What Are Your Thoughts On The Joe Horn Incident?

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I would never be able appreciate my property again if I knew that I had killed a human being in order to safeguard it.

Shooting somebody in self-defence is one thing, if they are also armed and posing a threat to your own life or the lives of those around you. But killing for the sake of your belongings?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='gamesfanatic04' post='1442637' date='Jan 6 2008, 10:34 AM']The police have no constitutional responsibility to protect you thanks to a case in DC. I'm from Texas, if your in my house un invited and my roomie hasn't killed and eaten you(he's not well) then it's still going to be the last mistake you ever make. That goes double when I have children.[/quote]

Since all you are providing us is "if your in my house un invited", I'm assuming they are not there to rob you or hurt, but are simply there by some mistake (amnesia?), I'm fairly certain you would be arraigned on voluntary manslaughter charges if not murder charges for killing said person.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1441471' date='Jan 3 2008, 12:35 AM']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.[/quote]
The problem is who decides what is and isn't "reasonable defense"? What determines "reasonable belief" that one is in danger?
This can all become very subjective and hard to determine.

The idea shouldn't be to make a "fair contest" between unlawful intruder and victim, but should give the victim, rather than the criminal, the benefit of the doubt.

I can tell you for a fact that in neighborhoods where almost everybody is known to have a firearm, and not be afraid to use it, burglaries and other such crimes are extremely rare.
If one doesn't want to get shot, he shouldn't commit crimes.

[gamesfanatic04]

Actually since I live in Florida if I feel threatened I am legally allowed to murder you. And while I thought UN invited was pretty clear I'll change it to threatening my family and friends.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1442810' date='Jan 6 2008, 08:49 PM']The problem is who decides what is and isn't "reasonable defense"? What determines "reasonable belief" that one is in danger?
This can all become very subjective and hard to determine.[/quote]

Yea... welcome to life in the legal world...

Most of the time the statute defines what those are, I think if you read the TX one I posted it includes definations of those (though I could be wrong, I'm posting this 'blind' without looking over it). Typically reasonable defense is force equal to what you think the other party could inflict on you. For a person holding a gun, it would be reasonable to shoot them. For a person standing there, you could probably only punch them; that is if they punched you first (or took a swing).

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='gamesfanatic04' post='1442828' date='Jan 7 2008, 01:39 AM']Actually since I live in Florida if I feel threatened I am legally allowed to murder you. And while I thought UN invited was pretty clear I'll change it to threatening my family and friends.[/quote]

It's really not clear though. People end up in the wrong places all the time for different reasons. One phatmasser has their home broken into by a girl who lived next door in Steubenville who was stoned out of her mind and fell asleep in their furniture. I'm fairly sure that doesn't call for murder.

When I had a Toyota I parked it in Walmart and when I went to leave there was another Toyota - same make, model, even the same color next to mine. I was in hurry so I actually got in the wrong car, put my things down, seatbelt on, when the owner came up to me asking what I was doing. It took me a second to realize that it wasn't my car. I'm glad he didn't pull out a handgun and shoot me down because he felt entitled to.

In moral theology it does not help to be ambiguous.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1442885' date='Jan 7 2008, 01:12 AM']Yea... welcome to life in the legal world...

Most of the time the statute defines what those are, I think if you read the TX one I posted it includes definations of those (though I could be wrong, I'm posting this 'blind' without looking over it). Typically reasonable defense is force equal to what you think the other party could inflict on you. For a person holding a gun, it would be reasonable to shoot them. For a person standing there, you could probably only punch them; that is if they punched you first (or took a swing).[/quote]
Earlier you said lethal force could be used based on whether the victim "reasonably believes" he is in danger.
But this is not so clear-cut.
It may not always be clear to the victim whether or not the intruder is armed, or whether his intentions are violent. (And in my opinion, the very act of burglary, or even forcibly breaking and entering, constitutes a certain act of violence against the victim).
By the time the intruder pulls a gun on someone, it may already be too late. (Look at what happened to Sean Taylor.)
And saying you may only punch (or otherwise physically attack) an intruder [i]after[/i] he has begun to physically assault you borders on the farcical.
And does this imply that if one catches a burglar in the act, who has not actually physically threatened one bodily, one must stand by and allow the burglar to commit his crime unimpeded?

And while refusing to shoot an unarmed attacker may be fine if you're a martial arts expert, what if you are a 70-year-old grandma being robbed by a couple of burly 25-year-old guys? What if one has children or a wife which could be in potential danger?
Sometimes using a firearm is the only reasonable means of defense. Saying firearms may not be used unless it is clear the attacker is carrying a gun is likewise unreasonable and unduly burdensome on the victim. It simply gives physically strong criminals a license to prey upon the physically weak, such as the elderly and women.

Laws such as you seem to advocate put too much burden on the victim, and give too much of an advantage to the criminal.
Someone whose home is broken into should not have to wait for the intruder to "make the first move" to decide what defense is reasonable. It should not be the job of the law to determine whether there was a "fair contest" between attacker and victim.
It should be understood that the unlawful intruder, by his act of criminal aggresion, willingly puts himself at risk. If he winds up injured or dead while committing his crime, too flippin' bad for him!

Edited January 8, 2008 by Socrates

[rkwright]

Socrates: As a general response: I don't know what to tell you other than sorry... thats how it goes... I'm not advocating anything different than what the law actually is.

Now I'll get to some of the points because most of your post is based on misunderstandings.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1443174' date='Jan 7 2008, 10:50 PM']Earlier you said lethal force could be used based on whether the victim "reasonably believes" he is in danger.
But this is not so clear-cut.
It may not always be clear to the victim whether or not the intruder is armed, or whether his intentions are violent. (And in my opinion, the very act of burglary, or even forcibly breaking and entering, constitutes a certain act of violence against the victim).[/quote]
This is all right and true. Look at Bro Adam's example, hes got it. If someone breaks into your house, it might be reasonable to assume the worst. But like I've said earlier, if they're walking off with your stuff, you're not really in a reasonable danger to use deadly force.

Seriously look at Bro Adam's posts 53-54. Those are 100% in line with what I'm saying and the law.


[quote]By the time the intruder pulls a gun on someone, it may already be too late. (Look at what happened to Sean Taylor.)
And saying you may only punch (or otherwise physically attack) an intruder [i]after[/i] he has begun to physically assault you borders on the farcical.[/quote]
Again, if you 'reasonably believe' that they are going to use deadly force on you, you can use deadly force. You don't have to wait for them to shoot first. Think about what cops do; they don't shoot the first time they see the guy. Its the same idea. The law isn't dumb, it doesn't place victims in a better place; but it doesn't give license to kill because you're scared.

Note this is all regarding someone threatening a person; most of the stuff I have written about regards the use of deadly force in defense of property.

[quote]And does this imply that if one catches a burglar in the act, who has not actually physically threatened one bodily, one must stand by and allow the burglar to commit his crime unimpeded?[/quote] I never said you have to 'wait' or can't stop the act. By all means! Look at the 'rule' I posted in #37:
[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]
I think its very clear.

[quote]And while refusing to shoot an unarmed attacker may be fine if you're a martial arts expert, what if you are a 70-year-old grandma being robbed by a couple of burly 25-year-old guys? What if one has children or a wife which could be in potential danger?[/quote]
Again, now your dwelling in the realm of personal defense. So you can use force based on the danger the victim believes hes in. So for a 70 yr old woman, a blow from a 25 yr old might very well be considered deadly force. If someone is attacking a 5 yr old, it might be reasonable to use deadly force (since the blows to a 5 yr old could be deadly also; this would be defense of another person, not self defense, but the same ideas apply).
The courts are willing to stretch self defense of persons in favor of the victim. Thats human life v. human life.

[quote]Sometimes using a firearm is the only reasonable means of defense. Saying firearms may not be used unless it is clear the attacker is carrying a gun is likewise unreasonable and unduly burdensome on the victim. It simply gives physically strong criminals a license to prey upon the physically weak, such as the elderly and women.[/quote]
I agree with you here. Martial arts experts have been considered 'deadly force' and would typically allow for the use of a firearm. If a 25 yr old was threatening another 25 yr old, maybe even running towards him, without a weapon, there is no reason why the one should shoot first and ask questions later. Run away, push the other away, ect. But as soon as you feel your life is in danger, you can preserve your life, even with deadly force.

[quote]Laws such as you seem to advocate put too much burden on the victim, and give too much of an advantage to the criminal.
Someone whose home is broken into should not have to wait for the intruder to "make the first move" to decide what defense is reasonable. It should not be the job of the law to determine whether there was a "fair contest" between attacker and victim.
It should be understood that the unlawful intruder, by his act of criminal aggresion, willingly puts himself at risk. If he winds up injured or dead while committing his crime, too flippin' bad for him![/quote]
The law is pretty much what your common sense is telling you. Laws are applied common sense!

Joe Horn was not acting in self defense; he was not threatened personally, though he felt his property was. He shoot those men in defense of his property, not his own life. The TX statute allows for this; however the common law does not.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1443211' date='Jan 8 2008, 12:27 AM']Laws are applied common sense![/quote]
lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1443211' date='Jan 8 2008, 01:27 AM']Socrates: As a general response: I don't know what to tell you other than sorry... thats how it goes... I'm not advocating anything different than what the law actually is.[/quote]
Well, you seemed to object to how the Texas Law actually is . . .

[quote]Now I'll get to some of the points because most of your post is based on misunderstandings.
This is all right and true. Look at Bro Adam's example, hes got it. If someone breaks into your house, it might be reasonable to assume the worst. But like I've said earlier, if they're walking off with your stuff, you're not really in a reasonable danger to use deadly force.

Seriously look at Bro Adam's posts 53-54. Those are 100% in line with what I'm saying and the law.
Again, if you 'reasonably believe' that they are going to use deadly force on you, you can use deadly force. You don't have to wait for them to shoot first. Think about what cops do; they don't shoot the first time they see the guy. Its the same idea. The law isn't dumb, it doesn't place victims in a better place; but it doesn't give license to kill because you're scared.

Note this is all regarding someone threatening a person; most of the stuff I have written about regards the use of deadly force in defense of property.

I never said you have to 'wait' or can't stop the act. By all means! Look at the 'rule' I posted in #37:

I think its very clear.
Again, now your dwelling in the realm of personal defense. So you can use force based on the danger the victim believes hes in. So for a 70 yr old woman, a blow from a 25 yr old might very well be considered deadly force. If someone is attacking a 5 yr old, it might be reasonable to use deadly force (since the blows to a 5 yr old could be deadly also; this would be defense of another person, not self defense, but the same ideas apply).
The courts are willing to stretch self defense of persons in favor of the victim. Thats human life v. human life.
I agree with you here. Martial arts experts have been considered 'deadly force' and would typically allow for the use of a firearm. If a 25 yr old was threatening another 25 yr old, maybe even running towards him, without a weapon, there is no reason why the one should shoot first and ask questions later. Run away, push the other away, ect. But as soon as you feel your life is in danger, you can preserve your life, even with deadly force.
The law is pretty much what your common sense is telling you. Laws are applied common sense!

Joe Horn was not acting in self defense; he was not threatened personally, though he felt his property was. He shoot those men in defense of his property, not his own life. The TX statute allows for this; however the common law does not.[/quote]
I'm personally not in favor of having an excessively itchy trigger finger myself.
However, once someone breaks and enters, or begins an act of theft, he as already commited an act of aggression or violence against someone, and the victim should be allowed to use defense as he or she sees fit.
It shouldn't be up to lawyers to determine whether an intruder or burglar could have or would have used deadly force, or whether the victim was properly "matched up" in strength, ability, etc. with the criminal to warrant using a firearm in defense. (As if they were refereeing a fight).
I believe a victim should be able to defend himself, his family, and his property by whatever means he can if they are being threatened. Sometimes in stopping a criminal act, death of the criminal may be the unintended effect (per the principle of double effect).
True, this can bring up some moral grey area, but let's give the victim the benefit of the doubt. If a criminal values his life so much, he shouldn't commit crime.

Property is a fundamental human right, and one should have the right to defend it. Burglary is a forcible act of violation which harms the victim in a way going beyond mere physical loss (which the victim may or may not be able to recover). It may be hard to understand if you have not been a victim of burglary, arson, etc., yourself. But I see it as comparible to rape, though admittedly to not to the same degree.
If some fool is trying to rape a woman, I believe she is perfectly within her rights to pull a gun and blow his head off to defend herself (even if the rapist made clear he had no intention of killing or otherwise harming her, only sex). I wouldn't have much use for pious arguments about the value of human life vs. one's sexual integrity. It's an imperfect analogy, but maybe it'll help give an idea of where I'm coming from.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1443848' date='Jan 9 2008, 10:13 PM']Well, you seemed to object to how the Texas Law actually is . . .[/quote]
The TX law is opposite of what the common law is; thats why the TX law exists because the citizens did not like the way the common law, or judge law, was going.

Regardless of how I feel about the TX law, I am in TX, and will have to uphold it... I think, I haven't quiet figured out how I'm going to handle things like this yet...

[quote]I'm personally not in favor of having an excessively itchy trigger finger myself.
However, once someone breaks and enters, or begins an act of theft, he as already commited an act of aggression or violence against someone, and the victim should be allowed to use defense as he or she sees fit.
It shouldn't be up to lawyers to determine whether an intruder or burglar could have or would have used deadly force, or whether the victim was properly "matched up" in strength, ability, etc. with the criminal to warrant using a firearm in defense. (As if they were refereeing a fight).[/quote]
Agreed. In a court room the Judge would instruct the jury on what the law is; and then its up to them to determine if the person acted reasonably. The lawyers and citizens help to form the law though... But with terms like 'reasonable danger' gives a lot of room for the jury to act.


[quote]Property is a fundamental human right, and one should have the right to defend it. Burglary is a forcible act of violation which harms the victim in a way going beyond mere physical loss (which the victim may or may not be able to recover). It may be hard to understand if you have not been a victim of burglary, arson, etc., yourself. But I see it as comparible to rape, though admittedly to not to the same degree.
If some fool is trying to rape a woman, I believe she is perfectly within her rights to pull a gun and blow his head off to defend herself (even if the rapist made clear he had no intention of killing or otherwise harming her, only sex). I wouldn't have much use for pious arguments about the value of human life vs. one's sexual integrity. It's an imperfect analogy, but maybe it'll help give an idea of where I'm coming from.[/quote]

Well I'm not really going to argue with you on this one; I think you might get enough flack from other people on this one. BTW One can always (I'm almost 100% on this...) defend themselves from Rape with deadly force. I think there might be many here that believe burglary is not on par with rape; we don't send robbers to the needle...