garysher wrote:He didn't "slaughtered them in cold blood"; they committed suicide...

And if the police arrived that soon, the blood was probably still warm...Hell they might have even been still alive for a few minutes to think about what else they should have been doing instead of breaking into that home.

If they had not decide to break the law in the first place they would still be alive would they not??? First they were in this country illegally and then they were thieves on top of it.

dmk

And if Horn did would have listened to what the dispatcher told him to do multiple times he wouldn't be a sociopathic murderer.

I doubt he'll be charged with murder, this was justified. Sociopathic hardly applies to a guy who for all intents and purposes killed people who were stealing. If you really feel that way, you'd be shocked to find that there is a large percentage of people who are sociopathic.

My first Post so Take it easy on Me folks: As a Citizen of the Great State of Texas I do have some factual info to provide on this topic. It seems like there is alot of heated differences on this topic. We could really break this down into many many things and it is a very Emotional issue!

Facts:

1) This took place in a town called Pasadena Texas. Not Tennessee as incorrectly stated by a previous poster, no offense to the poster, just a fact.

2) The state of Texas has what is called the Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law. I have listed a sub-section from the law. The Law is not very lengthy and I would encourage any true American that wants to post an opinion to first read it and unserstand it.

2a) Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (1)unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (2)unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment of the actor; or (3)was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor]. (c)A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. (d)For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

3) Autopsy Reports indicated that both men were shot in the back.

4) The deceased are Miguel Antonio Dejesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30. Official records show that each of them had a prior arrest in Harris County for drug offenses.

5) Rep Sen Jeff Wentworth Authored the Bill his response to the incident was "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle." It was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action,"

6) Joe Horn has not been indicited as of yet, however the case is expected to go before the grand jury shortly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Those are the facts that I have now the emotional issues are these

1) Whether you agree with this law or not it was passed by the State Legislative branch and it is a Law in the State of Texas. It is also a law in several other states with different stipulations. I happen to support the law in the manner of its intent.

2) Many people feel this was racially charged. It may be, we live in America and there is alot of inherent prejudice. I admit to being inherently prejuducial, can you? If you are truly honest with yourself can you not admit to being somewhat racial! Please! I don't go out of my way to hate, but there is a natural instinct by a large majority to be fearful and ignorant of other races. However, all the people that Marched in Pasadena Black, Brown, White and yellow are all racists! Both sides racists. This case is not all about race. I do acknowledge it may have some to do with race, from an inherent fear factor. That being said, I would not have shot 2 men climbing out of my neighbors window I may have tried to detain them, but I would not have taken open season on them in my front yard without threat to my personal property or life.

3) Some people feel it was justifiable because they were illegal immigrants in this country without legitimate paperwork. Is it? Part of the immigration problem occurs with OTM (Other than Mexicans) becasue we can not deport them as easily, plus the cost asscoaietd is too much for the system to bear.

4) I don't believe that a person that commits a robbery should be shot to death on the spot without representation and a chance to go before the judge and jury. however, I also don't know if Illegal immigrants should be allowed the same rights as an American Citizen.

5) When this first happened back in November I said, this guy is going to get off. However as I became more aware of the facts I think he will get indicted and they will plead a lighter sentence at a min security prison and he will be out within 3 years.



these are the facts that I have and my opinions to match. I look forward to many political debates here. One thing I will say many people seem to get so heated with hatred over disagreeing on issues and I think that is a problem in the country today. Discussion and being open to others ideas is what created this great country. To many closed minded people not being open to others views. Just because I feel a certain way doesn't mean that the majority does. It is my responsibility to try and show or prove my opions are better, and in doing so I may decide it is not.

But evidently there IS a portion of Texas statute that states...
http://www.defendingthetruth.com/gun...tml#post153325 (Texan shoots burglars in cold blood - no charges pressed)

Chapter 9 of the Penal Code that deals with protection of property.

Under the section, which has been in place at least since 1973, a person is justified in using deadly force to protect a neighbor's property from burglary if the person "reasonably believes" deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."


Does that change your opinion of whether this man was justified. If this statute is legit, I don't see how he can be convicted, and therefore why should he be charged?

Well, that will be the question to be decided by the grand jury, the only legal concern I have regarding this is I'm not so sure that these gentlemen were armed. So, it may be difficult with the 911 call to prove he reasonably believed deady force was needed. Detaining them would have been a no brainer slam dunk, however, the 911 calls are very incriminating. As far as shooting them in the back, that's a slam dunk the guy is an older gentlman with poor aim. LOL

Again, I do support this law. I know these criminals were wrong and illegal. very difficult case. I understand you're sighting a seperate law.

JMO

The law states that if he feels deadly force was necessary to stop the men from getting away with the goods, he is justified. He shot them in the back. If I were a jurist, and the law was explained to me, it would seem that him shooting them in the back indicates that they weren't being detained. Even though he said stop. So the burglars being shot in the back actually absolves him under this section of the law since they were running from him with the money.

Since this is my first post my intent is not to get into a disagreement. Again I support the law in this case. I understand many Americans are fed up with crime and illegal immigration. However, Had he said Stop I would be more apt to take a more distinguished side. I really am undecided on this case, I would love to be on the grand jury to see the case presented by both sides. here is the actual call into 911 notice he goes outside while cocking the gun (that is not a problem) the problem for Mr. Horn is what happens next, his first staement to the men or man is "bang, your dead" then the gun goes off.

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"

Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!

Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."

Horn: "They got a bag of loot."

Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again this is a very difficult case, the DA seems to be putting a case toghter and we'll see what happens. Hopefully you're not offended by my stance on this. I dislike criminals I support the Castle Doctrine, I think Mr. horn is probably a good guy inside. I also see the side of taking the law into your own hands so it is a very difficult case emtionally for me.