Grand Jury clears Texan in the killing of 2 burglars

[Bud Struggle]

Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars

HOUSTON — A grand jury on Monday refused to indict a 62-year-old man who fatally shot two burglars last November as they fled his neighbor’s house..

“I’m not going to let them get away with it,” he told the emergency operator. “I’m going to shoot.” He added, “I’m going to kill them.”
The operator repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to shoot, and the police had just arrived at the scene when Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs.
The men — Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30 — ran short distances before collapsing and dying, leaving behind a tire iron used to break a window and a pillowcase holding jewelry and about $2,000 from the neighbors.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Property rights! ;):)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Man commits double-homicide, gets away scot free. Hooray property rights!

[Comrade Rage]

Why the hell is this thread called 'T'?:confused::blink:

[Bud Struggle]

Why the hell is this thread called 'T'?:confused::blink:

It started out as Texas Man Aquitted, etc. BUT being an OI, I can't post anything with a title of more than one letter--anything more than one letter (most of the time) gets thrown back to me with a memo saying I can't post some kind of freaking tags.

It's a pain in the ass, but someday I look to spell out a message of hope with the first letters of my posts on the OI board. :)

[Comrade Rage]

You oughta post a thread in tech support. Sounds like some weird permission mask fuckup.

[Bud Struggle]

You oughta post a thread in tech support. Sounds like some weird permission mask fuckup.

I did it--they all know.

Thanks, though.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

TomK, do you actually support this? A man murdered two burglars in cold blood by shooting them in the back as they ran away. He had clearly expressed his intention to kill them, and this act goes far far past any act of self-defense.

Does Texan law really allow residents to kill burglars who are not a threat to them? And if so, could this statute be of questionable constitutional validity given the recent US Supreme Court case of Kennedy v Louisiana where it was held that the death penalty may not be imposed for any crime which does not involve the taking of a human life? It would seem to me that this law if it exists allows an individual to impose just such a penalty but I'm not too sure about US constitutional law. Perhaps pusher could help me out?

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, do you actually support this? A man murdered two burglars in cold blood by shooting them in the back as they ran away. He had clearly expressed his intention to kill them, and this act goes far far past any act of self-defense.

Does Texan law really allow residents to kill burglars who are not a threat to them? And if so, could this statute be of questionable constitutional validity given the recent US Supreme Court case of Kennedy v Louisiana where it was held that the death penalty may not be imposed for any crime which does not involve the taking of a human life? It would seem to me that this law if it exists allows an individual to impose just such a penalty but I'm not too sure about US constitutional law. Perhaps pusher could help me out?

Woah! Just because I post something that I think is interesting and worthy of discussion doesn't mean I support it. I just find it interesting that here in the USA where so many policies of the government are moving Socialist, bit by bit, other policies are moving right libertarian.

I don't know Texas law--but here in Sunny Florida we have a similar law, The Castle Doctrine (as in "A Man's Home is his Castle") that gives a home owner three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM

And as to your initial question--I think the whole thing is barbaric. Then again, I also think abortion is barbaric. But that's another thread. :)

[Killfacer]

if america got rid of its stupid gun laws maybe every right wing nut case in America wouldnt shoot everyone.

[Bud Struggle]

Here's an interesting statistic.

Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides

Gun owners often use the weapons on themselves, not intruders

ATLANTA - The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.
Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463844/

[pusher robot]

Does Texan law really allow residents to kill burglars who are not a threat to them? And if so, could this statute be of questionable constitutional validity given the recent US Supreme Court case of Kennedy v Louisiana where it was held that the death penalty may not be imposed for any crime which does not involve the taking of a human life? It would seem to me that this law if it exists allows an individual to impose just such a penalty but I'm not too sure about US constitutional law. Perhaps pusher could help me out?


Ok. First of all, don't get the issues of lethal self-defense and capital punishment confused. They are totally separate issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. The Eighth Amendment is about punishment only, NOT defense.

Now, no state permits the use of lethal defensive force unless the victim reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Ordinarily, the defendant would have to prove this. Some states, such as Texas and Florida, make it a rebuttable presumption that a forcible intruder into an occupied dwelling automatically creates a reasonable belief of the danger of death or bodily harm, so the defendant doesn't have to prove it, though the state is allowed to try to disprove it.

Clearly, though, the state would have no trouble disproving it in this case, and it evidently did so. What this man did clearly and blatantly violated the criminal statutes. This is an example of jury nullification, where the jury disregards the statute because it believes the application of the statute to be unjust. This happens occasionally, and it's one of the reasons we have a jury system, to serve as a check against overzealous prosecutors. I don't know the facts but I'm guessing the jury felt bad for the victim, felt no sympathy for the criminals, and believed that the prosecutor was seeking unduly harsh punishment for the crime, so they decided to disregard the law in this case. Technically they are not supposed to do this, but there is nothing the authorities can do about it, since no juror is obligated to explain why they voted one way or another.

[RedAnarchist]

That guy is a murderer. He was advised not to go outside, and yet he did. He shot them both dead, because that was his intention - just another maniac looking for blood.

[RedKnight]

In Ohio, we have the "retreat clause". http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/concealcarry/index.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)) I personaly feel that deadly force should only be used if it is absolutely necessary for self preservation.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Ok. First of all, don't get the issues of lethal self-defense and capital punishment confused. They are totally separate issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. The Eighth Amendment is about punishment only, NOT defense.

Now, no state permits the use of lethal defensive force unless the victim reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Ordinarily, the defendant would have to prove this. Some states, such as Texas and Florida, make it a rebuttable presumption that a forcible intruder into an occupied dwelling automatically creates a reasonable belief of the danger of death or bodily harm, so the defendant doesn't have to prove it, though the state is allowed to try to disprove it.

Clearly, though, the state would have no trouble disproving it in this case, and it evidently did so. What this man did clearly and blatantly violated the criminal statutes. This is an example of jury nullification, where the jury disregards the statute because it believes the application of the statute to be unjust. This happens occasionally, and it's one of the reasons we have a jury system, to serve as a check against overzealous prosecutors. I don't know the facts but I'm guessing the jury felt bad for the victim, felt no sympathy for the criminals, and believed that the prosecutor was seeking unduly harsh punishment for the crime, so they decided to disregard the law in this case. Technically they are not supposed to do this, but there is nothing the authorities can do about it, since no juror is obligated to explain why they voted one way or another.
Thanks, I knew there was something rotten about the case. I'm aware that self-defence and punishment are two different things, but my point was that if a man shoots another man who is running away with his neighbour's property knowing full well that police are on the way, that is effectively a punishment shooting and not self-defence, though I am also aware that self-defence can include defence of property.

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks, I knew there was something rotten about the case. I'm aware that self-defence and punishment are two different things, but my point was that if a man shoots another man who is running away with his neighbour's property knowing full well that police are on the way, that is effectively a punishment shooting and not self-defence, though I am also aware that self-defence can include defence of property.

It becomes self defense when you are in the guy's yard. That's the problem with the whole issue. It's not what you are doing--it's where you are.

It becomes ECU--you stepped onto my patio handing out Anarchist literature!

BOOM.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It becomes self defense when you are in the guy's yard. That's the problem with the whole issue. It's not what you are doing--it's where you are.

It becomes ECU--you stepped onto my patio handing out Anarchist literature!

BOOM.
So in the US you can shoot someone for stepping onto your property? That's odd, and is certainly not the case in Ireland. In any case, it's clear that even in the US you cannot kill someone unless you reasonably believe that you are in immediate danger of death or serious harm. The guy is clearly guilty, do you disagree?

[Bud Struggle]

So in the US you can shoot someone for stepping onto your property? That's odd, and is certainly not the case in Ireland. In any case, it's clear that even in the US you cannot kill someone unless you reasonably believe that you are in immediate danger of death or serious harm. The guy is clearly guilty, do you disagree?

They died for some jewelry.

He committed murder. If you are afraid that someone's going to kill you and your kids and wife--well I could see it, but not this. Stuff isn't worth a life.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well said.