What Are Your Thoughts On The Joe Horn Incident?

[Norseman82]

I have mixed thoughts on this.

There were only three people who actually saw with their eyes what happened.

Two are dead.

The other is the one who is being accused.

We don't know if the criminals made any threatening moves.

Legally, I don't know if he has standing to defend his neighbors' property, and although I did not listen to the 911 call, from what I've read, after being told by the 911 people, he could be on shaky ground in court.

However, people are also allowed to hold criminals until police arrive.

Could he have handled it better? Perhaps he could have fired a warning shot into the air or ground in such a manner to scare the criminals without hurting them. But if they approached him, it could be considered a threatening move.

But as far as the whole "life vs. property" and "precious children of God" talk, let's take a look at the players involved as stated in the Wikipedia article (assuming it is accurate).

On one hand, we have a retired man who worked hard and made something of himself, a family man who to our knowledge has no criminal record.

On the other hand, we have two previously convicted criminals who are illegal aliens and are here committing criminal activity against law-abiding innocent Americans (who appear to be here legally) and whose cause is being taken up by a convicted crack dealer who is a Black Panther.

I'm sorry, but like Socrates, I cannot bring myself to get worked up to shed a tear for the criminals.

[prose]

There were actually 4 witnesses.

The man, the thieves, and a plain clothed cop who sat in his car because he figured the risk was too high to get out.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='prose' post='1435434' date='Dec 17 2007, 08:31 PM']and a plain clothed cop who sat in his car because he figured the risk was too high to get out.[/quote]

WHAT?

I missed that part, but if that is the case, it's the cop's fault for "dereliction of duty". If he had done his duty, would Joe have had to confront the burglars?

[Justin86]

[quote name='prose' post='1435348' date='Dec 18 2007, 08:29 AM']Why didn't he just shoot out their kneecaps?[/quote]
If you've been trained in any self-defense course with a gun you know that you NEVER shoot to wound. You shoot to kill.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1435373' date='Dec 17 2007, 07:18 PM']I think that would have made more sense, but there is the issue of being sued. Now that I think is perhaps the most absurd circumstance of all of this. You can actually get sued by someone injured when they are in the process of robbing your house. Some losers have actually successfully sued and won.[/quote]
Reason #5,972 why I despise liberalism.

[Ash Wednesday]

I think the issue with the plainclothed cop is particularly interesting. Yes he was apparently afraid of being shot -- but I'm left to wonder if he saw what actually happened and if so, I would be interested to hear his take on it, because he did not arrest Horn.

They may have actually been on his property, which was one factor. I think they were on his yard. I wonder if they were coming towards him, they crossed paths more or less and the angle he shot them was a delayed reaction. But I'm really curious to know what the cop saw.

In any case, Horn really did not have to go outside with his gun. I certainly don't think I would have, though I certainly understand Horn's anger and I can't say I shed any tears for the burglars. He could have gotten seriously hurt or killed himself. I don't think the dispatch was an officer (as they apparently are sometimes) so I don't know what kind of clout he has as far as authority when he told Horn not to go outside, though.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Ash Wednesday

[Norseman82]

I'm waiting for Aloysius to chime in with Ron Paul's take on this.....

[Winchester]

The officer who witnessed the shootings hasn't claimed he was almost shot. He didn't arrest Mr. Horn.

Why didn't he kneecap them?

You obviously know nothing about shooting a moving target, and perhaps less about shotguns.

How you can come to the conclusion that Mr. Horn is a murderer is beyond me. To think that we must allow two criminals carrying stolen property to leave the scene is insanity. I think of criminals as dangerous. I think about the innocents whom they might harm in their attempts to escape.

Anything over fifty dollars and I would shoot you for taking it from me, perhaps less, depending on how close payday was. If someone were fleeing my house with an unknown quantity of my property, I would shoot them. If the first shot stopped them, I wouldn't continue to fire. I also wouldn't drop my weapon to administer aid, because my concern would be my own life and the lives of people who haven't chosen to steal from me. If someone was leaving my house after having broken in, I would hope they would be stopped. If that meant death for them, then I would hope they went to heaven. The criminals in question had 2k on them plus jewelry. Maybe that's not a lot of money to you, but it would break me.

[rkwright]

I'd like to add some quasi 'legal' advice from a first year law student...

We studied this in my torts class, mostly what type of self-defense can you legally use. The common law rule is you can only use force equal to what is being used (ie only when a person is using or could use deadly force against you could you use deadly force back; this includes shooting, stabbing, even martial arts in some circumstances). This force can only be used for persons, never property (for the same reasons as stated above, property is never worth more than a life). However this is the common law (judge law\bench law) and some states have made laws that allow for the use of force for the protection of property.

This case presents a real challenge even to the law. He wasn't defending HIS property, it was his neighbors! Thats really stretching the law. So now if I see someone weird in my neighbors house I can shoot to kill because they migth be stealing something?

I have a very sad story regarding this issue. In LA either earlier this year or last, a foreign exchange student on the way to a halloween party and went to the wrong house. He knocked on the door and the owner shot through the door and killed him. The home owner was not charged since he thought he was being robbed (small LA town, a foreigner at the door, late at night...)

Edited December 28, 2007 by rkwright

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1438356' date='Dec 25 2007, 12:33 PM']The officer who witnessed the shootings hasn't claimed he was almost shot. He didn't arrest Mr. Horn.

Why didn't he kneecap them?

You obviously know nothing about shooting a moving target, and perhaps less about shotguns.

How you can come to the conclusion that Mr. Horn is a murderer is beyond me. To think that we must allow two criminals carrying stolen property to leave the scene is insanity. I think of criminals as dangerous. I think about the innocents whom they might harm in their attempts to escape.

Anything over fifty dollars and I would shoot you for taking it from me, perhaps less, depending on how close payday was. If someone were fleeing my house with an unknown quantity of my property, I would shoot them. If the first shot stopped them, I wouldn't continue to fire. I also wouldn't drop my weapon to administer aid, because my concern would be my own life and the lives of people who haven't chosen to steal from me. If someone was leaving my house after having broken in, I would hope they would be stopped. If that meant death for them, then I would hope they went to heaven. The criminals in question had 2k on them plus jewelry. Maybe that's not a lot of money to you, but it would break me.[/quote]
Finally some sanity and reason on this board!

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1438986' date='Dec 27 2007, 09:50 PM']This case presents a real challenge even to the law. He wasn't defending HIS property, it was his neighbors! Thats really stretching the law. So now if I see someone weird in my neighbors house I can shoot to kill because they migth be stealing something?[/quote]
Already playing the lawyer in asking idiotic questions not related to the facts.

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1438986' date='Dec 27 2007, 09:50 PM']This force can only be used for persons, never property (for the same reasons as stated above, property is never worth more than a life). However this is the common law (judge law\bench law) and some states have made laws that allow for the use of force for the protection of property.[/quote]So what is your solution if someone is running off with something of yours that is of significant value? Fight them? What if they're larger than you? Or if there is more than one? You don't let people defend their property, and you give criminals license.


Law student, Texas has a law acknowledging the right to protect one's property. Note I use acknowledge, not give. The State (here I mean any government) does not "give" or "allow" the exercise of basic human rights. It acknowledges them. It is my right to protect my property, and it is also my right to not risk harm to myself in doing so. Why should I have to engage a criminal toe to toe? The idea of shooting a man fleeing with my property is to protect my property. If the first shot doesn't kill him, but it stops him, then there's no need to finish him off, and so long as I felt safe, I wouldn't fire more than was necessary to take the fight out of the man.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1440927' date='Jan 1 2008, 10:49 AM']Already playing the lawyer in asking idiotic questions not related to the facts.[/quote]

"Idiotic questions"?? "Not related to the facts"?? What story have you been following?? Go to the first page and re-read the story, because I'm nearly 99% sure you haven't read it closely.

Joe Horn never had anything stolen from him. The criminals had stolen his neighbors property. Go read the story. Get your facts straight before you attempt to belittle someone.


[quote name='Winchester' post='1440931' date='Jan 1 2008, 11:04 AM']So what is your solution if someone is running off with something of yours that is of significant value? Fight them? What if they're larger than you? Or if there is more than one? You don't let people defend their property, and you give criminals license.
Law student, Texas has a law acknowledging the right to protect one's property.[/quote]

"Law student" - what is this supposed to mean? I think I've been around here long enough to be addressed by my name, instead of using some pejorative term.

My solution - Take them to court. Thats what you're supposed to do. If someone has something you think is yours, take them to court to reclaim it; thats what a court system is for. If we went around killing people because they have what is ours we'd be back in the Middle Ages. What if I feel entitled to your TV because of some debt; I guess in your world the person with the biggest gun always wins.

[quote]Note I use acknowledge, not give. The State (here I mean any government) does not "give" or "allow" the exercise of basic human rights. It acknowledges them. It is my right to protect my property, and it is also my right to not risk harm to myself in doing so.[/quote]
umm thanks for the 5th grade government lesson. duh.

[quote]Why should I have to engage a criminal toe to toe? The idea of shooting a man fleeing with my property is to protect my property. If the first shot doesn't kill him, but it stops him, then there's no need to finish him off, and so long as I felt safe, I wouldn't fire more than was necessary to take the fight out of the man.[/quote]
are you aware of a right to life? What in the world of your significant property is more important than someones life?

Don't start to lecture me on rights when you believe your right to property is more important than someones right to life.

More importantly, what in your neighbors property is more important than someones life???

Joe Horn shot that man for trespass. Thats the only thing that happened to Joe Horn.

On a side note, I have never been so insulted on phatmass in my years here. Calling someone an idiot is not what I am expected on here.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1441367' date='Jan 2 2008, 08:32 PM']My solution - Take them to court. Thats what you're supposed to do. If someone has something you think is yours, take them to court to reclaim it; thats what a court system is for.[/quote]

OK, but that is dependent upon identifying and finding them and serving them the papers, etc. If you let them get away how can you do that (unless you were able to identify them right away)?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1441371' date='Jan 2 2008, 08:52 PM']OK, but that is dependent upon identifying and finding them and serving them the papers, etc. If you let them get away how can you do that (unless you were able to identify them right away)?[/quote]

Just because its difficult to find someone, or someone is judgement proof, we have a right to take their life?

You can restrain someone (and be liable for unlawful restraint if it is infact unlawful).

Your points are correct - its probably very frustrating if someone has stolen your stuff. But that never gives you a right to shoot 'em (unless they're threatening you directly).

Look at this way: When they steal your property they have taken your right to property. When you shoot them you have taken their right to life. So we're left with 2 wrongs. Or you could take them to court (or use insurance coverage). 1 wrong, with some frustration, and no ones dead.

Didn't mom always say 2 wrongs don't make a right?

Edited January 3, 2008 by rkwright