Thread Crime victim uses submission hold, alleged burglar dies from injuries

Coqui said:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/20833621/detail.html

/thread

Homeowner Charged After Shooting Intruder
Click to expand...


/THREAD

Joe Horn shot and killed two men burgling his neighbor's home. Shot them in the BACK.




Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy


Also that story of the home owner being shot is f*cking sh*t. Glad I live in Texas. I'd fight that charge any day. If you try to beat down my door you're going to get lit the fuck up.
 
Last edited:
G-Shock said:
/THREAD

Joe Horn shot and killed two men burgling his neighbor's home. Shot them in the BACK.

Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
Click to expand...

That guy should of face prison time. Past examples don't really mean anything as you can find plenty of cases where both sides of the equation are represented. How the law is written is what people should follow.

You should never ever EVER rely on a precedent to justify your actions.
 
Harold of the Rocks said:
That guy should of face prison time. Past examples don't really mean anything as you can find plenty of cases where both sides of the equation are represented. How the law is written is what people should follow.

You should never ever EVER rely on a precedent to justify your actions.
Click to expand...


I agree you should not, but Coqui posted that one story up, so I was just showing it can go both ways.
 
The police are just pissed because by the time they showed up one robber was crippled and the other guy knocked out so they didn't have anyone to taze or curb stomp. No way they were going to try that shit on an amped up mma fighter.
 
Coqui said:
The difference is mine involved chasing the person down a block while yours was at the scene of the crime.
Click to expand...

The one where he shot him? It says he just shot him out the front door irrc.


Anyway I can understand how emotionally someone could feel that Joe Horm should of went to prison, but the Law is what protected him. You can use deadly force to protect your property and your neighbors property in Texas. How you or I feel emotionally does not matter. Only thing you can do is vote I'm the area you live to change it.
 
SemperFly said:
:tard: so if I see someone committing a crime, the thought of me restraining said criminal until the police arrive has no place in today's society?


guess that makes sense coming from a descendant of criminals
Click to expand...

I wouldn't, and I carry a gun everywhere.

Unless someone's life is obviously and dangerously threatened my stance on pretty much any situation is going to be "not my problem".
 
Sarcasmo said:
If it's a violent crime I'd draw on them and make yeehaw cowboy noises and racial slurs.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Yosemite Sam defense.

sam.gif
 
G-Shock said:
The one where he shot him? It says he just shot him out the front door irrc.


Anyway I can understand how emotionally someone could feel that Joe Horm should of went to prison, but the Law is what protected him. You can use deadly force to protect your property and your neighbors property in Texas. How you or I feel emotionally does not matter. Only thing you can do is vote I'm the area you live to change it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The law determines it. Yes we all agree thieves should be castrated and get their asses kicked.....but that's not the law.
 
Well sometimes it IS the law.

FUCK.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
 
G-Shock said:
Well sometimes it IS the law.

FUCK.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Click to expand...

Defending property, particularly someone else's, is idiotic. That old guy that shot the two burgulars, that people on gun forums 'round the country herald as some hero, was stupid.
 
G-Shock said:
Well sometimes it IS the law.

FUCK.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Click to expand...

The part you didn't quote against your own story........Section 9.41 applies to your own property only. Therefore according to the law, the guy in your story, should have gone to jail for murder. (Not manslaughter since it wasn't danger to himself)
 
Coqui said:
The part you didn't quote against your own story........Section 9.41 applies to your own property only. Therefore according to the law, the guy in your story, should have gone to jail for murder. (Not manslaughter since it wasn't danger to himself)
Click to expand...



. Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

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:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [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.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
___________________________________________________________________
See www.rc123.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back