Joe Horn?

[Thug Bubbles]

Question for everybody:

How much force is acceptable against somebody robbing you? Are you obligated to let them run away with your property, or do you have the right to shoot them if they don't leave it behind?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
How much force is acceptable against somebody robbing you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not have a right to kill someone for taking some of your property. If you have a reasonable fear that you are in danger, you can use appropriate force in self-defense. Reasonableness of the force should be based on all of the facts and circumstances.

[Taso]

You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would HIGHLY doubt it. Regardless, I wasn't answering for what the law is, I was answering for what it should be.

[Thug Bubbles]

Right. Question was outside any law on the books and focused on what people thought was right.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I say: "Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to threaten deadly force on his neighbor's property, and the guy who wrote the Texas law (see post above) never intended the law to function like that.

Just because Horn says "you move, your dead" and the guys move anyway doesn't give Horn carte blanche to fire away."

neblis says: "but what if the guys were on his property, does that matter?"

I say: "I don't know Texas state law"

tomdemaine says: "law != right"

This is total ACtarding. Yeah, I get it tom, law != right; when I note that Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction and authority to threaten deadly force, it's pretty clear I'm doing so in the context of what the law allows. tom just wanted to ACtard up the thread by making a point I never disagreed with ('law != right') in the hopes someone would take the bait and start engaging him in the ACtard argument he desperately wanted to have, ie., pretty much a repeat of the entire history of this forum for about the last 2 years.

Cue the "zomg ACists just want to talk about the 'interesting' philosophy behind this, some of us don't care what the law is, stop being soooooo mean" whines from the AC crowd and their associated sycophants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, tee off on me much?

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in most jurisdictions, if not all. There is a famous case or example (not sure if it is real, I think it was) of someone booby trapping his garage to shoot upon entry, after a number of break ins. Sure enough, someone broke in, the booby trap went off, and the burglar was killed. The owner was convicted of murder.

At least that's how I recall the story. I'd have to look it up ... or maybe someone recalls better than me.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Not in most jurisdictions, if not all. There is a famous case or example (not sure if it is real, I think it was) of someone booby trapping his garage to shoot upon entry, after a number of break ins. Sure enough, someone broke in, the booby trap went off, and the burglar was killed. The owner was convicted of murder.

At least that's how I recall the story. I'd have to look it up ... or maybe someone recalls better than me.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a whole line of "spring gun" cases with similar fact patterns.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You sure elwood? I'm thought you can shoot anyone that is trespassing, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in most jurisdictions, if not all. There is a famous case or example (not sure if it is real, I think it was) of someone booby trapping his garage to shoot upon entry, after a number of break ins. Sure enough, someone broke in, the booby trap went off, and the burglar was killed. The owner was convicted of murder.

At least that's how I recall the story. I'd have to look it up ... or maybe someone recalls better than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch of famous cases involving booby-trapped property that get trotted out in law school and/or 'philosophy of law' classes. State Supreme Courts and other federal circuit courts have consistently ruled that booby-trapping 'empty' property with force deadly enough to kill is excessive and property owners can be held liable if someone is hurt or killed by said booby traps.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, just to preempt the analogyphobes, I'm not saying rape or murder = home invasion. I'm merely pointing out that protecting people from being victimized is also a legitimate reason to use force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting someone (I think) necessarily = using force
Using force != shooting someone

Right?

There's "using force" to stop your neighbor's house from being robbed, and then there "taking your shotgun and blowing the guys away who are robbing your neighbor's house". I think there's probably some distance in between these two options, and I think Horn's utilizing of the extreme end of the force spectrum is probably what most people object to. Had he went over there just to threaten the guys with his gun (in other words, "using force to protecting people from being victimized") instead of opening firing on unarmed guys, this probably isn't a notable story.

That the guy was ostensibly doing something "nice" and "admirable" by "protect his neighbors from being victimized" doesn't give him license to use the most extreme and irreversible measures of force to do it.

I agree, it's probably legitimate for people to "use force to protect their neighbors property", but that's just a vague euphemism for what occurred here, hence why you rightly recognized you should be wary of using analogies here. There's a reason why people should be hesitant to rely too heavily on analogies and it's because they often obscure vital elements necessary to cast a prudent judgment. Yes, Horn "used force", true enough -- it was a specific kind of deadly force that (in light of the fact the guys were unarmed and not threatening Horn himself) was completely unnecessary. We can claim "well, maybe he didn't know the guys were unarmed", but he'd still be guilty of some kind of gross negligence or yes, even murder, for making a mistake like that. I don't think reasonable people operate under the "shoot first, ask questions later" principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with pretty much all of this. I tried to stay general in my response because the specific details of this situation aren't really great for "my side" of the argument. I agree that this guy sounds like he was a little out of control and trigger-happy. But I wasnt there and am reticent to just call him a violent nut.

Obviously, when I mean using force, I mean using the least amount of force necessary to get the job done. If firing a warning shot would have done it (and he could have reasonably expected it to work) then he should have done that. If simply yelling at them and telling them he called 911 would have reasonably worked, that first. Going straight to shotgun blasts is PROBABLY not appropriate. Important to reassert that I wasnt there and will pretty much always give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who wasnt breaking into someones house.

I personally think its more interesting as a sort of philisophical or moral or legal argument, basically whether self-defense should apply to your property as well as your body, and another different, related issue, of whether using force to protect someones life or body can be extrapolated to cover protecting their property.