agentwhale007 wrote: Linus wrote: Well, that sets up a not-so-good precedent... I tend to agree. I am not quite so comfortable with the idea that in a situation where the burglars are of no harm to you or your property, and someone under the umbrella of law enforcement is telling you not to shoot them, that you can shoot them anyway and not be convicted.

Agreed. Now any person who has a wild hair up their ass can shoot someone and say they were robbing you...

Mack wrote: the prevailing opinion seems to be that the justice system only works when we agree with the decisions that are made.

Hard to argue with that...

On a separate nit-picky note - y'all should realize that there was no trial here.  This was a GRAND JURY that refused to indict.  In other words, the grand jury decided that there was insufficient evidence to even take it to trial.  This is (to me) fairly surprising.  As a general rule, grand jury indictments are not hard to get.  I figure it is possible that the DA threw the match, so to speak, but otherwise this is a pretty powerful statement by the grand jury here.  Based on available information there certainly seems to be enough evidence for a trial here.

On the substance of the matter, it is tricky.  On the one hand, we do want to encourage citizens to help fight crime, and that sometimes means a citizen's arrest.  On the other hand, declaring that you are going to kill somebody (and then doing so) that is currently presenting no threat to you or anybody else does not seem like something we ought to encourage.

As usual, the facts are lacking, but the 911 tape is pretty damning.

Da Hui wrote:   They attempted to confront him ...

They were confronting him with their backs?

All I know is that John Wayne would not approve.  According to my understanding of 19th century Western law (based entirely on Westerns), shootin' somebody in the back was a hangin' offense.  So I guess they would hang this guy twice.

Da Hui wrote: I would assume that any half rational person would turn and run when someone is pointing a gun in their direction.

So his safety was threatened as they were running away?

Facts are tricky things, of course, and we don't have all of them, so I am cautious about jumping to too many conclusions.

That said, it is not the grand jury's job to make narrow legal conclusions, or even to decide whether they think the man is guilty, but simply to determine whether there is enough evidence to even have the discussion.  And based on available facts, it is quite difficult for me to see how this doesn't warrant a trial.

The Texas law is actually not that different from self-defense statutes in other states.  The much-hyped "castle doctrine" is only subections (e) and (f) below.  The rest is fairly normal.

Some parts highlighted:

Pariel wrote:          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 reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. [this is the test.  everything else is basically an example] The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable [that's a presumption, not a conclusion.  presumptions are generally rebuttable] 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 [in this case, it seem there was some provoking going on]     (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, [also a tricky part] 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.  [defense of person section snipped - basically the same]

Also keep in mind that this statute is not the sum of "Texas law".  There have been many years of judgements interpreting this statute, and without researching those cases you cannot reach a firm conclusion about what exactly the statute means.

Pariel wrote: Under Texas law, this man did not commit a crime, so I can't see why he should be indicted for it.

I don't agree with your reading of the statute - but more importantly, I don't believe that the statute/facts make it appear that there was not enough evidence to even go to trial, which is the relevant test.

There certainly appears to be enough evidence of provocation, for instance, given the 911 call.  There also appears to be good evidence that he was not in imminent danger, seeing as how the dead folks were running away at the time.

The Texas statute does not give free license to hunt down burglars.

But, I have neither all the facts nor all the law, so I suspend judgement.

TRAVELER wrote: As for provocation, the only words Mr Horn uttered were "stop, or I'll shoot".

I listened to the 911 tape last night. All I heard before shots were fired was "BOOM! YOUR DEAD!"

That is warning apperntly?

TRAVELER wrote: A plain clothes police officer who arrived on the scene stated that he witnessed the decedents running across Mr Horn's yard in a direction that brought them closer to him. They were ordered by Mr Horn to stop, but they continued running, after which they were shot.

So they were running towards him backwards?

The 911 operator advised Mr Horn to remain in his residence, but 911 operators have neither the right nor the authority to give anything more than "advice".

The important part of the 911 call is the part where Horn declared his intent to go kill the baddies. 

As for provocation, the only words Mr Horn uttered were "stop, or I'll shoot".

According to him, anyway.  Nobody else around to tell.  But words are not really necessary - showing up with a shotgun can be pretty provocative.

The screwy part here is still that the grand jury wouldn't indict.  It is fairly unusual for a grand jury not to return an indictment.  Most cases that don't warrant prosecution never make it that far.  The case has to make it past the police and the DA's office before it even gets to the grand jury, and DAs are generally not in the business of bringing bad cases.

Any time I hear that a grand jury failed to indict, I get a little suspicious. 

TRAVELER wrote:   What goes around comes around, break into the country illegally and steal from hardworking people (once again, in Texas), and something bad is probably going to happen to you. Had this been California, Mr Horn would be in prison, and the illegal alien's families would have ended up with his home and assets, and possibly the assets of the owners of the home that was burglarized.

What's it like to be that patriotic? The real world is vastly different from that rock you live under. As been pointed out, especially by some of the forumers with the best education in law, the two men were not a threat. Also, the grand jury went beyond their means and the scope of their responsibilities. It was out and out murder.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Question: Why can you kill someone running away from robbing you but you can't be executed for robbery? It seems to present the message that the decisions of a pissed off guy looking for revenge are more rational than trial and proper process.

Technically it's burglary. They didn't rob the man and if no one was in the home that was broken into, then it's burglary.

They were shot in the back, they were probably using Horn's yard as a shortcut. It's not about being a "desktop expert." Every time I have spoken to neighbors, in an attempt to interview them to see if they saw anything, my advice is always to call the police. They should not have the right to shoot them in the back as they flee, no matter who's yard they are in.

carl_the_sniper wrote: You know what i meant.

I wasn't actually nit-picking you, it was more in reply to Da Hui.

impulse! wrote: Pariel wrote: I honestly can't believe the idiocy of that comment impulse. Haha. It was murder, and he got away with it. Good for him.

It's always good until it effects you directly right? I wonder if everyone you encountered thought that way would it have changed your life any?

Pariel wrote: impulse! wrote: Pariel wrote: I honestly can't believe the idiocy of that comment impulse. Haha. It was murder, and he got away with it. Good for him. People like you are the ones society really needs to watch out for. Human life is sacred above everything else, and people who think it should be taken as lightly as he did are a menace to society.

and yet people ram planes into buidings full of them...and people got mad at America for thinking the same way you just did