Not according to the law. Once again you give the criminals your support while you ignore what the law actually states. So here goes the law lesson. The Texas Penal code allows for an individual to:

Now was Horn justified in defending his neighbor's property?? What does the law say:


So lets see a Section 9.42 (2) (b) applies, the individuals had committed the burglary and were beginning to flee the scene with property, so the use of deadly force under the law is allowed by an individual. Now did Mr Horn as a neighbor have the authority to use this force, for that we look to Section 9.43 (1) and see that he did.

So according to the law, Mr Horn is not a criminal as you have repeatedly called him but rather a law-abiding citizen for the simple fact that he actually followed the laws of the state in which he lived.

dmk

And you like Garysher need the lesson in law I just gave. Once again it goes to the simple premise had the two not been engaged in a crime in the first place they would not have died. Your ignorance of the law in this case has made you ignorant in this posting.

dmk

A Great Lesson in what applies in all Fifty States, however, you failed to examine what is allowed in Texas. Again ignorance of the law.

dmk

There you go again Limey. Showing your bigotry.

dmk

The law says that you can shoot if there is reasonable doubt that the property will ever be recovered. The citizen doesn't HAVE to shoot. But the criminal doesn't HAVE to B@E.

CNN — LOU DOBBS TONIGHT — Aired December 18, 2007 — 19:00 ET

KITTY PILGRIM, GUEST HOST: The controversial case of Joe Horn. He's the Texas man that shot and killed two unarmed burglars. It's reigniting the opinion on gun ownership in the country. A new CNN Research Corporation poll finds an overwhelming majority, 65 percent, believe the constitution guarantees the right to own a gun; 31 percent disagree. Joining me for more on the Horn case is his lawyer, Tom Lambright and he joins us from Houston tonight. Thank you for being with us.

TOM LAMBRIGHT, JOE HORN'S ATTORNEY: Thank you.

PILGRIM: At this point, your client has not been arrested, indicted or charged. Does Texas law protect him at this point?

LAMBRIGHT: The case has to be heard by the grand jury first. They can bind him to true billing or no billing. That's going to be the process.

PILGRIM: Let's listen for a moment for the benefit of our viewers to the 911 call made by Mr. Horn. This happened at the time he sees suspects stealing from his neighbor's house.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JOE HORN: They just stole something. I'm going to go out the window. I'm not going to let them get away with this (EXPLETIVE) they just stole something. They got a bag of something.

OPERATOR: Mr. Horn, stay in the house.

HORN: I'm doing it.

OPERATOR: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.

HORN: I'm sorry. This ain't right buddy.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

PILGRIM: Now, the operator clearly saying for Mr. Horn to stay in the house. How do you respond to the idea that this entire situation could have been avoided if he had done that?

LAMBRIGHT: I think it would have been better avoided if the two individuals had not burglarized the neighbor's house. Mr. Horn certainly had a right to go outside while he had 911 on the phone to try to give them additional information.

PILGRIM: It's a fair point. They were burglarizing a house. Let's listen to another portion of the 911 tape and this is a part where Mr. Horn confronts the suspects in the yard.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

HORN: Move, you're dead.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

PILGRIM: Did Mr. Horn believe his life was in danger? Isn't that critical to the whole situation?

LAMBRIGHT: I believe he did believe it was in danger. We have a Pasadena police officer that was in the process of rolling to the scene another at the time these individuals were out in the yard facing each other. He says that once Mr. Horn told him not to move, they rushed Mr. Horn. He's holding a shotgun.

PILGRIM: Where does Texas law stand on this?

LAMBRIGHT: Well obviously Mr. Horn has a right to be in his yard. If he believes they're trying to do him harm, especially serious bodily injury or death, he has a right to respond with deadly force.

PILGRIM: How does he feel about the whole incident?

LAMBRIGHT: He wished it never happened. He would like to go back and when he heard the glass breaking, not do anything.

PILGRIM: Since this incident, there have been protests for and against Mr. Horn's actions. He has received death threats. Joe Horn is also your personal friend as well as your client. How is he reacting to all of this?

LAMBRIGHT: I think he's taking the threats seriously. He doesn't know who the individuals are but I think any time somebody makes a threat to take your life, I think you have to take it seriously.

PILGRIM: I would like to listen to the man from the New Black Panther Nation. He made comments about the people that support Mr. Horn. Let's listen to that for a second.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUANELL X, NEW BLACK PANTHER NATION: You have so many people in the community calling him a hero. How could you do that if he shoots two unarmed men in the back, one twice and one once, they were fleeing and running from you. When someone is running from you and you shoot them in the back and they are unarmed, you are not a hero.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PILGRIM: How do you feel about that comment?

LAMBRIGHT: I believe that the people supporting Mr. Horn are making a statement against crime. In general with regard to the particulars in this case, I don't believe one of the individuals were shot in the back. But once again, these two individuals knew what they were doing was dangerous work. They could have simply gotten an honest job and avoided the whole situation.

PILGRIM: Tom Lambright, thank you very much for appearing on the broadcast tonight. Thank you, sir.