2 shot by Mr. Horn in Pasadena, TX were here illegally

[Chica Yeyé 41]

So...what do you think? Should Horn get life without parole? Dragged behind a truck down a gravel road for 2 miles by his ankles? Probation? Forfeit his life savings and live under a bridge for the rest of his life? You said he is guilty of something. How does he pay his debt to society if he is guilty of a crime?

Or do you just want to complain about the outcome after the fact and make grand proclamations? Enquiring minds want to know.

I come to VJ to educate and be educated.

He killed 2 people, is he guilty of a crime....let me see. Well my moral compass would indicate yes, killing 2 people should be a crime. I'm not a judge and I don't know what his sentence should be, it should be whatever the people of that State have decided is an appropriate punishment for murder.

So you are saying it is murder? Capital, 1st degree, or 2nd degree murder? How about manslaughter? How about justifiable homicide? How about self defense?

There is a big difference between a killing and a murder. And there are different degrees of murder. Which is it and what is the appropriate punishment?

As for me...I'd give the guy a probated sentence and not a single day in jail. I'd bet there is a 99.9999999999% chance this guy would never commit a future crime or be any threat to society with the limited knowledge I have of the case...IMO. Look at Horn, look at the crooks, and look at the circumstances. Why jail the guy?

Uh-oh.... because he killed 2 people?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The same kind of thing has happened before to people who have killed burglars breaking into their property. The charges (if any) that are filed usually depends on a number of things - not least whether the person felt their life was in direct jeopardy, and also whether the force used fit the circumstances.

The difference here is that Mr Horn wasn't the victim of the crime, but a witness to a burglary at his neighbours house. He chose to take the law into his own hands and put himself in the situation, against the advice of the police. Its also unclear whether or not he was physically threatened in any way by the intruders to justify the shooting.

It seems clear that there is at least some legal ambiguity to this man's actions, though I agree he may probably get off on a suspended sentence - Texas being a "gun happy" state and all.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Number 6

[natty bumppo 297]

The same kind of thing has happened before to people who have killed burglars breaking into their property. The charges (if any) that are filed usually depends on a number of things - not least whether the person felt their life was in direct jeopardy, and also whether the force used fit the circumstances.

The difference here is that Mr Horn wasn't the victim of the crime, but a witness to a burglary at his neighbours house. He chose to take the law into his own hands and put himself in the situation, against the advice of the police. Its also unclear whether or not he was physically threatened in any way by the intruders to justify the shooting.

It seems clear that there is at least some legal ambiguity to this man's actions, though I agree he may probably get off on a suspended sentence - Texas being a "gun happy" state and all.

I think the term is ... Texas is a pro-property rights State and permits people to protect property.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The same kind of thing has happened before to people who have killed burglars breaking into their property. The charges (if any) that are filed usually depends on a number of things - not least whether the person felt their life was in direct jeopardy, and also whether the force used fit the circumstances.

The difference here is that Mr Horn wasn't the victim of the crime, but a witness to a burglary at his neighbours house. He chose to take the law into his own hands and put himself in the situation, against the advice of the police. Its also unclear whether or not he was physically threatened in any way by the intruders to justify the shooting.

It seems clear that there is at least some legal ambiguity to this man's actions, though I agree he may probably get off on a suspended sentence - Texas being a "gun happy" state and all.

I think the term is ... Texas is a pro-property rights State and permits people to protect property.

Sure. Your own property. Hence the ambiguity in this case.

[natty bumppo 297]

The same kind of thing has happened before to people who have killed burglars breaking into their property. The charges (if any) that are filed usually depends on a number of things - not least whether the person felt their life was in direct jeopardy, and also whether the force used fit the circumstances.

The difference here is that Mr Horn wasn't the victim of the crime, but a witness to a burglary at his neighbours house. He chose to take the law into his own hands and put himself in the situation, against the advice of the police. Its also unclear whether or not he was physically threatened in any way by the intruders to justify the shooting.

It seems clear that there is at least some legal ambiguity to this man's actions, though I agree he may probably get off on a suspended sentence - Texas being a "gun happy" state and all.

I think the term is ... Texas is a pro-property rights State and permits people to protect property.

Sure. Your own property. Hence the ambiguity in this case.

Not so sure about that and need to do some research. It may be property in general. Yours ... neighbors ... etc.

[peejay 327]

So...what do you think? Should Horn get life without parole? Dragged behind a truck down a gravel road for 2 miles by his ankles? Probation? Forfeit his life savings and live under a bridge for the rest of his life? You said he is guilty of something. How does he pay his debt to society if he is guilty of a crime?

Or do you just want to complain about the outcome after the fact and make grand proclamations? Enquiring minds want to know.

I come to VJ to educate and be educated.

He killed 2 people, is he guilty of a crime....let me see. Well my moral compass would indicate yes, killing 2 people should be a crime. I'm not a judge and I don't know what his sentence should be, it should be whatever the people of that State have decided is an appropriate punishment for murder.

So you are saying it is murder? Capital, 1st degree, or 2nd degree murder? How about manslaughter? How about justifiable homicide? How about self defense?

There is a big difference between a killing and a murder. And there are different degrees of murder. Which is it and what is the appropriate punishment?

As for me...I'd give the guy a probated sentence and not a single day in jail. I'd bet there is a 99.9999999999% chance this guy would never commit a future crime or be any threat to society with the limited knowledge I have of the case...IMO. Look at Horn, look at the crooks, and look at the circumstances. Why jail the guy?

Uh-oh.... because he killed 2 people?

People kill people all over the USA and don't get prosecuted. Many get probation when they do get prosecuted. As I said...why jail this particular guy?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So...what do you think? Should Horn get life without parole? Dragged behind a truck down a gravel road for 2 miles by his ankles? Probation? Forfeit his life savings and live under a bridge for the rest of his life? You said he is guilty of something. How does he pay his debt to society if he is guilty of a crime?

Or do you just want to complain about the outcome after the fact and make grand proclamations? Enquiring minds want to know.

I come to VJ to educate and be educated.

He killed 2 people, is he guilty of a crime....let me see. Well my moral compass would indicate yes, killing 2 people should be a crime. I'm not a judge and I don't know what his sentence should be, it should be whatever the people of that State have decided is an appropriate punishment for murder.

So you are saying it is murder? Capital, 1st degree, or 2nd degree murder? How about manslaughter? How about justifiable homicide? How about self defense?

There is a big difference between a killing and a murder. And there are different degrees of murder. Which is it and what is the appropriate punishment?

As for me...I'd give the guy a probated sentence and not a single day in jail. I'd bet there is a 99.9999999999% chance this guy would never commit a future crime or be any threat to society with the limited knowledge I have of the case...IMO. Look at Horn, look at the crooks, and look at the circumstances. Why jail the guy?

Uh-oh.... because he killed 2 people?

People kill people all over the USA and don't get prosecuted. Many get probation when they do get prosecuted. As I said...why jail this particular guy?

Because he may have committed a crime that carries a jail sentence?

[trailmix 77]

People kill people all over the USA and don't get prosecuted. Many get probation when they do get prosecuted. As I said...why jail this particular guy?

I guess you are fishing for a particular answer, but I don't think I'm going to give it to you, because I'm not here with a huge bunch of preconceived notions about who has a 'right' to kill another person and who doesn't.

So you are saying it is murder? Capital, 1st degree, or 2nd degree murder? How about manslaughter? How about justifiable homicide? How about self defense?

I think I already stated I'm not a judge (I'm also not a lawyer) don't know the state laws etc etc, I don't think that is my judgment to make.

However, killing a person to protect property is - warped thinking.

[Caladan 19]

We're stuck with those azzholes. The other azzholes are the responsibility of the countries they are citizens of. They have no right or grounds to be here illegally and shouldn't be here to add to the existing crime problem. I don't see the logic of pointing to American criminals. It has nothing to do with these illegal aliens having a right to be here.

I could give a sh*t if they commit crimes in their country. And our politicians could give a sh*t less if these azzholes victimize people in this country. Our politicians and the illegal aliens both need to be gone.

Including Mr. Horn? Or does he get a pass from the jerk list because he shot two Colombian illegal immigrants?

Oh, this guy again? The guy who had the presence of mind and the ability to call 911 and yet decided to chase down the perps with his gun? That's not self-defense; when it's self-defense you don't go call an operator and have the operator have time to tell you not to shoot.

[natty bumppo 297]

People kill people all over the USA and don't get prosecuted. Many get probation when they do get prosecuted. As I said...why jail this particular guy?

I guess you are fishing for a particular answer, but I don't think I'm going to give it to you, because I'm not here with a huge bunch of preconceived notions about who has a 'right' to kill another person and who doesn't.

So you are saying it is murder? Capital, 1st degree, or 2nd degree murder? How about manslaughter? How about justifiable homicide? How about self defense?

I think I already stated I'm not a judge (I'm also not a lawyer) don't know the state laws etc etc, I don't think that is my judgment to make.

However, killing a person to protect property is - warped thinking.

define property ... that's key.

[Cassie 8]

We're stuck with those azzholes. The other azzholes are the responsibility of the countries they are citizens of. They have no right or grounds to be here illegally and shouldn't be here to add to the existing crime problem. I don't see the logic of pointing to American criminals. It has nothing to do with these illegal aliens having a right to be here.

I could give a sh*t if they commit crimes in their country. And our politicians could give a sh*t less if these azzholes victimize people in this country. Our politicians and the illegal aliens both need to be gone.

Including Mr. Horn? Or does he get a pass from the jerk list because he shot two Colombian illegal immigrants?

Oh, this guy again? The guy who had the presence of mind and the ability to call 911 and yet decided to chase down the perps with his gun? That's not self-defense; when it's self-defense you don't go call an operator and have the operator have time to tell you not to shoot.

Amen.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh, this guy again? The guy who had the presence of mind and the ability to call 911 and yet decided to chase down the perps with his gun? That's not self-defense; when it's self-defense you don't go call an operator and have the operator have time to tell you not to shoot.

I agree, self defense is a bit of a stretch here to say the least. Trigger happy is more like it.

[trailmix 77]

However, killing a person to protect property is - warped thinking.

define property ... that's key.

Well I think that's pretty obvious, but, inanimate objects are property.

[Peikko 1,575]

My interest in this case is not to exact any satisfaction from the shooter's eventual fate, but rather the precedent that this case may set.

During the 911 call, we heard the shooter tell the call center that in his opinion he had the right under the new regulations to take the action he took. The call center guy, if I remember correctly said that he did as well, but that he didn't think it was 'worth it'. Clearly, whatever the rights and wrongs of his action, the guy felt that his actions were within the law.

If this case doesn't even get to trial, this intepretation of the new regulations will become a legally accepted interpretation. Should it come to trial, at least there will be some discussion as to whether the intention of the regulations was to allow for this kind of shooting.

My opinion is that his kind of second hand defense of property should not become reasonable defence for shooting people one suspects of committing burglary (one has to remember that the guy did not know his neighbours very well and it is concievable, if not likely, that he could have made a mistake in regards it being a burglary at all).

Again, personally, I find it rather offensive that material goods are considered more important than life, no matter if the life in question is that of a criminal and this type of summary execution of criminals is not something I agree with.

[natty bumppo 297]

However, killing a person to protect property is - warped thinking.

define property ... that's key.

Well I think that's pretty obvious, but, inanimate objects are property.

different culture ... yes ?