Rack the fuck out of Texas.

[Jerkovich]

Shot them in the back, ass, head, balls, dick, shins, or where the fuck ever. WTF cares, as long as he shot their ass dead.

[Mister Bushice]

Your opinion of state of law doesn't count for shit.

And his knowledge of it IS shit.

[BSmack]

It was daylight.

If ever a law needed to be re-written that is it. What the fuck does daylight have to do with any other part of that statute? That "nighttime" clause is the living, breathing definition of arbitrary and capricious. And if the jury deliberately ignored it, then props to them for not putting the law in front of common sense.

He shot them in the back.

You keep harping on how these guys were shot in the back without mentioning that there was eyewitness testimony that the thieves reacted to the order to stop by first running TOWARDS Horn. It was only at the last second that they turned tail. It is not necessarily unreasonable for Horn to anticipate that they might again try to rush towards him in a hostile manner. The thieves had a chance to save their lives and blew it by getting cute. Fuck em.

[poptart]

RACKS all around for rozy.

The jury flat out ignored the rule of law and made a decison based on emotion and what 'feels' right to them.

This is ALL spin by Bushice and mvscal, and mvscal is making a complete 'tard of himself with his take that we're better off with a jury IGNORING THE LAW ... because they want to do what is ... right.

He'd be the first one in here pissing his pants if a jury ignored the rule of law and came down with a 'liberal' ruling that he didn't agree with.

No doubt about that.

Get out of the thread, 'tard, you're a total fraud.

[Mister Bushice]

This is ALL spin by Bushice.

I quoted the DA. I quoted Texas State Law. There's no spin there, just interpretation of the law, and at the end of the day there was enough there for the jury to decide the way they did.

It's so easy to dismiss them as "Idiots", but you weren't there. You're the one making a decision on emotion, not law. You're basing your decision on information you read in a newspaper article!

Juries will ALWAYS be given instructions, and they have to make a decision based on those instructions.

Will opinion play a part in it? As long as humans are jurors it will.

[poptart]

In his 911 call, Horn cited a newly enacted Texas law, the "castle doctrine," which authorizes the use of deadly force during a home invasion. But Sen. Jeff Wentworth, who wrote the law, said it did not apply to Horn's case. "It was not an issue in this case other than him saying incorrectly that he understood it to mean he could protect his neighbor's property," said Wentworth, R-San Antonio. He said the castle doctrine simply didn't apply because, although the burglars were running across Horn's lawn, Horn's home wasn't under siege — his neighbor's home was. "It comes from the saying 'A man's home is his castle,' " Wentworth said. "But this wasn't his castle."


He had ZERO legal authority to use deadly force in protection of property in this case.

If you want to take the spin path that he was was within his right to use deadly force because his person was at risk of serious bodily injury then you better pause and remember (aside from the fact that he was told 14 times not to go outside) that Joe Horn shot not one, but two dudes in the back.

If one of them 'ran at him' ... and that is justification for Horn killing him, then the guy should have taken a bullet in the front ... or at the very least the side.

Once the guy turns and is headed AWAY from you, you can no longer be said to be at serious risk of bodily injury.
This is not a difficult concept.


Shot in the back.

TWO of 'em.



"I'M GONNA GO KILL 'EM!!!!

[poptart]

I don't like to 'side' with shitbags, Buttsy, that's true.

The genesis of their being off'd was their OWN decision to engage in criminal activity.
Believe me, I get that, and I know rozy does too.

However, if you thumb your nose at the rule of law you have nothing.
How do you feel when a jury ignores law and comes back with some kind of wack 'liberal' ruling?
I'm guessing not too good.

Horn had no authority to impose the death penalty on the shitbags.

So fuck him.
He should sit in the can for a while.

[smackaholic]

Another question, pahtah.

Would you have had a problem with this dude if he had went out there, told them to freeze and they complied and went to jail?

Would you send him up the river then?

Prolly not.

Because that is basically what he did. The fatal mistake was made by the shitbags in not complying.

And for rozy or whoever that was that said he should have just winged them, that is utter bullshit. If you are gonna shoot, it's center of mass. Right in the middle of the fukking chest.

Suppose one of those shitstains had a handgun tucked in his belt. Shoot him in the left foot and he is quite likely to pull it out and shoot back

BTW, were either of these fukks armed? Not that it matters, since, you have pretty much got to assume that a burglar will be.

[Mister Bushice]

If you want to take the spin path that he was was within his right to use deadly force because his person was at risk of serious bodily injury then you better pause and remember (aside from the fact that he was told 14 times not to go outside) that Joe Horn shot not one, but two dudes in the back.

If one of them 'ran at him' ... and that is justification for Horn killing him, then the guy should have taken a bullet in the front ... or at the very least the side.

Any you know exactly where they were shot - how?




Wait for it....






Ooh-ooh-ooooh!!

It was from a newspaper article, because you weren't there, nor were you in the courtroom listening to the evidence. ~hayank hayank hayank hayank~

From the coroners office:

autopsy results released by the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office on Tuesday show the two burglars who were fatally shot by Horn outside his Pasadena home were struck in the back, shoulders and arms by buckshot . The results affirm accounts of the shooting earlier disclosed by investigators. The buckshot hit Ortiz in the back of both shoulders and elsewhere on the left side of his back, according to his autopsy. The pellets penetrated his left lung, heart, spleen, aortic root, left jugular vein and other areas, the Medical Examiner's Office reported.

The pellets exited his body in his left upper chest, the left side of his neck and his left shoulder.

Torres had buckshot wounds in the left lateral chest and posterolateral torso, left posterior arm and other areas.

The pellets injured his spleen, transverse colon, left lung, heart and left wrist.

Two things. or five.


Three, sir. <--- MPHG ref. asswipes

1. It's a fucking SHOTGUN. Do you have any idea what the dispersal range of that weapon is?
2. It appears they weren't exactly dead center in the back. So were they turning away, or towards the gun?
5. no. 3. It all happen in a split second, two dirtbags and one scared 61 old man attempting to defend himself from two criminals.

And you expect him to be a marksman that should be able to "Hit them in the leg"? With a shotgun?

Once the guy turns and is headed AWAY from you, you can no longer be said to be at serious risk of bodily injury.
This is not a difficult concept.

Unless in those scant few seconds when the threat was obvious and the decision to shoot was made, the dirtbags turned away when they realized they were not going to get over.

Not that it would have mattered. It wasn't a pistol.

Shot in the back.

And the side.

TWO of 'em.

Against one.

"I'M GONNA GO KILL 'EM!!!!

Lets hope you NEVER Have to make that kind of a decision but if you do, you protect yourself, your house your home and your family AT ALL COSTS.

War the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND USE THEM WHEN NECESSARY.

[rozy]

It was daylight.

If ever a law needed to be re-written that is it. What the fuck does daylight have to do with any other part of that statute? That "nighttime" clause is the living, breathing definition of arbitrary and capricious. And if the jury deliberately ignored it, then props to them for not putting the law in front of common sense.

To defend property? Should burglary be a capital offense? And props to you for seeing exactly what happened here.

I'm not going to defend the purpose of the nighttime clause, though I don't necessarily see it as arbitrary. Either the sun is shining or it isn't. Nothing arbitrary about it. I'm sure the original intent of the law had to do with visibility and the effects of light on visibility thus enabling the victim to have more information handy to make a life or death decision with. Rather Marcus Allenish to be truthful.

I can easily see both sides of this, from a property standpoint. Personally, and that is a key word, I look around and other than my Roy Oswalt rookie card, I really don't see any tangible property of mine, and I am not in poverty, that I would trade someone's life for. But that's just me. I can see the other side as well. Screw the wetback thieves. Got what was coming to them, etc. etc.

Let's call this what it was. Jury wadn't gonna send grandpa ta jail fer wastin a coupla wetback thieves, law be dadgummed.

You keep harping on how these guys were shot in the back without mentioning that there was eyewitness testimony that the thieves reacted to the order to stop by first running TOWARDS Horn. It was only at the last second that they turned tail. It is not necessarily unreasonable for Horn to anticipate that they might again try to rush towards him in a hostile manner. The thieves had a chance to save their lives and blew it by getting cute. Fuck em.

He didn't shoot them when they were running TOWARDS him. Dude was out to the curb. As long as you are going to trot out the common sense card, then let's really go at it. Why did he really shoot them in the back as they were running away? So they wouldn't get away. Period. You know that, I know that, everyone with an IQ above 6.35 knows that. So why the cloaks and daggers? If we as society want to condone instant judge, jury, executioner then write it into law. Again, simple. Until then, the COWARD shot them in the back.

As to the bolded sentence, that is possible, and we don't know the size of his yard. What we do know, without question, is that when he pulled the trigger, they were facing the exact opposite direction from him, so that is a very hard sell to me. It is, however, the only query I've seen raised on this subject that can give me any pause whatsoever in seeing this whole mess the way I do. Ultimately, though, as you so eloquently pointed out, I do keep harping on the fact that they were shot in the back. Because they were. That is not defense of property or person. That is judge, jury, executioner.

The property issue really means nothing to me because there is simply no way to defend his actions based on property in light of Texas law. Period. It boils down to had he shot them in the face you wouldn't hear a peep from me other than props (while still questioning why he would go out the front door in the first place, but that would be a matter of judgment, not law).

As much as I would love to find some way to be on the other side of this, I just simply have a problem sacrificing accuracy and truth.

[rozy]

And for rozy or whoever that was that said he should have just winged them, that is utter bullshit. If you are gonna shoot, it's center of mass. Right in the middle of the fukking chest.

It was Tart. That is what force as opposed to deadly force can mean. You'll never see a cop write anything other than center mass since that is what we are taught from day one. No such thing as winging it. Could you do me a favor though? Could you maybe upsize your definition of center mass and write it again? Unless of course the CHEST has moved to another part of the body.... I always thought the chest was in the front. Silly me, I guess....

[BSmack]

Rozy,

This article sheds a different light on the grand jury's decision. I haven't seen much talk about the 1850's era statute until I read this article. But, on the surface, it seems that you can get to wasting thieves any old time of day and from any angle.

But even if Horn hadn't created a situation where he needed to defend himself, a section of the Penal Code dealing with protection of a neighbor's property basically grants Horn the right to shoot if he thought the bad guys were getting away with it.

Antiquated statute
According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Now, Texas law isn't known for its progressive trend-setting. Ours is the same state that had to be told recently by the nation's highest court that we can't wait until indictment to give poor people attorneys to defend themselves. But this statute appears to be particularly antiquated.

George Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas, located its predecessor in criminal code from the mid-1850s. The statute, very similar to the modern one, was found in the "Chapter of Justifiable Homicide," which also included an article explaining the circumstances under which it's justified to kill a slave.

The statute survived extensive revisions to the Penal Code in the 1970s and won't likely be changed soon. The hands of grand jurors may have been tied. Or they simply may have believed the grandpa when he claimed self-defense in a situation of his own making.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 65045.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mister Bushice]

What we do know, without question, is that when he pulled the trigger, they were facing the exact opposite direction from him, so that is a very hard sell to me.

Jesus. You're not too bright, are you? "without question"? "We ALL know this"? WTF is THAT based on?
Admit it. You're basing this shit you spew on information you got from a NEWS ARTICLE on the INTERNET.

ding! ding! ding! They released the coroners report TODAY. Scroll up a bit. Learn to read, then read to learn.

Now, genius - how does someone facing in the exact opposite direction have gunshot wounds in the side of his neck and on the left lateral side of his chest?

Hmmm?

As the helper that I am, a LATERAL VIEW is also know as a SIDE view.



Gotta love that spelling. :)

As much as I would love to find some way to be on the other side of this, I just simply have a problem sacrificing accuracy and truth.

You base your entire truth on a third person account news article, which you consider to be without question.

and you wonder why you're struggling with accuracy and truth?



Fucking tee-ball dumbshit.

[Dan Vogel]

All life is precious

Tell me, Dan. What exactly is precious about the lives of two career criminals?

Be specific.

You and I don't know much at all about the two people who were shot down. We know that they were illegals and that they had been in crime and that they got shot to death while stealing things from a house. How do you know that their family didn't anguish over the life that they were leading and hoping that one day they would see the light and turn the corner? Maybe a jail sentence would have been the spark to get a message home to them. But they will never have that chance because Joe Horn shot them to death. Judging someone to the ultimate in death is not something to be taken lightly at all.

It seems like you throw hate around on this message board at everyone who doesn't meet your standard. You're not high and mighty and you're not some king. I bet there was a day when you were younger when you weren't on the right path. And be thankful that nobody decided that you needed to be thrown in the trash. The way you post hate in here I think the contents of your brain need to be dumped in the trash so you can get a fresh outlook on life.

[poptart]

Give it up, Bushice.

Horn was questioned on Good Morning America about both dudes being shot in the back and he could not dispute it, although he predictably tried to weasel around it, much as you are doing.
He said that one of them was only 'technically' shot in the back because he was shot 'in the side closest to the back of his body' ... which is called ... the back.

What it is NOT called is the side or front.
It is called ... the back.

Buckshot flew and other body areas took some, but the bottom line REALITY is that Joe Horn capped both fellas in the back.

Hey, if it was just one guy that he had slugged in the back (with some grey area), then maybe you could be able to make a case that would absolve him of guilt.
But he did TWO guys up that way, and no amount of spin will get around the fact that he just plain acted criminally.

[KC Scott]

I've been around guns and gun guys my whole life. Most are guys who just like to hunt, sport shoot or simply collect.

There is a certain small segment though that are on that Dirty Harry lunatic fringe. One of them I knew had a police scanner and used to fantasize about having the chance to play "Make My Day" in his neighborhood. So that's where I'd classify Mr. Horn - an opportunist who finally had the chance to play it out.

So where does that stand in the right and wrong category?

Texas has the highest rate of gun ownership in the country. The "burglars" had to know that it's a risky proposition to go busting in homes were there's that big a contingent of NRA types. And BTW breaking and entering is a crime.

The to consider is holding citizens accountable to the same standards of law enforcement. "Deadly Force" is only acceptable if an office is in eminent danger of harm. Horn obviously wasn't. But he walked anyway.

It does set a precedent that maybe a few will consider before they try breaking into a home.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate note on deadly force. My best friend is a commander on city police near my home. One of his cops had - after a pursuit - gotten a female meth head pulled over. Just as he pulled in behind her she through the car in reverse and slammed into his cruiser. His airbag deployed but he managed to get out of the vehicle. She pulled the car forward. He "thought" she was about to ram him again - he even reported seeing her put the vehicle into reverse (he saw the back-up lights) - and then unloaded 4 rounds out of his Sig through her back window. Part of her head was blown off. Unfortunatley she lived.

As with all shootings he was put under administrative leave pending investigation. He re-told the story as I described it. Again "unfortunatley" there was an on-board camera on his squad car. It verfied all events except she didn't put the car into reverse that second time. He had thought it in the "fog" of the chase and being rammed. Beacuse of this he will be fired, the city is being sued (along with him) and the best case scenario is an out of court settlement for the meth head and her family.

Totally fucked situation.

[Mister Bushice]

Give it up, Bushice.

Horn was questioned on Good Morning America about both dudes being shot in the back and he could not dispute it, although he predictably tried to weasel around it, much as you are doing.
He said that one of them was only 'technically' shot in the back because he was shot 'in the side closest to the back of his body' ... which is called ... the back.

What it is NOT called is the side or front.
It is called ... the back.

Not when they use the word "lateral" it isn't.

Buckshot flew and other body areas took some, but the bottom line REALITY is that Joe Horn capped both fellas in the back.

Hey, if it was just one guy that he had slugged in the back (with some grey area), then maybe you could be able to make a case that would absolve him of guilt.
But he did TWO guys up that way, and no amount of spin will get around the fact that he just plain acted criminally.

And yet a Grand jury, who saw and heard all the evidence and were charged with bringing in a verdict based on that, found otherwise.

Who to believe? hmm

A guy who plays Tee ball and a guy who watches good morning America,

or a grand jury that reviewed and discussed all the evidence for two weeks before making a decision?

That's a tough one.

[Invictus]

let me rape and defile her wrinkly, saggy body.

AWESOME!


I believe that if I catch you raping my mother, then I will have a LEGAL RIGHT to kill you. Which I will be more than happy to oblige.

Actually, if you caught me defiling your mother (Trust me, it wouldn't be the first time either) you would probably turn green with envy and try to catch the sweat flying from my body in your mouth.

[poptart]

Yes Bushice, because we know that the jury always gets it right.

- O.J.



As rozy said previously, it came down to the reality that a Texas jury just wasn't going to fuck a good ol' boy's life up for sending two shitbag illegals to a dirt nap when they were caught red-handed in a criminal act.

The more you try to spin things away from that reality the more disingenous you become.

It is what it is.

[Mister Bushice]

OJ?



Sorry but - there's just no comparison here, not in the type of crime but in the courtroom situation as well.

The OJ trial was a mismanaged media circus from day one, the trial was moved from where the crime occurred to downtown LA BY the prosecution, a major tactical error. It culminated in such stupidity on the prosecutors part that the jury had no choice based on their instructions. The glove did not fit, key witnesses did not testify or fucked up completely, and important evidence was mismanaged and excluded.

Sorry but again, you weren't on that jury either. You're making tremendous assumptions when you were not there to hear all of the evidence.

Was OJ guilty? most certainly in my mind. Did he intend to murder? most certainly in my mind. But I didn't get to make those decisions, or unmake them. I can only agree or disagree.

But that is the judicial system. It is the prosecutors job to convict, the defense lawyers to try and get an acquittal, and you can't arbitrarily say "That decision was wrong" and "that decision was right"

You think this case will turn the legal system upside down? Try letting JQ public overturn decisions he doesn't agree with, see how well things turn out.

Regardless of what you think, you were not there. an Undercover cop witnessed the entire thing, and he's sworn to uphold the law. His testimony was most likely key in this verdict, since he was not only an eyewitness but a sworn peace officer. Between that and the other testimony you know nothing about, the end result is NOT GUILTY. Just like OJs result but comparatively, a much better result, IMO.

Next time, show up early for one of these crime thingys. Then you'll get to go to court and have some influence over the results.

but if you really have ANY questions about this, here's one you haven't asked:

Why didn't the undercover cop sitting there, watching and monitoring the entire event not get out of his car and intervene?

[poptart]

You don't like to hear the O.J. reference and yet here you are repeatedly tossing out bullshit open-ended speculation questions and dream scenarios that have NOTHING to do with the critical facts of the case.

The undercover copper said he had barely arrived at the scene and was assessing the situation.
He saw Horn with the gun and his immediate fear was that he, being plain-clothed, would be mistaken by Horn as a get-away driver.
He said he ducked at one point.

The critical facts of this case all show extreme guilt on the part of Joe Horn and prolly one of the only places in America that he would be found not-gulity of a crime is by an all white *cough* *cough* ... allegedly ... grand jury in Texas.

But see it as you will.

This horse done been beat to death x 1,000,000,000

I am out ...........


Poptart, run @ 9:07 Central Slant Time.

[Mister Bushice]

You don't like to hear the O.J. reference and yet here you are repeatedly tossing out bullshit open-ended speculation questions and dream scenarios that have NOTHING to do with the critical facts of the case.

Which case? What open ended speculation scenarios?

The undercover copper

Was he on the blower? Did he have a chopper? was he afraid to get zotzed? What a mook.

said he had barely arrived at the scene and was assessing the situation.
He saw Horn with the gun and his immediate fear was that he, being plain-clothed, would be mistaken by Horn as a get-away driver.

What happened to "This is the Police put down your weapon"

He said he ducked at one point.

Niiice. I'll bet that helped the situation quite a bit. He still on the force?

Poptart, run @ 9:07 Central Slant Time.

dang.

[smackaholic]

figures, pahtah can even run himself.

pretty sure that's a board first.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

70 year old cripple White woman

hey -- you know what they say!!
don't knock it till you try it!!!
crazy times !!!

[PSUFAN]

where I
come from
we call it
a dumpater!!

FUCK YOU!!!

[Cuda]

Sitting back to watch the bleeding hearts on the board defend Inviticus's right to rape my mother. You are some sad people, you think it's worse for me to say "knigger" than it is for Inviticus to rape a 70 year old cripple White woman.

.

you can't rape the willing, imo

[Mikey]

Sitting back to watch the bleeding hearts on the board defend Inviticus's right to rape my mother. You are some sad people, you think it's worse for me to say "knigger" than it is for Inviticus to rape a 70 year old cripple White woman.

.

you can't rape the willing, imo

Didn't you hear?

In some cases "yes" doesn't really mean "yes".

[trev]

Pickle, your mothers crusted over vag couldn't handle Vic.

[PSUFAN]

heh heh.

[Goober McTuber]

Pickle, your mothers crusted over vag couldn't handle Vic.

And you know this....how?

[.m2]

Pickle, your mothers crusted over vag couldn't handle Vic.

And you know this....how?

[Goober McTuber]

If we want to talk about sphincters, we’ll definitely call our resident RenFairy. You talking about vaginas is like KFC Paul discussing anorexia.

[.m2]

If we want to talk about sphincters, we’ll definitely call our resident RenFairy. You talking about vaginas is like KFC Paul discussing anorexia.

[shrubber] You live in Wisconsin, right ? [/shrubber]





What Goober calls Friday Night ?

[PSUFAN]

Put that cow in your basement, mfool, after you've huffed the ammonia bottle a few times, you'll be knocking a hole in your bedsheet and humping it.

[velocet]

Sitting back to watch the bleeding hearts on the board defend Inviticus's right to rape my mother. You are some sad people, you think it's worse for me to say "knigger" than it is for Inviticus to rape a 70 year old cripple White woman.

You people and your knigger loving ways make me sick to my stomach.

Brutal, Crude and Personal. <------------ what we aim for here. You're lost.

Try this spot. You may find it more to your liking and capacities.




velocet

[Goober McTuber]

If we want to talk about sphincters, we’ll definitely call our resident RenFairy. You talking about vaginas is like KFC Paul discussing anorexia.

[shrubber] You live in Wisconsin, right ? [/shrubber]





What Goober calls Friday Night ?

At least the cow is a FEMALE, you sick fuck.

[.m2]

Put that cow in your basement, mfool

Paradise doesn't have basements....."2.37"








<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zMytAtZaeg&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zMytAtZaeg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[PSUFAN]

No basements? I guess you don't party much these days, eh?

[.m2]

No basements? I guess you don't party much these days, eh?

Everyday is a party in San Francisco.... you silly Viking.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HMLwbtxOdjY&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HMLwbtxOdjY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[PSUFAN]

Do you live in San Francisco, mfool? Y/N