Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

Joe Horn left is house where he was safe so he could take the law into his own hand and kill two burglars. Judge, Jury, Executioner. A grand jury declined to indict.

Trayvon Martin is the wrong case to focus on but perhaps it will start a dialog on these laws.

Joe Horn shooting controversy

The Joe Horn shooting controversy refers to the events of November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burglarizing his neighbor's home. Publicized recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicate that he was asked repeatedly not to interfere with the burglary because the police would soon be on hand. The shootings have resulted in debate regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of deadly force to prevent or stop property crimes. The illegal alien status of the burglars has been highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy. On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings.

 

[crimresearch]

Just about any set of laws can be manipulated by dishonest people.
In just about any case, the jury, the prosecution, the judge, or the defense can screw up royally.

People can get their friends to lie for them, that doesn't mean that we should toss out the alibi defense laws.

Obviously guilty people can game the system, that doesn't mean that we should toss out the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise.

Tossing out laws that people can use to prevail in court because they are imperfectly applied or understood seems most likely to put more people like the WM3 in jail.


In the case of self defense, and especially self defense with guns, the history is clear... the law makers felt that black people and poor shouldn't be allowed to shoot back. Especially angry black people. Especially angry black people in groups... with berets and sunglasses and names like Black Panthers.

Laws like 'may issue' and 'retreat to the wall', and denial of the castle doctrine gave the power elite an extra advantage.
Court rulings like McDonald and Heller cited the 14th amendment to make it clear that if rich white people can have guns, or gun carrying employees, then a black person in his own house should be able to have the same right to defend their own life[/]

Going back to those 'good old days' would greatly please those who would enjoy another Rosewood.


Come up with a way to fix the probelms in the current laws without returning to that status quo... I'm all ears.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, that Horn case was strange. You sure can't say he tried to deceive...

Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, O.K.?

I see the point there, but I just don't like the idea that you have to stand back and let someone steal your property.

 

[RandFan]

Let me add, this is an anecdote and doesn't prove that SYG simply works as a license to kill but it's very troubling.

 

[RandFan]

Well, that Horn case was strange. You sure can't say he tried to deceive...

I see the point there, but I just don't like the idea that you have to stand back and let someone steal your property.

Yeah, it sucks. But I'm not sure he used the gun to get them to flee. And it wasn't his property.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, it sucks. But I'm not sure he used the gun to get them to flee. And it wasn't his property.

Neighbors often look out for each other's property, though.

I live in a small town and it would take a lot of restraint on my part to just sit and watch two crooks rob a neighbor's house while waiting for the police to arrive.

I would probably just wait though if it seems like it's just a property crime. Maybe take their picture if I can. But then they might see me taking their pic and take offense.

At least the Horn case went to a GJ and Horn himself testified.

 

[TsarBomba]

Mr. Horn had every right to go confront the burglars and arrest them.

From the Texas Criminal Code:

Art. 14.01. [212] [259] [247] OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW.
(a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant,
arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence
or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as
an offense against the public peace.

Horn saw two men committing a felony in his presence. Texas law gives him the right to go and make a citizen's arrest--the same right a peace officer might have. So whatever the dispatcher may have said to him was a bunch of bunk as far as the law is concerned--bunkum, hogwash, humbug, etc etc.

Whether he had the right to shoot them is a different story, but it appears that the grand jury found that he was justified in doing so.

 

[RandFan]

Mr. Horn had every right to go confront the burglars and arrest them.

From the Texas Criminal Code:
Horn saw two men committing a felony in his presence. Texas law gives him the right to go and make a citizen's arrest--the same right a peace officer might have. So whatever the dispatcher may have said to him was a bunch of bunk as far as the law is concerned--bunkum, hogwash, humbug, etc etc.

Whether he had the right to shoot them is a different story, but it appears that the grand jury found that he was justified in doing so.

So property is more important than life?

I'm sorry but laws that let people go around killing people is BS.

 

[RandFan]

Whether he had the right to shoot them...

Of course he had the right. The law gives him that right. Move to Texas and all you need is to be lucky enough to come across someone committing a crime and you too can fulfill your death wish fantasies. On the other hand, you only need to be able to plausibly accuse someone of committing a crime.

 

[crimresearch]

Neighbors often look out for each other's property, though.

I live in a small town and it would take a lot of restraint on my part to just sit and watch two crooks rob a neighbor's house while waiting for the police to arrive.

I would probably just wait though if it seems like it's just a property crime. Maybe take their picture if I can. But then they might see me taking their pic and take offense.

At least the Horn case went to a GJ and Horn himself testified.

The Horn case is far too often used to buttress the completely mistaken notion that you can kill people for the fun of it and blithely claim it was in defense of mere property.

The core test for the use of deadly force in self defense remains 'a reasonable belief in a real and imminent threat to yourself or others', as outlined by the Supremes in their 1985 hit single.

If the police can no longer shoot you in the back just for running away with a case of Dr, Pepper, your neighbors shouldn't either.
The denial on this is at birther levels and it really obscures the issue.

And so your point about 'they might... take offense' is exactly right.
Nobody has a crystal ball. Is a person who you've just walked in on after they have broken into your house, going to kill you when they see you reach for the phone, or are they going to see the error of their ways and repent before Jesus? Or something else entirely... Who knows?

So when a person has committed a property crime, like breaking into your house, how long should the law make you wait to prove that they *aren't* a real and imminent threat. Wait until they produce a weapon? Wait until they use it on you? Wait until your back is against the wall? Turn your back and run?

There is no single answer that doesnt have probable negative consequences.

 

[TsarBomba]

So property is more important than life?

Generally not. You seem to be taking the position that property is something that can never be defended with force. Every time you use force, it can result in injury or death. That is why the law generally allows a reasonable amount of force in making an arrest, or defending yourself, or even your property. Sometimes that will amount to deadly force.

 

[RandFan]

You seem to be taking the position that property is something that can never be defended with force.

I won't make a categorical claim. Historically deadly force has been allowed only if a person reasonably believes that his life is in danger. Do you have a precedent or law that states a life can be taken to defend property when there is no reason to fear for loss of life?

In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger. However, self-defense resulting in usage of deadly force by a civilian or civilians against an individual or individuals is often subject to examination by a court if it is unclear whether it was necessary at the point of the offense, and whether any further action on the part of the law needs to be taken.

 

[crimresearch]

I won't make a categorical claim. Historically deadly force has been allowed only if a person reasonably believes that his life is in danger. Do you have a precedent or law that states a life can be taken to defend property when there is no reason to fear for loss of life?

No, historically the use of deadly force over mere property, as in 'Halt, Halt, or I'll shoot!!' was legal clearance to shoot a fleeing thief, or slave, or prisoner in the back.

It was *replaced* by the Supreme Court ruling already referenced, so today, the only cases where property comes into play are in those states with presumptive laws.

But, have it your revisionist way.

 

[theprestige]

On the other hand, you only need to be able to plausibly accuse someone of committing a crime.

Strangely enough, I've managed to live my entire life so far, without ever being even implausibly accused of a crime.

Of course, I've only lived a tiny fraction of that life in Texas... Where I guess my habit of robbing residences and threatening neighbors with deadly force would get me "plausibly" accused of commiting a crime.

What a good thing I live in California, where if anybody shot me during a robbery, I would be the victim!

 

[RandFan]

Strangely enough, I've managed to live my entire life so far, without ever being even implausibly accused of a crime.

"Implausibly accused of a crime"? What?

 

[jakesteele]

So property is more important than life?

I'm sorry but laws that let people go around killing people is BS.

Until it's one of your loved ones or some other innocent person whose life is about to be taken. Where do you draw the line? If a bad guy surrenders and has his hands in the air and the the vigilante kills him in cold blood in front of witness or insurmountable truth, yeah, that's wrong. But we don't always have the luxury of seeing first hand what really happened. I would rather have the law in place the way it is so you can do what you have to do, as ugly as it is.

 

[RandFan]

Until it's one of your loved ones or some other innocent person whose life is about to be taken. Where do you draw the line?

Oh hell that is so damn simple. Okay, here it is. If you are safe in your home with a loaded weapon and burglars are out side and don't appear to want to enter your home, stay in your **** ing house.

Any questions?

 

[Architect]

So property is more important than life?

I'm sorry but laws that let people go around killing people is BS.

Indeed, but I expect us pesky Europeans to get the usual criticism for daring to say so.

 

[RandFan]

Indeed, but I expect us pesky Europeans to get the usual criticism for daring to say so.

Hey, just because your violent crime rate and incarceration rate are much lower doesn't mean that you methods are better. We have the enviable position of knowing that we get to kill people. So there.

 

[LTC8K6]

Oh hell that is so damn simple. Okay, here it is. If you are safe in your home with a loaded weapon and burglars are out side and don't appear to want to enter your home, stay in your **** ing house.

Any questions?

Yes, huddle in fear, trapped in your house...hope the police arrive before the burglars decide to see what valuables you have inside...

Don't even think about defending your property unless the burglars enter your house...

And to hell with the neighbor's property...

Just let the criminals do what they want, and hope they leave you alone this time.