Joe Horn cleared of murder.......

Personally I think Joe Horn was itching to kill someone 'legally' and was far from concerned about his neighbors property.

If he was really only concerned about the thieves not getting away he would have shot their legs...its a shotgun...he wouldnt have missed and they would have been debilitated.

Just my $.02

 

I am watching this on the news now...I look at it like this: if those illegal immigrants were where they belonged they would be alive today. If they were at work during the middle of the day instead of burglarizing honest people who were at work then they would still be alive as well. If you choose to be a criminal you sign your own death certificate in cases like this.

 

So, why ignore the operator's advice to stay inside and let police handle it? Sounds like he already saw the men, so his only other motive was to shoot them.

 

I have zero sympathy for the killed. They took an AWESOME risk in their chosen deed. And they lost.

 

+1
Two more down. Unfortunately, many more to go.

 

I dont have any sympathy for them either...seems they were a parasite on society. They were indeed thieves and criminals.

However, Joe Horn is a cold blooded murderer. Is that any better ?

 

I heard two radio reports on this story and with the facts given in those two stories, I agreed with you.

HOWEVER

The above link tells me two things that the radio stories did not:

1) These two were on Horn's property when shot (the radio stories I heard made it sound like he shot them in the neighbor's yard)
2) A detective responding to the 911 call witnessed the entire incident and was involved in the decision not to arrest Horn; The only human still alive being (besides Horn) who witnessed the incident believes Horn acted justifiably, and is qualified to make such a judgement call.

 

+1 - The fu%kers won't do it again, that's for sure...

 

Still seems like the guy had bloodlust when he shot to kill and not disable.

Obviously I wasnt there (and neither was anyone else reading this thread) so maybe he wasnt intentionally trying to kill...maybe he was intending to disable and just happened to kill both...maybe...

Ive used physical force to protect my home from an intruder and I accomplished my mission by disabling them. I COULD have killed him since he was in my home..Im sure I would have got off. But I dont have murder in my heart and unless I was in danger for my life..which I was not...I would choose to disable.

Im not making any excuses for the thieves. They were wastes of space and being dead is probably for the best BUT , IMO thats a different topic from whether Joe Horn was itching to kill someone or not. And I believe he was.

 

Can you imagine if he had "disabled"?

First, Harris county would have $200,000 in unpaid medical expenses.

Second, some dooshbag Houston lawyer would take their case against Horn, which undoubtedly would happen.

Third, they would have had the zenith of social services thrown at their feet, of maybe go to jail ; either way at huge taxpayer expense.

Guy's a HERO.

 

Sadly from a financial perspective you are 100% correct. But from a moral perspective I stand by my belief that Joe Horn is not a hero, but a murderer who was waiting for this opportunity to legally kill someone.

maybe not a popular opinion but thats what I think.

 

Joe deserves a medal for ridding the world of this human debris. I wonder what his legal fees are?

 

http://joehornformyneighbor.com/ Here is a site taking donations to cover his legal expenses....He has already been notified that he is going to be sued by the thieves families.

 

I read he shot them in the back ? Were the burglars armed ?

He executed them. The burglars were burglars not child rapist..

Guy is a nutcase.

 

how exactly do you shoot to disable? I see lots of fatal gunshot wounds. Last one I dealt with was a small caliber handgun wound to the upper left arm. Bullet clipped the brachial artery and the guy bled out before the paramedics arrived on scene. Any wound can be fatal if the bullet is embolized or it hits a main artery. Btw shotgun would have been far worse as it leaves a bigger footprint than a handgun.

 

That's the kind of crap that happens when cops are too busy eating donuts and doing radar on deserted backroads.

Don't really feel sorry for the burglars, but the guy was definitely on a testosterone high. He was out there to make a statement like we like to make on internet.

I would feel safer if he wasn't allowed to carry anymore. Oh wait, I'm in Canada, I'm safe anyways.

 

I don't believe so. If you read the interviews taken on all sides, it isn't about testosterone at all. Adrenaline in the moment of a 'something is happening, what do I do' type of situation is not testosterone.

This is quite an important point that you brought up.

It might be his emotions taking over his common sense, but what happens in reasoning and reasonable actions is the very moment when it happens. You can certainly determine causes and effects in just about any situation including this one. You can even say what you would do. But being in the same frame of mind, in the middle of the day, hearing what he heard, and seeing what he saw, it is difficult to say you would or would not do the same thing. This is the volitional limitation, the act, when in the heat of the moment, you cannot put your finger on an emotion, reason or common manner that would cause a person to choose one action or another. It just happens.

 

Keep grinning, you'll catch-up

...in recent years the gap between in violent crime rates between the United States and Canada has been narrowed. In some cases the US has seen a reduction in the rate of some types of crimes and Canada has not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

 

I was wondering the same. When confronted there's little time for selective targeting.

 

You shoot their legs. Obviously that COULD be a fatal wound but the INTENT is to disable.

If it was a handgun i can see him being afraid of missing and then getting himself killed so he would aim at their torso...but with a shotgun you aim at someones torso and they ...are...dead. And THAT was his intent. To kill.

As for him being filled with adrenaline...yeah thats not an excuse. I dont recall anyone ever getting let off because of that one.

And he wasnt 'confronted'. HE went after THEM. Yes IF surprised you would just shoot at the torso which is the largest target... He wasnt surprised and he knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

This was 100% premeditated. This guy was a pissed off cowboy and he wanted vengance. This wasnt about protecting anything. Guys a murderer.

 

Premeditated is first degree murder. Do you really feel he planned this out? That would mean he was out to shoot anyone at will, or he targeted these two individuals before they entered into his life in any way. If you think he planned this out, he must have been sitting in his front window with a shotgun in one hand and the phone in the other waiting for that magical day. I don't buy that, neither did the jury.

 

I believe he was waiting for the day when this opportunity presented itself. He was pissed off by the crime in his neighborhood and he was going to shoot to kill if he ever had the opportunity.

He knew that the odds of being convicted were slim because the jury would be made up of his peers, i.e., other pissed off middle class citizens that wished THEY had the opportunity to take revenge on the scum that walk the streets.

Juts like many of the posters on this thread...

 

Sounds premeditated to me.