The Joe Horn Poll

Link Here<<<<

What’s your thoughts with only the 911 call and a newspaper article as evidence?

I think it is a good thing Joe Horn lives in Texas, based on the article he would have been on trial in MN for sure. Not saying that I think he should have stood trial but there was not enough info to make me believe he was defending himself or another from imminent death or great bodily harm.

I did not see the 911 call link when I made my first post and after listening to it, my opinion is now solid that what Joe Horn did was illegal.

LEGALLY speaking only, – I am not trying to make this a debate- , but what Joe Horn did with the information I have at hand is legally murder.

Federal, and all state of the states laws only allow the use of deadly force by civilians (like Joe Horn) to “defend themselves or another from eminent death or great bodily harm”. This is not the case with this incident. Joe Horn says “I won’t let them get away with this”, “they just stole something, I’m gonna stop them”, and he shoots at them.
LEGALLY speaking only this is not legal. Lucky for Joe he lives in Texas (not a rip on Texas but it is a far different state than Minnesota).

Saumy, there’s a LLLOOOONG thread at IdoFishing about the TX law that allows one to take the life of another….even if they are stealing a third parties property.

You are correct, in MN Joe would be charged, more than likely convicted just by listening to the tape.

I would have a hard time taking someone’s life over replaceable property…I know there are others that don’t agree.

Quote:

---

LEGALLY speaking only, – I am not trying to make this a debate- , but what Joe Horn did with the information I have at hand is legally murder.

---

Wrong, not that I agree with what Joe did but he broke no laws in Texas and he was cleared in the shootings by a grand jury.

Here is a post by Jon J on http://www.idofishing.com

Quote:

---

Texas Law regarding protecting property and trespassing. Joe Horn was fully in the right. He broke no Texas Law. Don’t like the law, move out of Texas:

Texas Law. See Chapter D

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 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; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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.

§ 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.

---