What Are Your Thoughts On The Joe Horn Incident?

[rkwright]

By the way the Texas Statues on this are as follows...

Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated

[b]Current Section§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property[/b]

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

[b]Current Section§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property[/b]

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.

[b]Current Section§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property[/b]

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

© 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.

[Socrates]

I'm in whole-hearted agreement with Winchester here.

People have a right to defend their property when it is clearly being threatened, and this includes using reasonable force. If using a gun is necessarry, so be it. If he happens to die while being stopped, too flippin' bad for him.

Once a person has unlawfully invaded the property of the other with malicious intent, he has willingly stepped over a line and taken a risk. If he's concerned with his right to life, he shouldn't steal. The law should not protect him in his malicious actions.

(I find the Texas law as stated here quite reasonable by the way.)

It's all very nice to sit around and talk about letting the law and courts handle everything. None of the people who stole from me have been caught by the law. And in one case I even knew the identity of the thief (he was visiting with someone at the house I was living at, and it later turned out, while I was away, entered my room and forged a couple of my checks to buy stuff). Of course, he never returned, and the cops would not do anything based on my own testimony. It turned out, he had repeatedly stolen (in some cases large amounts by credit card) from people, inluding a roommate. I'm not sure if he was ever brought to justice, but he's stolen from many people, and created a legal mess for people, and his parents defend him.
And if I ever ran across that punk again, I would mess him up with my bare hands.

As pointed out, criminals, including burglars, can be violent (as that guy who murdered Sean Taylor while burglarizing his home). Does one have to wait for an unlawful intruder to pull a gun on him, before acting (or wait until he assaults or kills a wife, son, or daughter)??

Outlawing reasonable defense basically puts the law in favor of the criminal rather than the victim, and puts law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals until the cops can be contacted (which in many cases is too late).

May God have mercy on lawyers!

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1441406' date='Jan 2 2008, 10:21 PM']As pointed out, criminals, including burglars, can be violent (as that guy who murdered Sean Taylor while burglarizing his home). Does one have to wait for an unlawful intruder to pull a gun on him, before acting (or wait until he assaults or kills a wife, son, or daughter)??

Outlawing reasonable defense basically puts the law in favor of the criminal rather than the victim, and puts law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals until the cops can be contacted (which in many cases is too late).

May God have mercy on lawyers![/quote]

What is with people hating on lawyers??

No state has outlawed reasonable defense, no one in this thread has advocated that. If you reasonably believe you are in danger, you are probably ok using deadly force. You don't have to wait for them to act, if you feel you are reasonably in danger you can act.

When it comes to property is it reasonable to shoot the person carrying the TV in the back?

That TX statute is so broad that any adult male could probably be legally killed on someones property as long as the shooter believes the person might rob him.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1441373' date='Jan 2 2008, 09:04 PM']Just because its difficult to find someone, or someone is judgement proof, we have a right to take their life?[/quote]

Hey, [i]you're[/i] the one who said that taking them to court was the solution.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1441373' date='Jan 2 2008, 09:04 PM']Didn't mom always say 2 wrongs don't make a right?[/quote]

Maybe your mom said that, but I remember my mom (GRHS) having more of a "Good for you - you got what you deserve" type of response if I ever hurt myself doing something stupid or wrong. And I wouldn't be surprised if she were to say that to me if I ever were to go crying to her after being killed after I tried to steal something from someone.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Norseman82

[scardella]

If Joe Horn hadn't been traded, this never would have been.

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1441367' date='Jan 2 2008, 08:32 PM']"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.[/quote]
You didn't give a proper representation of the scenario. It was dishonest rhetoric.

[quote]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]
I didn't say Joe had anything stolen from him.
[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.[/quote]
Is law student a pejorative? I believe you termed yourself a law student.

[quote]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]
Yes, because people don't fence stolen property or spend cash. You expect me to let someone drive off with my vehicle and all that is in it, including, very often, government property? In your world, the criminal always wins because we must rely on the state and bureaucracy to protect our property. I'm certain it would create many jobs for your ilk, but what of those of us who work for a living? You final scenario is nonsensical.

[quote]umm thanks for the 5th grade government lesson. duh.
are you aware of a right to life? What in the world of your significant property is more important than someones life?[/quote]
You mean the ability of someone to simply walk away with it. Explain to me why I should permit someone to take my stuff. Explain to me why I should take the chance of engaging a thief in toe to toe combat. My car, my cash, all that stuff is sort of essential to my life and my work--the support of me and mine. If you choose to take it, then I will stop you. My best and safest option is my firearm.


[quote]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???[/quote]
They are stealing something. This is an act of violence. Why shouldn't they be stopped? Yes, I would feel fine defending my neighbor's property. He's my neighbor and my friend. He's not a criminal. If I walked up and took your car, you wouldn't try to stop me?


[quote]Joe Horn shot that man for trespass. Thats the only thing that happened to Joe Horn.[/quote] I believe if you research, you'll find he shot two men he witnessed burglarizing his neighbor's home. I posit he shot them for theft of his neighbor's property. While you think that theft of, among other things, cash, isn't worth stopping, I live in a world where people have to use cash to support their families. Stealing is a form of violence against the human person.

[quote]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.[/quote]You've been here years and never seen the term "idiotic"? That may play in front of a jury, but come now. I didn't call you an idiot, I said your question was idiotic. I have probably in my life said something idiotic, yet I remain a genuis. You might be a genuis, too, in spite of your insane position in this regard and sad decision to become a lawyer.

[rkwright]

I really don't wish to go further into this; theres really no need to talk with someone who calls my profession a 'sad decesion'.

Regardless of what you want or believe in, the common law, as a general rule:

[quote]The broad rule that an owner may use only such force as is reasonably necessary in defense of his property[FN2] is ordinarily held to govern the question whether civil liability will arise from the use of a firearm in defense of property. Most courts are agreed that a shooting is unreasonable and unjustified and will give rise to civil liability where it is done solely in defense of property and without any threat to the personal safety of the actor or those whom he is entitled to defend.[FN3][/quote]

To be fair there is a minority opposite view.

There are specific cases and states that hold certain ways (typically depending on the facts and value of the property).

This is all taken from the American Law Reports, 100 A.L.R.2d 1021 (Originally published in 1965) (A report that summarizes the law in the US)

Again this can be changed by a statute in the state, like the Texas one I posted above.

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1441809' date='Jan 3 2008, 09:33 PM']I really don't wish to go further into this; theres really no need to talk with someone who calls my profession a 'sad decesion'.[/quote]
Very well, I accept your surrender.

[Adrestia]

rkwright - what about the cases where the local police refuse to investigate a crime? what are a person's chances in court?

[rkwright]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1441820' date='Jan 3 2008, 09:51 PM']rkwright - what about the cases where the local police refuse to investigate a crime? what are a person's chances in court?[/quote]

Decent... most civil cases rarely involve the police. You just need a preponderance of the evidence.

If someone is walking off with your TV you typically can use reasonable force to stop them. In a few states, they have legalized the use of deadly force. What that means is that typically you don't reach for gun first when the person is walking away with your property.

Again that is the general rule, but can be supplemented by a state statute or in certain states (Texas for one) courts have ruled the opposite way. Typically courts look at the circumstances surrounding the case, for example the value of the property, age of the thief, ect. If someone is driving off with your trailer home you might be ok shooting at them. If someone is walking off your land with a TV, I would guess not.

Thats the law pretty plain and simple regardless of what people think they should be able to do.

Edited January 4, 2008 by rkwright

[Winchester]

It wouldn't make sense to shoot someone running off with your TV. The TV would probably break when they fell over.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1441825' date='Jan 3 2008, 09:05 PM']Decent... most civil cases rarely involve the police. You just need a preponderance of the evidence.

If someone is walking off with your TV you typically can use reasonable force to stop them. In a few states, they have legalized the use of deadly force. What that means is that typically you don't reach for gun first when the person is walking away with your property.

Again that is the general rule, but can be supplemented by a state statute or in certain states (Texas for one) courts have ruled the opposite way. Typically courts look at the circumstances surrounding the case, for example the value of the property, age of the thief, ect. If someone is driving off with your trailer home you might be ok shooting at them. If someone is walking off your land with a TV, I would guess not.

Thats the law pretty plain and simple regardless of what people think they should be able to do.[/quote]
so victims that don't have "a preponderance of the evidence" are just out of luck?

[rkwright]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1441836' date='Jan 3 2008, 10:20 PM']so victims that don't have "a preponderance of the evidence" are just out of luck?[/quote]

Well technically, any plaintiff that doesn't have a preponderance of the evidence is out of luck; no matter what the case is about.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1441840' date='Jan 3 2008, 09:25 PM']Well technically, any plaintiff that doesn't have a preponderance of the evidence is out of luck; no matter what the case is about.[/quote]
so if local police refuse to investigate a crime - i.e. refuse to gather evidence or follow leads - is there anything that the victim can do legally to the perpetrator?

[rkwright]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1441845' date='Jan 3 2008, 10:30 PM']so if local police refuse to investigate a crime - i.e. refuse to gather evidence or follow leads - is there anything that the victim can do legally to the perpetrator?[/quote]

Sure, get a private detective. Get the evidence, and take them to court. You don't need a police report to sue someone for the value or your property back. Just say 'hey that was mine, heres my proof, and now he has it, look at this proof' and bam.. you'll get the property or money back.

Can't find the person? Fine, try them in abstentia. Get a judgment against them, and then get the shariff to take their land or anything they own equal to the value of your judgment.

Or file a claim with your insurance company. Let them litigate it; if its of high value they might go after the guy themselves.