance to halt, and had they halted, they would have been apprehended by police. but they chose to be provocative.

It's not about exactly what items they stole, it's the fact that they're stealing anything at all, or that they're even here...

They got what they deserved.


apc

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You still seem to have a problem reading the occasional "or" thrown in there.

But you can speculate all you like about what may or may not happen in the future. Today, the fact that the officer on the scene did not arrest this man carries significant weight.

>
Sorry... I didn't realize you don't understand the "or" reference.

"Or," as opposed to "and," means that any of the conditions must be met to conform with the law. You keep bolding one condition which pretty clearly doesn't apply. If you'll look at the other conditions, the parts on the other side of "or," the application is quite clear.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by apc]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Specifically what ‘or’ are you talking about, the only ‘or’ that matters that that it must fall under section 9.41 or 9.42, he fails at both of those two sections. The next part being 9.43 (1) which must be fulfilled along with (and) either 9.41 or 9.42. You might want to take a Boolean algebra course, its pretty helpful in reading statutes.


apc

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Sorry, but the conditions set in 9.42 have been met (where all those other nasty "or's" are).

It would appear the officer who witnessed the act agrees, and as it's been two weeks and there has been no word of charges, it would appear that the prosecutors agree as well.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Yeah, Horn would be able to use that in his defense if he met the criteria. Clearly he does not.

Since Horn did not know who his neighbors were, as told to the 911 operator, it is not likely that the neighbors requested his protection of their land and property.

Since Horn is not a law enforcement officer of some kind or a security guard/agent employed by the city, state, federal, or his neighbors, I doubt he had a legal duty to protect his neighbor's property.

Since Horn is obviously not related in any way to his neighbors or is responsible for the care of his neighbor's children, if they have any, I doubt that sub-section C of Article 2 of § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY can be applied to Horn's defense.

As for Article 1 of § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY it is null and void if Horn is claiming self-defense.

If Horn would be within his rights to use deadly force under Section 9.41 or 9.42 then he would be within his right to use deadly force and protect his neighbor's property from being stolen. The problem for Horn is that the law doesn't stop there. If it did, then the case would be cut and dry. It is not. Before Horn engaged the suspects and escalated their case of burglary into and investigation of possible murder for himself he was told not to leave the confines of his home. He was told not to use his weapon. Now he is in the position of having to choose a defense, and obviously under the instruction of his attorney, at least for now, he is going with self-defense. Horn also claimed self-defense to the 911 operator. This is why in a court of law the jury would not believe that Horn reasonably believed that theft of his neighbor's property was the central issue of his choice to use deadly force to contain the suspects. It's reasonable to assume that the Texas Attorney General or District Attorney would not believe Horn either. Therefore, self-defense is the only road to justification for Horn. Being that reportedly each of the suspects were shot in the back by Horn, at this stage his case doesn't look so good.

The grand jurors by definition do not exercise sympathy. They are going to go down to the letter of the law in Horn's case. If the case goes to trial it's going to come down to sympathy from the trial jurors. In addition to considering the case, the law, and the instructions given by the judge, the jurors are also going to consider relatives and friends that were or are criminals, thieves. They are going to consider the instances where they've known criminals to reform their ways. And they are going to consider what they in the minds and hearts believe to be justifiable homicide. Now, for sure the judge will instruct them not to consider these things, but we know that we are talking about people. Some will and some will not. Anyway, to rely on the sympathy of jurors to decide one's fate is not a reason to feel confident. Given the reputation of Texas and that the case is in Texas probably gives Horn a measure of confidence, though his lawyer would do well to advise Horn against banking on it. The sentiment of people cannot be accurately measured nor predictably relied upon no matter where in the world they live. Horn without question is in as bad a position as he could be. He has to reasonably prove that he acted in self-defense against TWO individuals. That's TWO mountains to climb and safely descend. Horn has a difficult road ahead. He is already on it.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
"Or," as opposed to "and," means that any of the conditions must be met to conform with the law. You keep bolding one condition which pretty clearly doesn't apply. If you'll look at the other conditions, the parts on the other side of "or," the application is quite clear.

I have to read statutes pretty often so maybe your not understanding something here. Let me try and break this down better for you.
Section 9.41 does not apply to Horn at all since it is completely about protecting your own property. So now we are left with it applying too this criteria:

Section 9.42 AND 9.43
Under 9.42 deadly force is not allowed in this instance because he fails under this criteria:

(3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


So with this in mind:

Section 94.1 or section 9.42 are false, and thus when a false is added to the "and" section of 9.43, then 9.43 also becomes false.

Remember that 1 or 0=1, 0 or 0=0, 1 or 1=1... 1 and 0=0, 0 and 0=0, 1 and 1=1.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


i agree with what you say----------it would be different if these illegals really were fleeing from a government in their own country that was trying to murder them but this is not the case------------they sneak across the border apparently with the same attitude they had back home that a criminal way of life is normal where ever you go-------------the pres. should get up off his butt and worry more about the problems we have at home instead of trying to force iraqis and afghans to vote democraticaly


apc

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Your interpretation is your opinion which at this point conflicts with the interpretation of the people who are actually involved with the case.

If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest you send them an email. Until then, na na na na boo boo.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Your interpretation is your opinion which at this point conflicts with the interpretation of the people who are actually involved with the case.

Obviously it does not conflict, or the case would not be going to court. Also that is not my opinion, it is how you read state statutes. All the criteria have to apply appropriately to each section, if not then that entire section does not apply. Obviously as Areal51 mentioned, section 9.4 does not apply to him, or his lawyer would not be pleading on “self-defense” in section 9.3...

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
We already know what happened. Two sides see it from two different views. Nothing is going to change in that regard. What happens now is that the events will go to a grand jury to see if the laws were broken. That's only problem number 1. Problem number 2 for those that want to see this guy go to jail is that I can't see 12 jurors voting to convict. It already seems that this guy has overwhelming support from his community. The only complains in the area are coming from Quanell X the National Informational Minister for the New Black Panthers. The biggest problem is getting a jury to care about 2 lifelong pieces of scum. I don't mean to disappoint you guys but it isn't going to happen.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


Community support does not decide the case, it goes as both Myself earlier in the thread, and Areal51 on this page, stated. The jury is given a list of criteria, and they either match up or they don’t. Its going to be pretty black and white when it gets down to it. The guy went outside to kill them and stated that to the police before doing it. He was also advised not to do what he did. He was not in fear, he was not in danger, his neighbors were not in danger, the property would have been recovered, and so on. He is going to be found guilty at some level, simply because the court is not going to allow him off Scott free on the grounds he disobeyed a law enforcement officer and endangered another one.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Yes, but if they are pleading self-defense all the jury has to do it decide that the man was in danger. Juries do this all the time. If I was on this jury I would say not guilty and so will the members of his real jury, if it even goes that far. Community support means everything because it will be those peers on the jury.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
You people who are standing up for these two pieces of trash are pathetic.

If anyone deserves to die in this world its more people like these two clowns, not children in Africa.

Obviously the majority of you all are so sheltered in everyday life that you do not understand the true primal emotions that envelop you when your private space is violated by criminals.

Get a clue, these guys are far from people who just strayed from the right path for a bit, they are repeated felons who broke into a mans house with an intent to commit a crime, and guess what? They are now dead. Serves them right.

America needs more of this community responsiblity, instead of blaming our enviroment for the criminals we produce, how about we change it ourselves? God knows the police aren't to helpful most of the time.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Zenskeptical]

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Zenskeptical]

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Zenskeptical]



(Mod note: Warning issued. Your opinions on the topic are welcome, personal attacks are not. -- Majic)

[edit on 12/8/2007 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


When did he disobey a law enforcement officer? I think you are confused or making this up.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


If you think that this case, a case of double homicide, is predictable. You really need to check out a movie called 12 Angry Men that deals with a jury deciding a single homicide. I wouldn't be surprised if Horn's attorney makes an attempt to split the case into two cases. At any rate, this case is no walk in the park. It's in Texas and that's not going to make it easier either, despite your opinion. You can bet that the entire spectrum of law abiding citizens will be represented on the jury. From professional background to education level. This case, if it goes to trial, is not predictable by any means.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


In many areas the 911 dispatch officer is a law enforcement officer. When you are instructed to do something by the dispatcher you are expected to do as your told, the same as if a uniformed officer is standing there telling you what to do. Also on the tape you can hear him tell the police officer at the scene “no” when he is instructed to get on the ground.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join