Pasadena man remorseful about killings captured on 911 call, attorney says

Craig Jett is wrong. Chapter 9, Sub-chapter D, Sections 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code do NOT require that the act of burglary be happening at night for a citizen to be "justified in using deadly force". Section 9.42 clearly states that "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1)if he would be justified in using force against the other iunder Section 9.41; and (B)to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night-time from escaping with the property; and (3) reasonably believes that;(A)the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor (in this case Mr. Horn) or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." Mr. Craig's comment that the offense must be committed at night is in error. The law clearly specifies that one cannot use deadly force against a person committing theft or criminal mischief at night. The "night-time requirement" is not necessary for the offenses of burglary, robbery, or aggravated robbery. I have read through these sections numerous times and it is my conclusion that Mr. Horn acted within the parameters set forth in the laws of the State of Texas. The question then becomes, "Will the grand jury base their findings on philosophy or the Rule of Law?" Many people may not agree the law as it presently stands but until it is changed our courts need to uphold it. Incidentally, these sections of the Penal Code were in effect long before the Sept. 1, 2007 "Castle Doctrine". Mr. Horn actions are defensible from a legal standpoint and the grand jury should "no bill" the guy and leave him alone. NOTE: Section 9.41 deals with protection of one's own land and tanglible, movable property; Section 9.42 deals with using deadly force to protect property; and Section 9.43 addresses protection of a third person's property. Both 9.42 and 9.43 refer back to 9.41 so all three must be read very carefully in order to have an adequate understanding of the content and context. I am not an attorney, but the law is very clear when these sections are read in their entirety. I tie them together like this: Mr. Horn was justified according to 9.41(a), 9.42(1&2)(B), 9.42(3)(A&B), and 9.43(1). Look it up and see for yourself. It is difficult to reach any other conclusion. I am somewhat dismayed that an attorney of Mr. Jett's standing has not fully reviewed what the law says on this. If we are to stand up for what is right, we can do it best by demostrating a sound interpretation of the law. I can only hope this will reach Mr. Horn's attorney and justice will be served. I can't seem to find a way to contact Mr. Horn's attorney. Best of luck to Mr. Horn. He is obviously distraught at what he has done. Although his actions were lawful, I can't imagine how he must feel. To take a human life is a serious thing and he has both my support and sympathy. I will keep him in my prayers. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

There were two articles and I had read them both, previously. One article has them “fleeing the scene”, this one has the lawyer saying, “they jumped and he shot them”. Either way, according to Texas Law, what he did appears to be legal.

I was speaking in terms of my personal opinion, rather than Texas Law. Ultimately, Mr. Horn will answer to greater than Texas Law or me. Only Mr. Horn knows for sure, unless there are witnesses that the articles didn’t mention. Mr. Horn could have stayed in his home and considered his own safety as well as whether or not a bag of bobbles was worth killing two men.

A lot of people have made this argument in one way or another. That if he had stayed inside, none of this would have happened...that this whole thing is HIS fault for going outside. On principle, this is akin to saying a woman dressed in a provocative outfit is to blame if she is sexually assaulted. The very idea is absurd. As I have told many others, read Chapter 9, Sub-Chapter D, Sections 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43 of the Texas State Penal Code. The only conclusion one can draw is that Mr. Horn’s actions were perfectly lawful. While some may disagree on the basis of philosophy, our courts are supposed to look from the Rule of Law perspective. If they do not, then every decision they make becomes arbitrary. Happy Holidays!

This man is a criminal!! No where in that 911 call that I have listened to repeatedly over and over again did he say ;Stop or I'll shoot” Hey said “Bye Bye you're dead!”{We are supposed to live in a country where we are innocent until proven guilty! MY legal rights as an American and those two mens legal rights as Americans are important and they should have had a day in court. These two men had families, friends, people who care about them. This was clearly not a case of self defense he went out in the yard and pulled a gun out and shot two men who were running away. This man is not a hero he is a coward. These two men were wrong and would have been punished with jail time, A suitable punishment for what they did, not death and not at the hands of a hunter on a power trip. I haven't followed this story and found out today that he got no punishment for what he did. This is a disgrace It saddens me and sickens me he should be criminally charged and thrown in jail!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.