Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Texas man cleared in killing of two burglars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mule View Post
    I have a safe with two separate compartments, two doors with different locks. One side is weapons only, the other is ammo only.

    I only keep three weapons loaded, and they are secured all the time. One is my 590 in the safe, the second is my M&P 15 either in the safe or locked in the truck behind the seat in a discreet bag, and the 3rd is whatever handgun I'm carrying that day, which will either be on my person or at night is in the lockbox on the bed's bookcase, along with a light. The shotgun and rifle I don't keep chamber loaded, they are stored magazine loaded/chamber empty and a round is loaded when needed. My regular carry gun is a 1911 type handgun and is carried loaded (cocked & locked if you know what that means re: 1911's).

    How long does it take for you to unlock the weapons for use in the case of an intruder?
    nothing to see here

    Comment


    • #17
      My bedroom and The Boy's bedroom are both on the 2nd floor of the house. My lockbox for my handgun is a touchpad lock and I can open it in about a second. The safe key for the weapons is kept in that box, so if I need to retrieve the shotgun, add 5-10 seconds for that.

      You have to have your security layered; it should be next to impossible for an intruder to "surprise you in your bedroom" as the argument goes. If you wake up and there's a dirtbag standing over your bed looking down at you and your significant other, you've already lost the gunfight anyway.

      Deterrence and avoidance should be your policy before having to use a weapon to defend your family and yourself.

      The way my home is built, an intruder has to come up a stairway with a corner to reach our bedrooms, so I can secure that point and make sure he can't get "behind me". My personal plan is that if someone is downstairs ransacking the joint, they can go to town all night as long as they don't try to climb those stairs. Anyone who rounds that corner gets a really bright light followed by a load of #1 buckshot right in the face. Property isn't worth it, but my kid's life is.

      Keep a cell phone by your bed. If you have to move inside your home to secure wife & kids, take the phone with you so you can make contact with authorities while having to move. Best case scenario is if you can secure part of the home and keep your whole family in that secured area, hunker down, call 911, and let them take whatever they want as long as you & yours are safe. Do NOT let anyone outflank you and get between yourself and your family, and anyone who attempts to, kill them.

      (edited for grammar)
      I just took a crap and named it muhammed -- METSSC

      The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles. -- Jeff Cooper, the Art of the Rifle

      Comment


      • #18
        YouTube - The complete Joe Horn 9-11 call

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mule View Post
          "Shot in the back" is a powerful phrase that can easily be a very poor description of what actually occurred at a shooting. I am not saying it is an inaccurate description in this case, because I've never seen a good "after action report" on how this particular shooting really went down. However a human being can easily be "shot in the back" while still threatening someone's life.

          From what I have read in multiple places, when Horn came out of his front door, he confronted the two men in close proximity on his property. One was holding a pry bar and the other something else in their hands. At least one evidently approached him and both ignored his command to halt before he fired. On the other hand, reportedly at least one of the men was fleeing away at an angle when shot. Was he fleeing toward a vehicle, or was the street in front of the house empty? (Running toward a vehicle, he could easily have been seen as trying to retrieve a better weapon). Were the men trying to communicate with Horn and/or each other? There's all kinds of unanswered questions here.

          The description given in the news story is pretty poor; when I have time I'm going to see if I can find a more detailed account of how it went.

          This is what's so interesting about the case to me. The grand jury evidently bought his argument that the Texas "castle doctrine" law applied to his neighbor's property as well because his neighbor asked him to keep an eye on his place when he was gone. That's one hell of a precendent. Denny goes on vacation, he asks me to watch his while he's gone, so I can now use deadly force in protection of Denny's property? That's a stretch I didn't think this guy would successfully make, but he did.

          (edited for grammar)
          Or, if there was an 800lbs gorilla in the corner of the room he might say that a Texas grand jury would never "side" with a couple of illegals caught in the act of a crime over "one of their own" who was just using some old-time, frontier justice?

          Isn't it at least as likely that this wasn't about thoughtful deliberation, parsing of this "Castle" law or anything like that, and that is was simply a case of the grand jury "approving" of the punishment these two "had coming" to them?

          And I am not defending them in any way for being here illegally, or for the robberies they had, or where going to commit - but I don't know how they could overlook the fact that this Horn guy was specifically and repeatedly told to stay in his house while the police handled the situation, and that he willfully ignored that order and sought an engagement with these guys.

          Originally posted by Houston Chronicle Article

          The operator repeatedly urged him to stay in his house, but Horn said he did not believe it would be right to let the burglars get away.


          "Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn told the operator. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
          Horn said right there, at the time this was all happening that he did not believe it was "right" to let the burglars get away. If you ask me that, and not the need to protect his own life or property, or that of his neighbor's (even though he may have had the "right") is what motivated him.

          He didn't think it was "right" that they would get away with breaking into his neighbor's house.

          He apparently did not know there was a cop "parked" right outside (and why were they parked and not taking action, BTW?) so if he had gone out there brandishing his gun without using it, or simply fired a warning shot, they very likely could have "gotten away". Since he didn't think that would be "right" - he shot them.

          Originally posted by Houston Chronicle Article
          The operator replied: "Don't go outside."

          Then the tape recorded Horn warning: "Move and you're dead!" Two quick shots can be heard on the tape, followed by a pause and then a third shot.
          What's the deal with the pause and then a 3rd shot? At least one of the first two shots caused a mortal wound to at least one of the burglars. Possibly both were wounded (with one definitely being mortal). Since they were both supposedly shot in the back - or at least did not have wounds that would suggest they were coming directly toward Horn (otherwise they'd have been shot in the chest, right?) that means the third shot was either superfluous, or was aimed at someone who was already wounded (and either on the ground or still attempting to flee - which would mean that this third shot "finished him off"). The other possibility is that the second thief wasn't wounded but having just witnessed his cohort being killed by one or two previous shots was busy getting out of there when he was shot.

          Whatever the case, he didn't "get away" either.

          Sorry, but based on this article it looks like the only one who did was Horn...

          Don't Mess with Texas.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by firststringer View Post

            Don't Mess with Texas.
            That is certainly what I'm taking away from this.
            Originally posted by Luscious Johnny D.
            I'll save you the effort since I know where you're going with this, but I'll make a few observations on your comment that was not thought out too well. (1) It's rather difficult to call the phony king of England the government. (2) I would think someone like you would have no objection to someone trying to undo the over-taxation of the people. (3) In this case, no, I have no problem with them taking from the government since they were not ruling for the people.

            Comment


            • #21
              This is a win for both sides. The prosecutors wanted no part of this and can now say that Grand Jury no billed the damn thing. Technically he is not cleared because the prosecution can bring it back to another Grand Jury but they got what they were hoping for. No way they try to indict him again.

              The standard for indictment is a low standard: probable cause. I would have rather seen him get indicted and see how he faired with a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Now, at least the prosecutors can silence the civil rights folks by saying that they couldn't even meet the probable cause standard so how can they ever meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.


              "Jerry, just remember, itís not a lie if you believe it". George Constanza.

              Comment


              • #22
                If you listen to the 911 call above, this is about a guy who was itching to kill someone. If they were intruders in his home I'd feel differently.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by firststringer View Post
                  And I am not defending them in any way for being here illegally, or for the robberies they had, or where going to commit - but I don't know how they could overlook the fact that this Horn guy was specifically and repeatedly told to stay in his house while the police handled the situation, and that he willfully ignored that order and sought an engagement with these guys.
                  911 operators usually are not sworn law enforcement officers, and do not have the authority to issue "orders" of any kind. While I think it was stupid to leave his home and engage these guys on a personal security level, if they were on his property, clearly according to Texas law he had a legal right to, and the 911 operator telling him to stay inside, while being the best advice, really has no legal standing.

                  Horn said right there, at the time this was all happening that he did not believe it was "right" to let the burglars get away. If you ask me that, and not the need to protect his own life or property, or that of his neighbor's (even though he may have had the "right") is what motivated him.
                  That's a judgement call...and for the record that's part of the 911 convo I have the biggest problem with too. It definitely makes it look like he was "picking a fight" so to speak.

                  He apparently did not know there was a cop "parked" right outside (and why were they parked and not taking action, BTW?)
                  I'm still confused about that. Why was a non-uniformed officer dispatched to the scene and just sitting in his vehicle? Did he just pull up and hadn't gotten a chance to aprise the situation before exiting? Was he trying to observe what was going on? He was probably the closest in the area to respond, I'm sure, but I'm confused by that part of the situation.

                  so if he had gone out there brandishing his gun without using it, or simply fired a warning shot, they very likely could have "gotten away". Since he didn't think that would be "right" - he shot them.
                  Really, you can't say this without having been there and seeing what happened. Did these two dirtbags even know English? Did they know at first that Horn was even armed? Reports were that at least one of the two initially moved toward Horn, who'd observed something in both men's hands. Horn went outside not know how these men were armed (rash at best, stupid in all likelihood, but that's what he did) and in a split second in the dark had to judge whether he'd been threatened with a lethal weapon at close range by someone who wasn't obeying his command to halt.

                  Warning shots get you killed...and sometimes in movies you hear that crap about racking the slide on a pump shotgun will scare people away. You walk into a potential gunfight with an unloaded shotgun and I call you an idiot, or former idiot, depending on the outcome.

                  What's the deal with the pause and then a 3rd shot? At least one of the first two shots caused a mortal wound to at least one of the burglars. Possibly both were wounded (with one definitely being mortal). Since they were both supposedly shot in the back - or at least did not have wounds that would suggest they were coming directly toward Horn (otherwise they'd have been shot in the chest, right?) that means the third shot was either superfluous, or was aimed at someone who was already wounded (and either on the ground or still attempting to flee - which would mean that this third shot "finished him off"). The other possibility is that the second thief wasn't wounded but having just witnessed his cohort being killed by one or two previous shots was busy getting out of there when he was shot.
                  Not trying to crack on you, but that's all guess work. Again, we can't know the circumstances of the shooting without seeing a detailed forensic reconstruction of it. I'm trying to find one but coming up dry.

                  Sorry, but based on this article it looks like the only one who did was Horn...
                  Really, I think it's just a crappy article...there's been very crappy articles written on both sides of this. I'd really like to see something more factual and less agenda driven written on this. It's quite possible this guy got away with a case of vigilante justice, or maybe he really was scared for his life once he stepped out the door. No one beside him will likely ever know for sure.
                  I just took a crap and named it muhammed -- METSSC

                  The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles. -- Jeff Cooper, the Art of the Rifle

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    He wasn't scared for his life, I think he says "I'm not going to let them get away with this" in the 911 call (I only heard it once and am too lazy to listen again).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mule View Post
                      Really, I think it's just a crappy article...there's been very crappy articles written on both sides of this. I'd really like to see something more factual and less agenda driven written on this. It's quite possible this guy got away with a case of vigilante justice, or maybe he really was scared for his life once he stepped out the door. No one beside him will likely ever know for sure.
                      I think I just have a big problem with him stepping out that door. If we can put aside the fact that they were robbers and here illegally (which I think we can, because his argument was he felt he was in danger) the guy went outside his house to confront criminals with a shotgun - he knew what he was getting into and he went looking for a fight.
                      "I am not a Marxist"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Two less illegal scumbags.
                        Your Daily Rayne Summers Moment...
                        http://www.leasticoulddo.com/




                        Mitt Romney SUCKS.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by manatwo View Post
                          I think I just have a big problem with him stepping out that door.
                          I do too...that's a hard hurdle for me to get over. Anyone seriously interested in protecting their life who knew what they were about would be very unlikely to do that. That's a guy looking for a confrontation rather than avoiding it.

                          If we can put aside the fact that they were robbers and here illegally (which I think we can, because his argument was he felt he was in danger) the guy went outside his house to confront criminals with a shotgun - he knew what he was getting into and he went looking for a fight.
                          The problem here is with the "protection of property" part of Texas law, he's evidently legally allowed to do that. No one is disputing that the burglars were on his property when he physically confronted them...it's probably that simple fact that kept him from being indicted.
                          I just took a crap and named it muhammed -- METSSC

                          The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles. -- Jeff Cooper, the Art of the Rifle

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mule View Post
                            The problem here is with the "protection of property" part of Texas law, he's evidently legally allowed to do that. No one is disputing that the burglars were on his property when he physically confronted them...it's probably that simple fact that kept him from being indicted.
                            This makes more sense to me too, which is why I'm surprised that (according to the article at least) he went with the personal danger defense.
                            "I am not a Marxist"

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              As for shotguns, when I lived in Louisiana (a utter hell hole)...I had the following :

                              1. Benelli tactical shotgun..(chambered everything from a 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 magnum). Got that @ a gun show for around $400 and change.

                              2. Remington 870 Pump action. Nice workhorse of a gun

                              3. Highpoint 9mm Handgun and the 9mm carbine

                              4. Heritage Arms single action revolver (.22 lr and 22 magnum cylinders). That was my snake gun. Lot's of rattle snakes and water moccasins on the property when mowing the lawn.

                              Unfortunately, I sold them all before I moved to the people's republic NJ.
                              "I donít have much of an appetite, thank you."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Have one of your kids in that house and see if you want to risk them coming back and potentially killing her. The laws need to be flexible to allow dynamic review of the situation and put emphasis on the well being of the citizen, first.

                                He didn't stalk them and kill their family. You break in, **** you. Die.

                                I live with illegal mexicant's who harass us and I'd gladly blow their guts into the curb if I could. **** 'em. You shouldn't trust any of those anim...I mean awesome people. Sure, I realize it makes sense to assume it's not right to shoot 'em in the back. but what if they returned? Ask Sean Taylor how that worked out for him (Redskins)

                                If I recall correctly, they broke in before. **** 'em. Eat ****, *******s. You deserve to die you illegal ****ing oompla loompa looking pieces of dog ****.
                                Liberals aren't the problem... they are what allow the problem(s) to exist.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X