Landlord Fires Gunshot And Kills Thief Dead

[fred2007]

So how do you kill some one dead I thought if you kill some one, the person would be death anyway

[Heng]

As the landlord apparently own's several properties in the area and property prices are not exactly cheap in Pattaya it would be no suprise to me if it turned out this guy was a serving or former policeman or at least has close connections to the police.

Roy gsd

IMO it's a gross misconception that the well to do often have close connections to the police (yeah, some do, but most don't) and an even more far off assumption that the well to do are often former policemen (even the ones at the top that get most of the tribute spend or lose most of it when their tenure is up). There are plenty of exceptions of course.

[roygsd]

They need to kill more of the thieving scum bags. If more bleeding heart liberals had major items stolen, they may change their minds about thieves being killed.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me weighing in on the unpopular side of this thread.

I've seen a lot of you ogres walking around with a nice looking Thai girlfriend, knowing that without your money she'd think you're nothing, knowing that she actually loves one of these boys, one of her kind, the same age as her. I bet some of you guys would like to see all the 18 year old Thai boys lined up and shot.

It's the only way I can even fathom the fact that most of you think murder is not a disproportionate response to petty theft.

And Gary, I have had a major item stolen. The guy got caught and got what he deserved. Probation for a first time offence and a criminal record. Not the death penalty.

Thats a crap response, makes no sense at all

[MisterFingers]

They need to kill more of the thieving scum bags. If more bleeding heart liberals had major items stolen, they may change their minds about thieves being killed.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me weighing in on the unpopular side of this thread.

I've seen a lot of you ogres walking around with a nice looking Thai girlfriend, knowing that without your money she'd think you're nothing, knowing that she actually loves one of these boys, one of her kind, the same age as her. I bet some of you guys would like to see all the 18 year old Thai boys lined up and shot.

It's the only way I can even fathom the fact that most of you think murder is not a disproportionate response to petty theft.

And Gary, I have had a major item stolen. The guy got caught and got what he deserved. Probation for a first time offence and a criminal record. Not the death penalty.

Thats a crap response, makes no sense at all

I was referring to the hostility that some farang men have toward young Thai men due to the "Robin Hood" antics of some Thai women who get money from farang and give it to their Thai boyfriends, the ones they really love.

If you've read many of the past threads on this forum, people's opinions of certain events are definitely influenced by whether the victims are farang or Thai.

In this case, people are applauding the murder of an 18 year old Thai.

But if the murder victim were a middle aged farang man, the reaction would be, "Hate crime...Heartless Thais killing farang...Killed for such a small offense...Thai rak Thai...conspiracy, wasn't really stealing, was set up...etc"

Edited August 21, 2008 by MisterFingers

[Chang_paarp]

34 posts in this thread and none of the resident pedants have commentedon the quality of the English in the report.

On a quick read of the report as posted you can establish there are at least 4 players in this piece, lanlord, tennant and 2 villans. The gun has its own life and seems to have been discharged 5 times but the cops could only find 3 cases to be taken as evidence. The landlordis also very accurate as the escaping fellow got one in the knee and one in the hand, while the deceased had several in the upper body, and fell down still clutching his wepon, oh and there was the warning shot too. Remember this all happened on private land, so self defence is a legitimate reason to leave bodies.

Where was the tennant in all of this,sitting quietly in his room?

[jeanpierre]

SOURCE: Pattaya Daily News: August 20th 2008

Mr.Sanae, the landlord, immediately, walked from the dark and yelled out. The 2 suspects were alarmed and one of them grabbed a chopping knife and another one grabbed a metal hammer, were coming to attack him. Mr. Sanae had fired a gunshot in the sky (.99 mm.), but it could not stop the thieves from moving towards him.

Bullshit. I'll never believe that two guys (not one, two) continued to advance an attack on a guy with a gun after a warning shot had been fired in the air.

In this life, violence is the worst thing you can do. And murder is the worst kind of violence.

The landlord is a murderer. Anger at intruders and theives is no excuse for murder.

Those of you who think these kids deserved to die and the murderer deserves to get off free, you are warped and twisted.

Murder is worse than theft.

ever heard about drugs and the effects

[JimShortz]

Oh well, two thieves dead... What a loss to society...

[LtCol]

If the Landlord had attended any Security/Police/Military Training , there would have been NO warning shot , just a verbal warning , never bring a knife to a Gunfight

[nudnik]

Bullshit. I'll never believe that two guys (not one, two) continued to advance an attack on a guy with a gun after a warning shot had been fired in the air.

I emptied my revolver on a perp high on PCP who came at me in full uniform with a knife in his hand. This was when I was a rookie cop with little more than 1 year on the job. He didn't stop on the first through fifth shots and was still coming at me on the six and fell dead while I was reloading.

We don't shoot a warning shot in the air, bullet number one was his warning. I placed all 6 shots in the center of mass as we were trained to do back then. If the facts are as the paper reported it I hope the landlord goes home with nothing hanging over his head.

The pitiful police protection here is his only excuse for being outside with a firearm. I don't think he comes to the table with clean hands but they sure were a lot cleaner than the two perps.

[MisterFingers]

Bullshit. I'll never believe that two guys (not one, two) continued to advance an attack on a guy with a gun after a warning shot had been fired in the air.

I emptied my revolver on a perp high on PCP who came at me in full uniform with a knife in his hand. This was when I was a rookie cop with little more than 1 year on the job. He didn't stop on the first through fifth shots and was still coming at me on the six and fell dead while I was reloading.

We don't shoot a warning shot in the air, bullet number one was his warning. I placed all 6 shots in the center of mass as we were trained to do back then. If the facts are as the paper reported it I hope the landlord goes home with nothing hanging over his head.

The pitiful police protection here is his only excuse for being outside with a firearm. I don't think he comes to the table with clean hands but they sure were a lot cleaner than the two perps.

Certainly a memorable experience.

Then tell me if the guy who came at you would have been capable of unscrewing license plates in an elaborate theft attempt.

I've seen a film about a guy getting arrested dusted to the eyeballs on PCP, naked and running around like an animal, not even coherent enough to say his own name.

"In full uniform" means that you were carrying a weapon as a matter of duty.

This landlord was not in full uniform, but carrying a gun with a specific purpose in mind.

And the reason I emphasized "Two, not one, but two guys" is because I know your scenario is possible.

What I mean is, think about how unlikely it is for one guy to come at you while being shot at. Unlikely, but I'll admit it's possible.

Now think about two, both guys being whacked out of kilter enough to come at you while you're shooting.

On a final note, I can't even remember the last time I heard about a PCP arrest in the news anywhere in the world.

[Humphrey Bear]

it is a gross affront to the decency and morality of all law abiding citizens that a few lily livered left wing panty wearing liberals should come on here and berate the victim of a horrendous crime for doing what any decent upstanding firearm owning member of society would do when faced with the same threat , and that is to fire a couple of warning shots into the upper left thoracic region of his attackers.

it is a gross affront to the decency and morality of all law abiding citizens that a few macho posturing tattood knuckle headed no necked rednecks should come on here and suggest that the only course of action to take when confronted with a couple of young kids letting the tyres down on their harleys is to stand there with a bargirl on their arm and a pistol in their hand shoot them point blank in the chest.

Taxexile - you seem to be in two minds about this subject.

Personally, I am of a retributive disposition - but I'm not sure about killing them. I am always willing to 'have-a-go' and have done so on many occasions when defending my property or my person (or other people at times). But if two guys came at me with hammers and cleavers I'm not sure what I would do. If I had a gun on me I think I'd use it, but whether I'd aim at major body-mass or legs I do not know. Without a gun (and being over pensionable age now) I might stand my ground / I might run. I've stood up against cleavers before - but they were hidden until the guys started to use them - nasty surprise!

[nudnik]

Bullshit. I'll never believe that two guys (not one, two) continued to advance an attack on a guy with a gun after a warning shot had been fired in the air.

I emptied my revolver on a perp high on PCP who came at me in full uniform with a knife in his hand. This was when I was a rookie cop with little more than 1 year on the job. He didn't stop on the first through fifth shots and was still coming at me on the six and fell dead while I was reloading.

We don't shoot a warning shot in the air, bullet number one was his warning. I placed all 6 shots in the center of mass as we were trained to do back then. If the facts are as the paper reported it I hope the landlord goes home with nothing hanging over his head.

The pitiful police protection here is his only excuse for being outside with a firearm. I don't think he comes to the table with clean hands but they sure were a lot cleaner than the two perps.

Certainly a memorable experience.

Then tell me if the guy who came at you would have been capable of unscrewing license plates in an elaborate theft attempt.

I've seen a film about a guy getting arrested dusted to the eyeballs on PCP, naked and running around like an animal, not even coherent enough to say his own name.

"In full uniform" means that you were carrying a weapon as a matter of duty.

This landlord was not in full uniform, but carrying a gun with a specific purpose in mind.

And the reason I emphasized "Two, not one, but two guys" is because I know your scenario is possible.

What I mean is, think about how unlikely it is for one guy to come at you while being shot at. Unlikely, but I'll admit it's possible.

Now think about two, both guys being whacked out of kilter enough to come at you while you're shooting.

On a final note, I can't even remember the last time I heard about a PCP arrest in the news anywhere in the world.

That would be right. I'm not a rookie anymore I'm a retired Captain. You also don't see many cops carrying revolvers anymore. Smith & Wesson 40 caliber or 9mm Glocks are the order of the day.

And PCP took a seat to Heroin and crack cocaine. In our training films from 15 years ago they show a man with more than 25 gunshot wounds as this is what it took to make him stop. He was high on drugs and kept coming.

In the line of duty I had 3 justified shoots on duty and 1 off duty. Not all involved drugs.

[Kerryd]

If I had a gun on me I think I'd use it, but whether I'd aim at major body-mass or legs I do not know.

"Professionally" speaking, you always go for the "center of mass". Trying to hit an extremity in a crisis situation is reserved primarily for Hollywood Heroes.

If you have the time (and distance) to make aimed shots at legs/arms, then you also have the time (and distance) to possibly avoid the situation. Personally, I'd fire one in the ground (not the air ! What goes up, must come down !) then take deliberate aim at the center of mass of one of the attackers. Let him know that he's getting the next two rounds if he doesn't stop.

Many factors come into play of course, depending on the situation, skill/composure of the shooter, actions/mental state of the attackers and so on. It is always much easier to decide what should have been done, after the fact, than while in the middle of a potentially lethal encounter.

[pumpuiman]

The landlord had only to quietly sneak away and phone police to avoid this.

Or sit still and shut up.

He'd be screwed in the west.

He had all kinds of avenues of escape...to avoid confrontation....but he chose to go Rambo.

It will be swept under the rug of course....he's got the money to "conclude" the investigation.

[OlRedEyes]

It is always frightening to see so many people make such quick and harsh judgements on very little or no real facts.

The mindless lynch mob is alive and well in the 21st century.

An education in the level of intelligence of the masses.

[LtCol]

None of us can judge the thought process of anyone in that situation because the socio - economic background has a bearing as well as the perception of protection offered by the Local Agencies.

There is a world wide plethora of officer involved shootings where multiple rounds were needed to stop the threat.

Even the advent of the .40cal still hasn't had much effect to the amount of times when multiples are required.

By the way Cap , we still teach 'Centre of Mass' as a primary except for LE Sniper/Observers.

If you choose to reside somewhere (Thailand) then you should be aware of the Law Enforcement standards operating there.

Officer involved shootings are probably the most intense scrutiny an Officer can undergo in his/her career , but I doubt a Landlord has had the benefit of Training in the Legal use of Force & other related requirements of handgun use , but , if he has gone outside the lawful / acceptable parameters in Pattaya he will be bought to book.

Whatever the result we are not Judges , just commenters on a forum & everyone has an opinion.

I am in many countries teaching over the years LE Weapons & Tactics & everywhere is different as to standards that are acceptable , I learnt to go with the flow without compromising the Total standard required in the legal Continuum of Force.

Some Countries have a vastly different 'Legal' standard than others. If you live there you live with their rules.

IACP / IALEFI member

[nudnik]

but I doubt a Landlord has had the benefit of Training in the Legal use of Force & other related requirements of handgun use , but , if he has gone outside the lawful / acceptable parameters in Pattaya he will be bought to book.

Where is Massad Ayoob when you need him most?

[nudnik]

The landlord had only to quietly sneak away and phone police to avoid this.

Or sit still and shut up.

He'd be screwed in the west.

He had all kinds of avenues of escape...to avoid confrontation....but he chose to go Rambo.

It will be swept under the rug of course....he's got the money to "conclude" the investigation.

So many experts so little experience ....

There is a doctrine "in the west' called legal necessity. Look it up.

Phoning police here seems quite useless. I do not consider these people brother officers as they resemble the people we used to regulary lock up rather than those who are peace officers.

My opinion.

[pumpuiman]

The landlord had only to quietly sneak away and phone police to avoid this.

Or sit still and shut up.

He'd be screwed in the west.

He had all kinds of avenues of escape...to avoid confrontation....but he chose to go Rambo.

It will be swept under the rug of course....he's got the money to "conclude" the investigation.

So many experts so little experience ....

There is a doctrine "in the west' called legal necessity. Look it up.

Phoning police here seems quite useless. I do not consider these people brother officers as they resemble the people we used to regulary lock up rather than those who are peace officers.

My opinion.

I looked it up, Einstein.

In criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

It doesn't apply.

The landlord's actions were not "necessary".......he could have done nothing and been safe and sound hiding in the bushes.

[taxexile]

he could have done nothing and been safe and sound hiding in the bushes.

i think 2 fewer toerags on the streets is a better result. they took a gamble and lost.

steal a little bike tonight and get away with it , easy , lets steal a big car tomorrow night , easy , so lets rob a big house with a knife or gun the day after that.

2 shot thieves sends out a message to others.

[nudnik]

I looked it up, Einstein.

In criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

It doesn't apply.

The landlord's actions were not "necessary".......he could have done nothing and been safe and sound hiding in the bushes.

By calling me Einstein did you wish to acknowledge my extraordinary experience on these issues or was this just a silly ad hominem attack?

Tell me, when did you get your degrees in criminology and law and from where? The law is viewed by slices in time. Maybe you should look that up as well.

[CTM]

A motorcycle is not a trivial item to most people in Thailand. It is a major expense and often a source of income or at least a means to get to their source of income (work).

Phone the police? Surely you guys are joking. They would probably not come out ever much less promptly.

In exactly what Western country is it illegal to use deadly force to protect one’s own life? I would like to know so I never go there.

The landlord may have pressed the issue and I doubt he really fired a warning shot or at least shouldn’t have for reasons already mentioned. But the thieves had ample opportunity to avoid what happened to them by not trying to steal someone else’s property and not trying to kill the owner when confronted. Parking a motorcycle in the street in front of one’s house hardly qualifies as entrapment.

[Gary A]

The same people who rant about a couple of scum bags getting caught and shot are the same ones who cry the loudest about being mugged and how Pattaya is being over run with crime. Perhaps a motorbike means little to a farang but I can assure you that that same motorbike is VERY important to a Thai.

[kedawi]

Why are people happy that someone is dead?

[nudnik]

Why are people happy that someone is dead?

I might be qualified to answer this question: The perps were ready to attack the homeowner and likely hurt him badly and or kill him. When they get away with it as many do they get a taste for the power. They want to do it again.

I for one am delighted that they are dead. They won't be killing anyone else. They forfeited they're right to live when they tried to take an innocent life. They were not innocent. If you want to wring your hands and cry for them, then be our guest.

Sit Shiva for them as well if it makes you feel better.

[pumpuiman]

I looked it up, Einstein.

In criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

It doesn't apply.

The landlord's actions were not "necessary".......he could have done nothing and been safe and sound hiding in the bushes.

By calling me Einstein did you wish to acknowledge my extraordinary experience on these issues or was this just a silly ad hominem attack?

Tell me, when did you get your degrees in criminology and law and from where? The law is viewed by slices in time. Maybe you should look that up as well.

I called you "Einstein" in response to what I perceived as veiled insults and holier than thou attitude ("So many experts so little experience ....There is a doctrine "in the west' called legal necessity. Look it up.")

Sorry if I got you riled up.

I don't have a degree in criminology...but I do possess some common sense.

I believe your looking at this from a policeman's perspective. A cop would be justified in this case, it's his duty to prevent crime. He would be obligated to approach the thieves.

I fail to see how you can justify a private citizen acting this way. I'll admit self defense is a valid argument....but in my opinion, in this situation, it would not apply. The Landlord was not obligated in any way to start the altercation. I might be blowing smoke...so please explain your arguments in a little more detail, I'd like to know the facts....and you've got the training...let me in on it please.

Here's something to get your blood boiling....The crooks could theoretically argue self defense, couldn't they?..."A man(who did not identify himself as a police officer) comes jumping out of bushes firing a gun...I was terrified and feared for my life...blah blah blah"

Perhaps I'm wrong.....I would like to hear your arguments. I could not find any info on "slices of time" Could you provide some info or a link?

Thanks Einstein...

[LoveDaBlues]

The landlord had only to quietly sneak away and phone police to avoid this.

Or sit still and shut up.

He'd be screwed in the west.

He had all kinds of avenues of escape...to avoid confrontation....but he chose to go Rambo.

It will be swept under the rug of course....he's got the money to "conclude" the investigation.

Are you sure?

Texas man cleared in fatal shootings of suspected burglars

A grand jury decides not to indict Joe Horn, 62, after he killed two illegal immigrants who were leaving his neighbor's house.

By Miguel Bustillo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 1, 2008

HOUSTON -- A grand jury here Monday cleared a Pasadena, Texas, man in the shooting deaths of two suspected burglars as they left his neighbor's house -- a case that stirred a national debate over whether he was a vigilante or a hero.

Joe Horn, 62, shot the men on Nov. 14 after he called authorities and declared his intention to open fire on the suspects with his 12-gauge shotgun.

The 911 audiotape captured multiple warnings by the dispatcher, asking Horn to stay inside and telling him that "property's not worth killing someone over." However, Horn grew agitated because the men looked to be getting away before police arrived. As the tape rolled, Horn went outside, shouted "Move, you're dead!" and fired his weapon.

The incident in Pasadena, a city of about 140,000 east of downtown Houston, outraged some activists, who staged protests in the neighborhood.

They argued that if Horn -- who was not arrested -- were not white and his victims not dark-skinned, he would have been taken to jail immediately.

The controversy grew when authorities disclosed that the shooting victims, Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, were illegal immigrants from Colombia.

"Joe would be the first to tell you that he wasn't acting as a vigilante," Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said outside the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, where Horn testified before a grand jury for 40 minutes last week. "He wishes these individuals had found a different line of work so that he wouldn't have gotten caught up in this whole fiasco."

Harris County Dist. Atty. Kenneth Magidson said that he understood "the concerns of some of those in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," but added that the grand jury had thoroughly reviewed the evidence and testimony before deciding not to recommend any charges.

Many defense lawyers had predicted that a grand jury indictment would be unlikely in Texas, where many citizens strongly believe in their right to fire weapons in defense of home and property.

"This office will continue to aggressively prosecute anyone who illegally engages in the use of force, deadly or otherwise, against another," Magidson said in a statement. "In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Horn, a computer consultant, reportedly received death threats after the shootings, even as some callers on talk radio were praising him as a courageous role model.

He had expressed remorse about the shootings from the outset, and claimed that he was surprised when he ventured outside and saw how close the men were to him.

Ballistics tests suggested that at least one of the men had been shot in the back, raising questions about Horn's story.

But a plainclothes detective who witnessed some of what took place later told investigators that the men did not stop when a visibly nervous Horn pointed a shotgun in their direction, and that at least one man appeared to be moving toward Horn when Horn fired.

Lambright, a friend of Horn's for four decades, said he found it hard to reconcile the shooter with the man he knew. He defended Horn's right to step out his door and confront the suspects, but added that he hoped other neighbors would never find themselves in Horn's shoes.

"He is absolutely not the person you hear on that 911 tape," Lambright said of Horn. "Joe is quiet, humble."

[LoveDaBlues]

I looked it up, Einstein.

In criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

It doesn't apply.

The landlord's actions were not "necessary".......he could have done nothing and been safe and sound hiding in the bushes.

By calling me Einstein did you wish to acknowledge my extraordinary experience on these issues or was this just a silly ad hominem attack?

Tell me, when did you get your degrees in criminology and law and from where? The law is viewed by slices in time. Maybe you should look that up as well.

I called you "Einstein" in response to what I perceived as veiled insults and holier than thou attitude ("So many experts so little experience ....There is a doctrine "in the west' called legal necessity. Look it up.")

Sorry if I got you riled up.

I don't have a degree in criminology...but I do possess some common sense I believe your looking at this from a policeman's perspective. A cop would be justified in this case, it's his duty to prevent crime. He would be obligated to approach the thieves.

I fail to see how you can justify a private citizen acting this way. I'll admit self defense is a valid argument....but in my opinion, in this situation, it would not apply. The Landlord was not obligated in any way to start the altercation. I might be blowing smoke...so please explain your arguments in a little more detail, I'd like to know the facts....and you've got the training...let me in on it please.

Here's something to get your blood boiling....The crooks could theoretically argue self defense, couldn't they?..."A man(who did not identify himself as a police officer) comes jumping out of bushes firing a gun...I was terrified and feared for my life...blah blah blah"

Perhaps I'm wrong.....I would like to hear your arguments. I could not find any info on "slices of time" Could you provide some info or a link?

Thanks Einstein...

Not wanting to pick on your post......I swear .....but I see too many holes in what you're saying.

The main mistake is in mixing up "common sense" with the "law". The two don't mix well. You can't throw someone in jail because they didn't exercise common sense. For a person to be arrested, charged with a crime, and convicted they must first commit a crime. A lot of people do things we may not like or agree with; however they may be within the scope of the law in what they've done.

[CTM]

The landlord had only to quietly sneak away and phone police to avoid this.

Or sit still and shut up.

He'd be screwed in the west.

He had all kinds of avenues of escape...to avoid confrontation....but he chose to go Rambo.

It will be swept under the rug of course....he's got the money to "conclude" the investigation.

Are you sure?

Texas man cleared in fatal shootings of suspected burglars

A grand jury decides not to indict Joe Horn, 62, after he killed two illegal immigrants who were leaving his neighbor's house.

By Miguel Bustillo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 1, 2008

HOUSTON -- A grand jury here Monday cleared a Pasadena, Texas, man in the shooting deaths of two suspected burglars as they left his neighbor's house -- a case that stirred a national debate over whether he was a vigilante or a hero.

Joe Horn, 62, shot the men on Nov. 14 after he called authorities and declared his intention to open fire on the suspects with his 12-gauge shotgun.

The 911 audiotape captured multiple warnings by the dispatcher, asking Horn to stay inside and telling him that "property's not worth killing someone over." However, Horn grew agitated because the men looked to be getting away before police arrived. As the tape rolled, Horn went outside, shouted "Move, you're dead!" and fired his weapon.

The incident in Pasadena, a city of about 140,000 east of downtown Houston, outraged some activists, who staged protests in the neighborhood.

They argued that if Horn -- who was not arrested -- were not white and his victims not dark-skinned, he would have been taken to jail immediately.

The controversy grew when authorities disclosed that the shooting victims, Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, were illegal immigrants from Colombia.

"Joe would be the first to tell you that he wasn't acting as a vigilante," Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said outside the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, where Horn testified before a grand jury for 40 minutes last week. "He wishes these individuals had found a different line of work so that he wouldn't have gotten caught up in this whole fiasco."

Harris County Dist. Atty. Kenneth Magidson said that he understood "the concerns of some of those in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," but added that the grand jury had thoroughly reviewed the evidence and testimony before deciding not to recommend any charges.

Many defense lawyers had predicted that a grand jury indictment would be unlikely in Texas, where many citizens strongly believe in their right to fire weapons in defense of home and property.

"This office will continue to aggressively prosecute anyone who illegally engages in the use of force, deadly or otherwise, against another," Magidson said in a statement. "In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Horn, a computer consultant, reportedly received death threats after the shootings, even as some callers on talk radio were praising him as a courageous role model.

He had expressed remorse about the shootings from the outset, and claimed that he was surprised when he ventured outside and saw how close the men were to him.

Ballistics tests suggested that at least one of the men had been shot in the back, raising questions about Horn's story.

But a plainclothes detective who witnessed some of what took place later told investigators that the men did not stop when a visibly nervous Horn pointed a shotgun in their direction, and that at least one man appeared to be moving toward Horn when Horn fired.

Lambright, a friend of Horn's for four decades, said he found it hard to reconcile the shooter with the man he knew. He defended Horn's right to step out his door and confront the suspects, but added that he hoped other neighbors would never find themselves in Horn's shoes.

"He is absolutely not the person you hear on that 911 tape," Lambright said of Horn. "Joe is quiet, humble."

Not the best example. I’ve listened to the 911 tape and he basically says he is going to go outside and shoot them. In most places in America, he probably would have been prosecuted. But it is Texas where unlike much of America one can use deadly force to protect property not just in self defense. Plus it is Pasadena in Harris County. Pasadena is a blue collar town full of refineries and ports. Criminals get no sympathy. A black would have got off in the same circumstances. The difference is no one would know because it would not have been a media story.

Some interesting posts on youtube of the demonstrations by the New Black Panthers and Quannel X running his big mouth with racist spin. New Black Panther members openly threatened Joe’s life and yet none got in any trouble. Not a big surprise given PC idiocy in America and how politicians kiss azz for the black vote. If things were reversed, Klan members would have been arrested for some Federal hate crime. A kid in Louisiana or Mississippi got jail time for just hanging a noose off the back of his truck.

The fact the two burglars were illegals was also made into a big deal. Like Joe would have know they were illegals. Watch the raw footage of the demonstrations. It is quite interesting how stories are spun by the supposedly objective media into something barely resembling what actually happened.

[LoveDaBlues]

From the Texas Penal Code concerning the use of deadly force to protect 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.

§ 9.43. 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

Edited August 24, 2008 by LoveDaBlues