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

Originally posted by defcon5
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.

There is absolutely no evidence or even any news link to suggest that he was talking to an officer of the law. The 911 operator is not much more than a tech support line. The operator themselves makes no claim and I have never heard of someone being arrested for not listening to the advice of a 911 operator. Your assumption is just that - a baseless assumption. I'm assuming you added it because you need more clout to convince others that crimes were committed.

Reply To Areal51: I will be surprised if the grand jury hands down any charges. The police made no arrests at the scene, or after the fact, and no prosecutors are looking to press charges. If that doesn't tell you something about the case then nothing will.






[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]

Thinking about it some more. The Grand Jury may determine that one of the shootings was justified and not the other, or both shootings may be determined justified. It's impossible to know what the outcome will be. Lots of angles, but when looking at the law and considering just that minus personal opinion, those Grand Jurors have it cut out for them.

In the 911 tape Mr. Horn does mention he had some fear of the men but it seems his desire to stop the crime was greater than his fear.

It may have been a poor decision to go outside but the police cannot stop him from leaving his house. The self defense part came up because as he stood in his yard the men entered and briefly approached him. When confronted, they ran. That most likely would not stand up as self defense.

I have not heard any news regarding the neighbors about the possibility that they asked for his help. It seems doubtful that they had based on that and his conversation with the 911 operator.

reply to post by zerotime


The fact that the officers didn't make an arrest does not mean that they consider Horn to be justified in his actions. It only obviously means that they understand the need for a complete and thorough investigation. What the police decided to do at the scene is obviously under investigation as well. None of this sheds any light on the likelihood of what the Governor of Texas, Texas Attorney General, District Attorney, Grand Jury, and Mayor of Pasadena will influence and decide. If you have a good idea of the legal system you will understand that Horn is not in the best position right now. He literally is dependent upon the good graces of a lot of known and unknown individuals. I don't know the political seasons in Texas, but you can bet that this will have an enormous effect on the outcome as well if some of the major players are up for re-election within the next year or so.

reply to post by Areal51


I disagree so I guess we will have to wait and find out. My points: 1. Grand Jury must find that the laws were broken. 2. Twelve jurors must vote to convict. I guess time will tell. Not much more to discuss on my end.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]

Originally posted by zerotime
The police made no arrests at the scene

This means absolutely nothing in the slightest other then he was not a flight risk, and he cooperated with the officers at the scene of the crime. The police do not make the determination if someone is prosecuted or not, that falls to the DA’s office. At the scene, the police might have felt that he was in his rights under section 9.43, and allowed him to remain free since they did not feel that he would run. I knew someone that had an incident like this, which was in self-defense, and was actually allowed to leave the state it happened in. They had to return to that state to go to court, and to do some time for the incident, but were not arrested at the scene.

As to the 911 part I am waiting to hear back from a LEO friend of mine on that topic, but I am pretty positive that I am correct on that as well.

reply to post by zerotime


If you go by the laws that have been discussed in this thread and exclude your opinion, then there is no way you can reach the conclusion that Horn did not break any laws. That the Grand Jury will have to decide is right and that's all I've said to that point. However, this thread is not a discussion about just that point.

Boo Hoo... I'm being ignored by someone who thinks these dead knuckle draggers should have been able to continue their life of crime. The wild illegal knuckle draggers got exactly what they deserved and this guy did that community a service.

The next time the wanna-be black panther thugs want to come robbing and killing they will surly by pass this neighborhood up and that community has this guy to thank for it.

I am glad they are dead and gone from the planet. I actually at their demise. Now there is NO chance they will victimize someone else. I hope more like them go the same way. If they did we would have less crime....

Originally posted by Perplexed
Boo Hoo... I'm being ignored by someone who thinks these dead knuckle draggers should have been able to continue their life of crime. The wild illegal knuckle draggers got exactly what they deserved and this guy did that community a service.

The next time the wanna-be black panther thugs want to come robbing and killing they will surly by pass this neighborhood up and that community has this guy to thank for it.

I am glad they are dead and gone from the planet. I actually

at their demise. Now there is NO chance they will victimize someone else. I hope more like them go the same way. If they did we would have less crime....

The racial-profiling really isn't needed, considering they were Columbian not black...but I do angree with your points.

Originally posted by Perplexed
Boo Hoo... I'm being ignored by someone who thinks these dead knuckle draggers should have been able to continue their life of crime.

No, your being ignored because only a complete jackass would wish that someone would do that stuff to anyone. I’ll happily take the warn for that one as well, as its so worthwhile in this instance.

What about the fact that this utter moron probably is the reason that the “wheel man” got away?

Ooops don’t bother to answer that because unless someone re-posts your entire comment like Zenskeptical did, then there is no way I can read the answer anyway.


(Mod note: Warning issued, as expected. Let's please not have this thread devolve any further. -- Majic)

[edit on 12/8/2007 by Majic]

No More Personal Attacks

ATS is not the place for name-calling or other ad hominem nonsense.

All points of view regarding the topic are quite welcome, but personal commentary directed at other members is not.

Originally posted by Majic
No More Personal Attacks
ATS is not the place for name-calling or other ad hominem nonsense.

Aye...
But I guess its ok for someone to wish harm upon my family for disagreeing with them.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]

Crime And Punishment

What is okay is expressing opinions in a manner consistent with the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.

Anything else is not appropriate, and that is not a matter for argument in this thread.

Stay on topic. This is not a request.

Originally posted by proteus33
more power to this guy he caught crooks in act they came onto his property probably to burglurize his house next then blam blam blam.
no tax payer burden. now i no alot of bleedin hearts are saying it was wrong butb i bet if half of them ever got robbed they would feel totally different. having your home invaded and robbed is on e of the worst feeling to have.

Agree, if someone forces their way into your home, ties you up & makes you watch while they rape your Fiancee, then take all your money & leave you Bleeding & bearly concious...

You'd start to think about using deadly force without questions asked next time someone invaded your property.

Sometimes people have to defend themselves & their loved ones. People come onto your land or into your home & they simply shouldn't be there.. Then I think it's better to be safe tha go through that crap again. I'd kill em on the spot & not give em a chance to overpower me again because I hesitated.

Screw the law!! The Law can't help you after you've been murdered in your own home "exept mabe say they feel bad that they didn't get there in time & Oh-well, Stuff happens, but the guys that did it will go to jail for a while"...lol

Now I kow that the law is against Murder & that if I don't want to go to prison for defending myself, I should let the other guy kill me so that he goes to jail instead... "sometimes I feel that this is how the law looks at it".

[edit on 12/8/2007 by Ironclad]

Having been on several juries in Harris county, it will be interesting to see what the make up of the jury turns out to be, if it goes that far. There is quite a diverse pool of people that end up on juries and it may not be so cut and dried as some might expect. I suppose the same could be said of the grand jury also.

My opinion is that if it goes to trial he is going to have a rough time.

Originally posted by apc
If the police had shot them none of us would have even heard about it.

A citizen has every right to defend his life, his body, his freedom and his property with deadly force.

THAT is civilized. Saying "Go ahead. Take everything I have. I won't stop you" is not civilized. That is anarchy.

Protecting ourselves and our property is not only our right, it is our duty.

Whew, what a mindset. Glad I don't live in your country. I don't equate murder with civility. Certainly not restraint with anarchy.

Wow..

Im rather gobsmacked.....

Originally posted by Blueracer

If I broke into someone's home, I would expect that I might get shot. It would be my own fault if I did get shot.

Can I pursue a slightly different scenario here?

What if I, as a civilian, had no access to a gun. Could I perhaps use a chainsaw, or axe, to enact this civil punishment? How about a stanley knife, or good old base ball bat?

Or does that somehow affect the desired intent - the outcome may still be the same, so I just want clarification.

I mean, we hear it all the time when a random shooting happens, we get the "Ban the gun" mob and in retaliation we get the "Yeah and so then lets ban knives!" mob at the ready.

So, can I stab the eyes out of a theif?

Originally posted by badw0lf
What if I, as a civilian, had no access to a gun. Could I perhaps use a chainsaw, or axe, to enact this civil punishment? How about a stanley knife, or good old base ball bat?

So, can I stab the eyes out of a theif?

You can use any weapon you want, many are considered deadly weapons. If you use something that does not kill the perpetrator though you stand a very good chance of being sued by the person who was victimizing you, as ridicules as that may seem.

Originally posted by zerotime
them in front of him. Warned them not to move or he would shoot. The two criminals decided to try to get away anyway. Again, their own fault. Why didn't they surrender?

Let me understand this.

Someone pulls a gun on me, and tells me not to move. It is my fault if I assume they're a nut job and attempt to flee, and I get shot. Later on it is revealed this nut job was under the impression I was a thief.

Thats how you want the story to go?

My god...

Every old kook with a shotgun is now judge, jury and executioner. Brilliant.

[quoteI'm sorry that you have to name call anyone that does not agree with you on the situation but I do not own any guns myself except paintball guns.


Thank GOD for that.

Stop the sniping.