Your victims probably still have a much different opinion.
This occurred to me too.
I think the claims of racism were unfounded as I never got the sense that Horn cared one whit for their race.
That said I have a feeling (no proof) that this would have played out differently if they had been two local white boys.
But as Bricker noted apparently Horn did not break the law as it currently stands and twisting it because the community got in a fuss about it is not right.
The law needs changing is all. One would think such a situation would have occurred to the authors of the law (certainly we have contemplated such hypotheticals around here before) but apparently not.
Really? You think 10 years after the fact some shopkeeper somewhere goes to sleep wishing that he could have blown the head off that 14 year old kid that stole a dirty magazine and some candy bars from his store?
Depends on what petty crimes he committed.
I trespassed on people’s property as a kid. Lit a bag of dog poop on fire in front of someone’s door. Egged a few houses. TPed (toilet papered) some other houses. Had firecracker (and bottlerocket) wars with my friends across numerous yards. Stole a pack of gum from the local convenience store.
I seriously doubt any of those people consider themselves victims 30 years later.
Hope no kids do that in Texas. Some people get furious over things teens think are funny.
Probably depends on whether you were an isolated incident or just one of many doing the same thing, thereby knocking a hole in his anticipated profit month after month. I have a feeling he still has some pretty strong feelings about his shop lifting losses, even if he didn’t know who was responsible.
I think you would be surprised at how many of those poop bag, egg & TP victims would still have some vivid memories of cleaning up the messes you left behind.
No surprises here. I remember when we got our house TPed when I was a kid. They also turned on the sprinklers in the yard causing the toilet paper to semi-glue itself in tiny clumps to the trees, bushes and grass. I got to help clean it up…was a nightmare. But I do not feel a victim today…I see it as funny in retrospect.
I imagine the people I did it to while pissed off would want nothing more than to catch me and turn me over to my parents for a righteous ass kicking. Ironic thing is at that time I think I would have opted to be shot rather than face my pissed off parents. 
Texas Penal Code
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;
§ 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.
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;
PC §9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible
movable property; or (2) the actor reasonably believes that: (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property
Looks legal to me. Oughta be like that everywhere.
Any legal eagles want to tell me if that means you can shoot a kid cutting through your backyard on the way to school?
Sounds crazy sure but reads to me that in that case the kid IS trespassing and to terminate his trespass requires immediate action.
Legal defensive use of force is not an assault-by definition. We’re discussing what “legal” does or should mean.
Again, evidence has shown this to be untrue. States that have enacted liberal concealed carry laws have shown a decrease in crimes against persons. Think it through: You’re a criminal. Are you more likely to rob a person who is armed, or less likely?
Everything can have indirect consequences. Using this logic I could claim that the shopkeeper might go out of business because of loss to theft, despondent, he hangs himself, his son grows up without a father…etc, etc. It’s all worthless speculation.
#1: Fewer criminals overall, because they’ve been killed as they pursue their vocation-right there the crime rate goes down.
#2: Remaining criminals are going to be far less likely to commit the crimes that have a high chance of their being shot at.
Gee, and I was worried that some people might try to blow things out of proportion :rolleyes:
From a societal POV, it’s just a simple cost/benefit analysis, something that is done every day, about everything. Cars cost over 40K people their lives every year, hundreds of thousands more are injured or maimed, often severely, and, to take a page from ITR champion’s books, millions more have their lives irrevocably altered, rarely for the better, due to these deaths and injuries. We would all, undoubtedly, be much safer if we restricted automobiles to vital service (police, fire) and made everyone else walk. We chose not to do that because the benefits of automobiles outweigh these costs.
By the same token, if the law were changed to allow law abiding citizens to shoot criminals who were attacking or robbing them, the crime rate would undoubtedly go down. At the same time, the number of innocent people shot (and killed) would go up, both through accidental shootings and by criminals who up the violence of their attacks in an attempt to preempt an armed response. The ONLY question is where does society want to draw that line? If deaths of innocents go up by 5%, but violent crime drops by 25%, is that a trade off that beneficial to society at large? How about 10% and 50%? 2% and 98%? The only *sociopathic *question here is that of valuing the life of an individual, any individual, regardless of their actions, over what benefits society as a whole. Personally, I do truly value the live of all individuals. It’s the default assumption: Anyone I meet is at least as valuable as I am. However, I don’t think that value is immutable. By their actions an individual can “spend” his or her value until it reached zero. At that point, too bad, so sad, we’re all better off with that person dead, whether executed by the state or killed by Joe Horn in the commission of a felony. You would probably disagree, arguing that every human life has innate value. shrug OK. That’s fair. I’ve thought about it and I don’t agree, but I recognize it as a valid moral opinion.
To drag this whole thing back on topic, I was responding to your statement that it was “obvious” that a world where people defended their lives and property with force(“vigilante capital punishment for burglary is the norm” were your exact words. What a phrase! Inaccurate as all hell and deliberately misleading in an inflammatory manner, of course, but impressive nonetheless) would be a worse place. I merely pointed out that there is nothing obvious about it. Reasonable people may disagree intelligently.
That’s not what I asked.
The same could be said about cutting off the hands of convicted burglars.
It sure works in Saudi Arabia, doesn’t it?
The question about legal or not has been solved. Horn is not being pursued.
Ethical and moral. thats the problem. My or my neighbors stuff is worth a human life. In Texas that is true. It is another lowering of the bar for Texas. They were not escaping. The cops were there. Horn knew nothing about them. He just went hunting.
From what I’ve read, you should give the man a medal. It’s not just the money. That’s one neighbourhood that will see far fewer burglaries for the next few years.
And dismiss the cop for incompetence.
Completely ridiculous. Texas needs some work.
No, because you have to reasonably believe that the only way to stop the trespass is to shoot. A reasonable person looking at that situation would conclude that, “Hey, you kids, get out of my yard!” would work just fine.
Here, in contrast, Horn’s yelling at the men would most likely have caused them to flee, yes. But they would have most likely taken their loot with them, since they were carrying it in a bag. The law permits force “…to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property…”
Eh?
Near as I could tell the police were on scene within 5 minutes.
So, guy calls 911 and explains situation and where it is: 30 seconds
Dispatcher puts call out to police giving relevant info: 30 seconds
Police call back dispatch and figure how to get to crime scene and start moving: 30 seconds
That leaves 3.5 minutes travel time (and I think the above estimates could be conservative) meaning they’d have to have already been within a few miles of the location (say 2-3 miles which seems reasonable). While it would be nice if they teleported to a crime scene 2 seconds after a call I do not think a 5 minute response is incompetent.
Also, from the calls it seems likely the police would have arrived in time to give chase to the burglars.
You forgot the cite (2002 info, mainly).
Bricker: “Hey you kids! Get off my property!”
Kids: “Piss off old man. Whatcha gonna do? Shoot us?”
Bricker: “Now that you mention it…yeah.”
I am just trying to get a sense where the line is drawn in Texas before the police look at the shooter and decide he/she went too far and should be arrested for killing someone. I do not mean to suggest that I would expect people to just start shooting people crossing their property. I fully believe in such a situation the property owner would likely call the police and be done with it. Just curious what they technically could get away with under the current law.