OT: Joe Horn shooting

Page 1 of 5  
There was a thread that degenerated from something else a couple of weeks back that discussed the case of Joe Horn, a Pasadena, Texas man. Last November, Joe shot two men dead who had just burglarized Joe's neighbor's house. In the back. In broad daylight. With a shotgun. After being told by the 911 operator to stay in his house.
Various observations were made on this Joe's action. The opinions regarding Joe's position ranged from out-and-out murder to getting a medal.
Today, Joe was no-billed by the Grand Jury looking into the matter.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/16749087/detail.html?treets=hou&tml=hou_break&ts=T&tmi=hou_break_1_01130206302008
Remember, laws may differ where you live. In Texas, we have the "But yer honor, he smelled funny" defense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Who said; "there is no justice"? I respect him for doing what he said he was going to do, and that was "shoot" them.
I'm glad for Joe Horn!!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By his account, he didn't know the neighbors who's house was being broken into. Good thing these robbers weren't actually the owners who got locked out of the house somehow. I guess he decided that it would be best to shoot them rather than take that chance. Besides they might have gotten away with a couple hundred bucks worth of stuff. Good call Joe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it does send a message - that thieves will be shot.
What I want to know is whether the case can be presented to another grand jury or is the nobill final?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Technically probably, although not likely in real life. It did not get to trial, obviously, so jeopardy did not attach meaning that wouldn't run afoul of the limits about trying someone twice for the same crime. Also, there is (theoretically anyway) other possibilities for criminal proceedings. Maybe discharging a firearm in a residential area. The Feds might have some civil rights violations they could look at (again theoretically).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There has to be new evidence in order for another grand jury to look at it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Technically and politically true (probably the latter being more important), although they could use the same evidence to try and get a different charge.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't think so:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This just goes to a page that says the content I am seeking has been moved.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well heaven forbid that you would click on the link to what you are seeking:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wasn't seeking anything. You were trying to say I was wrong. Still nothing that I see leafing through the parts on the grand jury that says they can't try to get a different charge on same evidence. Ex from personal experience. We were presenting an arson case to a grand jury. We gave testimony as to the cause and origin of fire, etc. Part of that was circumstantial evidence of submitting false information to the insurance company. We did not get that indictment. Same Grand Jury a week later returned indictments of insurance fraud in the fire based on exactly the same evidence, albeit with a different emphasis. We had to show that the fire was intentional set in both cases. The difference was that we weren't able to put the match in the guy's hand to the satisfaction of the jurors, but we were able to put the pen in his hand. Grand juries don't have to make sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Kurt Ullman"
PLONK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That'll fix me. I am hopelessly and terminally devastated. I guess I have no other option but to kill myself. Good by cruel world. Wut a maroon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There are some things that seem to be worth telling the entire usenet group. "Lawn boy engines need oil mixed in the gas" might just help someone out. Something like "Torque the nut, cause the bolt threads might catch on the hole, and screw up the torque."
But, to announce to an entire usenet group. That one poster isn't gona appear on one computer screen, on one desk top, in one house, in one town, in one state, in one nation.
That, much like this post I'm writing, is a waste of band width.
Gee, Kurt, I feel your pain. I been plunked, too. By various people. who were sure to tell me about it.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are, to my mind, fewer things more self-centered and self-agrandizing things than announcing a plonk. My plonks are almost always silent but deadly. Unless, of course, I am absolutely sure it will piss off the plonkee and inspire all sorts of really neat spittle spewing replies (g).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Kurt: u r makin this 2 ez
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

In future, when using the word "bandwidth" or "band width," please abbreviate it as "bndwth" thereby saving precious bndwth.
Thnks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

once, and after spending the day with attorneys trying to choose a jury, we were all dismissed. The case was a lawsuit by a party injured in an auto accident while under the influence....she tried to sue the county engineer re: timing of traffic lights. First question: will you be prejudiced by knowing the plaintiff was under the influence at time of accident. One potential juror had had a brother killed by drunk driver. Another very loquatious potential juror essentially made the case for the plaintiff, yapping on and on about the route he drives every day and how badly the lights are timed. What a riot. The plaintiff nodded off now and then, bearing out the over-use of whatever chemical she used. I don't know if "I don't like your looks" is grounds for a jury vote, but it seems reasonable :o)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A civil rights violation, I think, would still have to pass a grand jury. At least that was the case for my brother in law who was charged first with manslaughter and found not guilty and then the feds tried to charge him with a civil rights violation but the grand jury refused to indict(sp?). In this case, like in in the infamous O.J. case, Mr. Horn has to worry that there might be survivors of the dead burglars who could take him to court in a civil case for damages and relieve him of any assets he may have. Even if they were unsuccessful in court, his lawyer fees would probably result in his bankruptcy.
Tom G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Probably, but most civil rights violations are federal offenses and thus through the fed Grand Jury system.

b-in-law was less guilty than the proverbial ham sandwich (grin).
In

Probably. Although I have always thought that if I had to kill someone, I would immediately sue HIS estate for the pain and suffering having to kill him caused me. Then settle when everyone agreed to mutual not sue agreements. I have also never understood how burglars can sue. There is a rather infamous (to my view) legal standard known as the Fireman's Rule. To greatly simplify, the Fireman can't sue for damages even if they result from negligence. The general outline is that he knew the job was dangerous when he took it and assumed those risks. Apparently burglars don't have the assumption of risk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.