@jaydenrock Historically speaking, most pirates were military navy soldiers who found themselves with no way of making a living after the navy sort of disbanded. It's complicated.
@@yosefzanerva806 man, that’s actually sad. I suppose things haven’t changed much since that time. Instead of becoming a awesome pirate, they become homeless because of crippling injury or PTSD.
Mmmmmm, Being the size of a horse, .223 probably isn't going to be efficient. It absolutely can, BUT using larger caliber rounds is a better guarantee that critical organs will be damaged to the point of instant failure thus, a more humane kill AND leaving the meat relatively unda..... Oh, we're talking about DEFENDING against the Unicorn, not hunting it, my bad my bad. XD
Excellent analysis. This is exactly what I teach my conceal carry students here in MN. A justifiable self defense claim requires 5 pillars: 1. Innocence 2. Imminence 3. Proportionality 4. Reasonableness 5. Avoidance (most of the time) Know the law so you can win the fight after the fight, the legal one.
Any private citizen who chooses to engage in a gunfight when there is an option to do something else without endangering themselves or others is a f*cking moron in my book. In this situation what if the second person drew a magnum and blasted him in the head while he was shooting the first person? It's Texas and they're criminals, so you would have to be crazy or stupid to assume they're unarmed.
It's not an excellent analysis, Joe Horn was within his rights to stop the theft of a third person's property at night, which is why the grand jury through it out. It's a totally different section of law than what Tom showed, it's Sec 9.41 - 9.43. Joe is a hero.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 BLUF: You're right there is more than he talked about; however, I think it all hinges on whether deadly force was immediately necessary. With cops already on the way, I would argue it was not. 9.42 (which specifies whether or not deadly force is authorized) still requires deadly force to be IMMEDIATELY necessary first, which I think @AttorneyTom did talk about. 9.42 also specifies "he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means," which in this case, I think it is unreasonable to believe as cops were en route. The following quote though is an 'or' statement which I think leaves room for debate: "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury" but this would take us into the Deadly Force in Defense of Person which @AttorneyTom did discuss in detail here.
Except he missed the point. Horn wasn't found innocent over Castle Doctrine. Texas has a law allowing for use of deadly force to protect property. The "comedian" used what was NOT a stand your ground case as an example.
Hey Tom, I’m actually really thankful that you took the time to go through that guide on the justification of lethal force. Even if it’s probably obvious to some people, or you think it might have pissed off other people, I know that watching this video was worth my time because I learned something new today.
I called the police when I was assaulted and was charged and fought a gun possession for 3 years. Ended up beating the charges at 2 prelims. Now, question for Tom, "why on earth would anyone feel safe calling the police?
I bought a pie and found a piece of plastic in it, Now I spend my days warning people any which way I can about the dangers, evil and futility of buying pies. Satan loves Pies
@@wessonliam7423 i think you are missing thr point.actung as if disincentivizing dealing with problems yourself and actively punishing those people who do is a good idea is naive at best and negligent at worst. Not the least of which because law enforcement is not infallible or available or both in most situations. People who live outside of large cities generally don't have that kind of access to police. Basically punishing people who defend themselves is idiotic because it completely ignores very important factors in a defense scenario
I seriously doubt the grand jury really considered this as "stand your ground." I would bet they just didn't want to send someone to prison for shooting burglars, even though Horn's life wasn't in danger.
I don’t think he should go to jail tbh, the guy Tom reacted to is a clown, people have pets, important documents, mementos, heirlooms, etc. worth way more than a PS5. I would feel way worse knowing my neighbor watched my house get robbed and done whatever to rather than committed an act of vigilantism to protect my livelihood or more.
@@NerdestGamaer the cops were already on their way. Vigilante justice is a slippery slope that gets messy quick. And either way, someone’s life (whether or not they’re a criminal) is worth more than a family heirloom. If you think otherwise, your priorities are seriously fucked up.
I think that's not really the case. Tom was arguing from a theoretical perspective but John was arguing about the way it is actually applied. Just saying "the law says differently" doesn't help if the courts (for some reason or another) disagree.
Thats what i was waiting for and looking in the comments for. Tom should have brought this up even with multiple mentions that only texas has this law. I think he didnt mention it because the way he said it is essentially how it works everywhere else and he was focusing on self defense.
Are you saying he was justified to defend his property with lethal force under said penal code, but had he been defending his life under stand your ground as described, he would not have been justified?
I'm just now finding this video. As someone that is firm in my own belief about gun laws, I felt you did a very good job at not advocating for any particular stance. I felt it was a very good, objective take to have based on facts and reason. I'm sure it was very difficult putting this video out at the time that you did. Bravo!
There was a case near where I live where a gentleman came home from work and witnessed three men jump his neighbor. He went inside and called the police, but he also grabbed his AR-15 incase things escalated. And then the attackers started to stab his neighbor. When the guy who called the police saw the stabbing, he ran outside and ordered the attackers to stop; they didn't, and he shot two of them. If I recall, one of the attackers had started to confront him when he shot. I do not believe he was charged with a crime, which is good, but my state doesn't have stand your ground laws, so I wonder how close he came to a murder charge
So, part of the argument for stand your ground laws and against duty to retreat is that "duty to retreat" has a massive potential for abuse from an aggressive/unscrupulous prosecutor. Duty to retreat requires the ability to retreat, which can be more or less manufactured by a prosecutor if/when the jury isn't made aware of precisely why the ability to safely retreat wasn't there. In this case, it's fairly clear why retreat was not an option. Lethal force was being used on the neighbor, so lethal force became a proportionate threat.
Well, it's reasonable to use lethal force when someone is actively murdering someone. You retreating would not have stopped the crime, and i believe all states allow you to defend the life of someone else.
He didn't come close, that is the grievous bodily harm part. You would be covered with good Samaritan laws in pretty much every state if it doesn't have a law that covers it.
I think it's good to know that the actual laws aren't as wild as they appear when hearing about them. But it's equally worrying that they are not implemented as intended. Thank you for sharing this video.
it should be obvious that the rigorous law making process wouldnt put texas back into the wild west, unfortunantly you have dickheads like john oliver intentionally lying about what the laws are to push his political narrative.
How the heck does a person open a door to a place that is not their home and _actually_ think it is their home?? Just by scent alone, I would be able to tell that I may have the wrong place.
it happend at my old place once most building where i use to live looked the same a old lady moved next to us one day she parked her car in front of our garage and openend our front door ( we sometimes open the front door a bit to give the house some fresh air ) she made it into the living room before realizing that she was in the wrong house. it was a pretty weird event 😂 she was so red.
@@sownheard Oh, I feel bad for her. So, ya, I can see how that would happen for an elderly person. I can even see how it would happen to a person who is either mentally handicapped, or a person who is taking drugs or something. It just makes me wonder and has me more skeptical when it happens to a person who is a trained officer and (I would think) would be more sensitive and aware of her surroundings than the average person, due to the training. Anything can happen?? I suppose.. it just feels like a trained officer would be extra aware. 🤷♂️Maybe not? But I am for sure skeptical.
@@Inertia888 I'm an experienced cook. In the kitchen, I can move faster than your eyes can see, coordinate with 6 people around me non verbally And verbally at the same time, and by sense of smell alone I can tell what has or has not been added to a particular dish. But when I just finished a double and I'm off the clock? Man I have tried to make Kraft Dinner and forgot to add Water. When someone has a fast paced, high stress, immersive job, you cant expect them to be "on the clock" at all times
@@Inertia888 that being said, the proper response to walking into what you Think is your house and finding a Person, is look at Literally any other point of reference. Like "did they steal the TV? Wait a sec, I have an LG, that's a Sony" or "is there another one in the kitchen? Oh Wait, I don't own a Slapchop, let alone 6 of them in various sizes" or in the very least "If I shoot this fucker is he gonna land on something I give a shit about or make a massive mess? Hold up, I don't own a tank full of lobsters OR a Justin Bieber throw rug". Any of which might clue ya in to "this is Not my fucking house". But instead she just "So, I started Blasting".
I like how you started the opening and that you were upfront about having seen and recorded a video about this previously. Great work. Edit: and thank you for correcting to manslaughter and not murder. That is my pet peeve.
It could be murder, if someone lured someone else into a situation specifically to make it look like the shooter was defending himself. I agree in most normal situations manslaughter would be the better charge if other conditions are not met for a good shooting.
I would say that this might be a good case for murder. That man didn't accidently kill someone. He stated his intent to shoot these guys. I would say this would be a good case of second degree murder.
@@HelloHuman1 If you're referring to the Joe Horn case then you're basing your opinion on feelings, not the law. The law states he had the right to use deadly force to defend a third person's property from theft.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 Could you specify what law you are referring to. Because that stituation neither "stand your ground" or the "castle doctrine" are applicable. I cannot find a texas law that allows to protect your neighbor's property with lethal force. Either way Jeo Horn had a duty to retreat. He was safe in his own home with the police on there way. Instead of being a responsible adult he decided to initiate his own form of vigilante justice. There are clear violations of the law that make his actions not an act of self-defense but an intentional killing of two people.
@@HelloHuman1 You are wrong in absolutely every regard. 1) It is included in the Texas Castle Doctrine under Sec 9.43. 2) Texas has no duty to retreat and 3) He broke no laws. Joe Horn is a hero who acted within the law and you're an emotion fool who doesn't understand the case or the law in Texas.
It's VERY different for every state. Some states it's acceptable to shoot if someone is in your house, period, end of story. Some states you have a duty to retreat to the point of being expected to flea your own home rather than defend yourself. Be careful, know your state and local laws.
I’m not specifically going to say how I know this, but if at all possible you should always try to escape and not confront even if you are legally allowed to use deadly force. This kind of thing can affect your children and spouse. If I may also add court cases can absolutely cost you far more then you can easily manage to afford financially. The above being said, (written) better to be judged by twelve then carried by six, (or worse one of you loved ones being carried).
I’m in a “Duty to Retreat” state (Massachusetts) but we do have Castle Doctrine. But in my state, unless you’re in your own home, you need to literally be backed into a corner to legally use lethal force. Massachusetts’ legislature absolutely despises the 2nd Amendment. As soon as I’m able, I’m leaving this craphole state.
Thank you for this, Tom. I am a fellow Texan and a fan of both you and John Oliver, so I appreciate this analysis. I have my license to carry and, if you get a chance, I would love to hear your take on the laws around proper use of deadly force in self defense of oneself or one’s family in a situation outside the home. Specifically, I am interested in the workplace, while driving, in a place of worship, and other public settings. Thanks and appreciate your work here!
Wait your a fan of john Oliver but you carry a gun and go to church? Each state is different, so he cant give you specific advise. His intro is pretty accurate as long as you dont live in a commie state. If you live in a commie state you have a duty to retreat from your own home.
With regards to place of worship, given that most religions have doctrines against acts of violence, regardless of legality, I would find it morally unethical to bring a gun into a place of worship, however given recent acts of violence against churches, synagogues, and Mosques I can understand concerns over ones well being and the well being of your community, therefore I believe the question should concern the gathering of local unsanctioned militia to stand watch outside the place of worship.
@@madestmadhatter Most does not mean all, the Bible discusses self defense at several points, both old and new testament. So theirs the majority religion of the US off the books. Same applies for Judaism as the Old testament is their whole religious text.
@@madestmadhatter You stated that most religions have doctrines against violence. I just pointed out the biggest and most common ones have no qualms about defending themselves.
This is why it pissed me off George Zimmerman got away with blatant murder using stand your ground law. He legit followed and kept following Trayvon then engaged him until he swung then shot him. How he got away with that is beyond me and dumb juries and bad lawyers because the other side said zero logical points to Zimmerman. I would have destroyed him in Court. What about Trayvons stand your ground law when he was stalked by Zimmerman? That's why he HIT Zimmerman because he stood his ground and followed what every parent tell their children stranger danger if someone you don't know tries anything get away or fight. Yet the law backed up his death.
The lazy eye is the one not under the patch. You wear a patch to make your lazy eye stronger by makin it your dominant eye. A lazy eye is usually just relaxed more than the other. Like one stoner eye
Yup, he thought he would piss everyone off but I feel like he did a great job. Nothing political, just facts and not demeaning to the party that was wrong about something. It's amazing how much people will listen when you are not arguing or being combative
11:00 The fear of Tilda Swinton is an objectively reasonable fear. If you can see Tilda Swinton then it's already too late. You would be well within your rights to "stand your ground," but by that point it doesn't matter if you run or fight. Now it is Tilda Swinton who will decide your fate.
i would fucking move that's absolute idiotic the the punishment for theft is jail not death. Not only is the neighborhood shit that neighbor is a maniac whats to stops him from killing you or your family members if he gets mad one day. at least if you live next to him i wont have to 😂
You were so scared about posting this but I found this extremely informative and I agreed with everything you laid out, especially Ricky's sentiment. Thank you for the video.
Im an avid gun lover, and i recently just went to get my concealed/open carry (oklahoma). and 100% am for people defending themselves (even if lethal force be necessary) and even i would consider that murder and would have said as much... Love your video's tom! Love hearing your stance on these things its always interesting
@@kgkbuugj Yes i know this. But the class goes over important laws and instances That common people might not know or realize. I honestly suggest taking the class so people can know the laws. Even if you dint get the permit. Plus this permit allows me to carry in a few other states as well, texas and new mexico being a couple of them which i do have to travel to on occasions.
@@joshuakennedy8094 As someone living in Idaho, it has nothing to do with intelligence. If you've never thought there were dumb laws on the books, then I've gotta doubt your own intelligence.
In my small city, there was a famous case a few years ago in which a 17-year-old Turkish-born exchange student from Germany had stolen from a man's garage several times. The homeowner decided to stay up waiting for the kid and catch him in the act. When the kid showed up, the homeowner confronted him and ended up shooting him in the back as he ran away and killing him. Although my state has relatively strong stand your ground laws, the homeowner was convicted of murder.
I would have expected this to be about the protection of property law (Texas Penal Code 9.41 and 9.42), but looking into it, that only applies to your own property.
Loved your analysis. Really made it clear when it was ok to use deadly force and will show this to all my dumba$$ friends who think Ohio’s new SYG act means they get to shoot someone if they feel threatened.
@@mnhorsewoman Gotta get concealed carry insurance, if you're involved in a self defense shooting they'll provide attorneys and cover all court costs up to 1 million dollars.
Unless you live in a state that has duty to retreat and no castle doctrine. They'd probably charge you with premeditated murder. Pretty wild world we live in. Better have some lye and a shovel.
The Ricky Kidd case really showcases one of the things in our judicial system that is often improperly done, the prosecution. Not enough noise is made about prosecutorial misconduct/withholding exculpatory evidence, overcharging to get a plea deal, and prosecutors worrying more about their win/loss ratio rather than getting to the truth of the matter which is what the standard should be.
We really appreciate you tom. And a politically polarized world, very few people want to stop and look at facts and talk about basic law or basic truth regardless of their opinion on it. You are absolutely are such a breath of fresh air, and I am currently studying law and criminal Justice in school, so I really appreciate your videos.
You did a great job explaining a scenario where fear of grievous injury was subjectively reasonable but not objectively reasonable. Are there scenarios in which the fear is objectively reasonable but not subjectively reasonable? If so, what would be a good example?
Not an (US) lawyer, but possibly: a martial expert proficient in disarming attackers who shoots an attacker who wields a knife. Objectively, it is reasonable to fear serious bodily harm. Subjectively, the martial expert could have disarmed the attacker without killing him. But even then, it might be arguable that in the specific situation, it is too much too ask to risk any bodily harm because even if you are proficient in disarming attackers, there is still a small chance that it does not work. So, practically it may never occur that something objectively but not subjectively reasonable.
The door locking mechanism installed in all of the apartments that Botham lived in prevented the murderer from being able to open the front door without the proper key. She broke in, and killed him.
@@eastcoastitalian8758 the front door to each apartment locked as soon as it was closed. This set up is in all hotels and all of the dormitories I've visited, so when that info was released her story made no physical sense. There are a lot of issues with this case, but the physical evidence points to her being a murderer with a badge.
@@Greenteabook not all apartments are like that. My dad's friend is a landlord and there is just regular locks. No front door to the complex that locks by itself either. They are really old apartments though.
I think the issue that John Oliver was pointing out is reality vs. law. YOUR analysis is correct, but look how soon after the law changed did someone take their ability to use lethal force so far from rationality, then be a 'hero' and not a killer.
The law gets in the way of what’s right and wrong. If someone tries to take your life, theirs is forfeit. As for theft, I didn’t value my property more than their life, they valued my property more than their life.
@@diasent Still doesn't make it not murder. He was not in imminent danger. His neighbour (who he knew wasn't home) was not in imminent danger. The "duty to retreat" (meaning avoid or deescalate the conflict when possible) would have required Holm to stay inside the safety of his own home, which the operator clearly suggested to him no fewer than 14 separate times. But he chose not to avoid conflict, and instead opted to go out and shoot two people in the back. No matter how you spin this, it's cold-blooded murder. People should definitely not be awarded medals for this kind of callous behaviour.
@@exarch404 justifiable homicide isn't murder. He didn't have the duty to retreat. Deescalation isn't a part of duty to retreat. All duty of retreat means is that the bad guys win. The innocent and the people who can't defend themselves must submit to the evils of our society. The life of the bad guy outweighs the life of the innocent. That is duty to retreat.
The duty to retreat is such a stupid law. Someone has a gun pointed at you? You better run otherwise if he doesn't kill you the legal system will. The duty to retreat is used so often to punish innocent people while allowing criminals to do as they please. As someone who lives in a duty to retreat state, I've seen people I've known get thrown in jail for rightly defending their lives or their family's lives. It's a law to defend criminals, not victims.
Thank you for the analysis, Tom. I watched the segment when it hit RUclips, and I think it's really important that you broke down the case of the Texas guy and clarified for layman like me that that case basically was a mishandled murder case. Helps put the whole thing in perspective in a way the John Oliver bit failed to do.
Joe Horn did not commit murder. This was an opinion piece by Tom disguised as an objective fact. Texas Penal code 9.42 is why Joe Horn did not commit murder. As he is a Texas defense lawyer, Im sure Tom is aware of and understands 9.42 but yet failed to mention it. That is a sleazy way of trying to pass his feelings off as more than that.
@@ETuss713 I have been looking for this comment! You are right, according to 9.42 and 9.43 Joe Horn was within his rights, Tom was either lying here or totally ignorant to the law. But he was also ignorant to the facts, both men were on Joe's property when he shot them! Joe Didn't murder anyone, he's a hero who protected his neighbors property from thieves and acted fully within the law.
The new enemies will be about a misrepresenting the case, and ignoring state law. In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. The Horn case had nothing to do with personal protection, it had everything to do with property protection. That's why he was justified.
@@AcolyteOfLucifer Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property Read it again...actually let me help you. It does NOT say it has to be YOUR property.
@@AcolyteOfLucifer I just realized something. You're talking about castle doctrine, aren't you? I'm not. You can defend property in Texas, not just a home.
BTW, no property is worth a life. Seems like the Supreme Court disagrees with the fleeing felon rule. If you are suspected or actually stealing more than $2,500 worth of property in Texas, and you are clearly fleeing, is not lethal force permitted under the fleeing felon rule, including shooting in the back? That is why I don't think he was charged. And we need to quit charging people, mistakenly or not, trying to do the right thing. Had the home owners been there, what would happen? If you commit crimes, especially robbery or burglary...and especially someone's HOME, you are asking someone to kill you. Don't do it, and give the guy who did this at least the credit for stopping a crime. I don't want people to die, but I don't want crime, and if you make everyone who tries to stop crime (with a gun or not) a criminal, well what is the point? Look at SF now, you don't even have security guards trying to stop guys on bikes coming in with trash bags to steal. Is that what we want? Because if you make people afraid to protect themselves and their property, that is what we will end up with....Don Lemon joked about "crime on the rise", then had to backtrack when it was...yes, crime on the rise. Stop coddling criminals, you take someone elses stuff, you should be taking a chance on being shot and/or killed, then it will stop. I don't know the rates, but I suggest you compare New York or new Jersey or California with Texas as far as home burglaries and home invasions, what do you think is the difference. Fear of guys like this, if nothing else these two became martyrs in a real life PSA....sorry to be crass, but its true. So when they stop robbing houses, all the shooting of people in the back will be murder and we won't need to even discuss it. But no, lets start demonizing the guy who shot two burglars in the back.
I think that's the main issue. The law can say one thing...yet it's not in a vacuum. It's in a society that'll apply it in a different manner. So we have to ask questions on how that man got away with it...and if despite having a two limb test (subjective and objective) in practice the subjective test is given more weight. So basically it's okay to question the laws and the policies surrounding them especially if they're being misused.
Thank you. You first initially stated how you did not want to engage the political subject matter. Many can relate to that, and in spite of that, you made great content. I appreciate your objective report and expanding upon the facts.
I don't mean to play favorites here, comparing the to Internet lawyers, I so much prefer you. Legal Eagle Although very intelligent, his bias shine through. It's off putting to me and also you can clearly see him approach certain topics from an angle instead of being more open minded in an approach. Attorney Tom is as Neutral as one can try to be.
Except in this one. This one was opinion. He neglected to mention 9.41 and 9.42 of the Texas penal code where Joe Horn was 100% justified to shoot. That is why he was not indicted. I believe Tom is fully aware of them, but did not mention it to make his opinion sound like a fact. Pretty sleazy approach actually.
@@ETuss713 I do agree with your assessment that because of those 2 statutes he was free and clear; However, this video was about "stand your ground". Ignoring Texas statute 9.4 everything Tom said was correct, And I believe without that statute he would have been convicted. I do not believe John Oliver brought up that statute and Tom was just responding to John Oliver's points. In short Oliver was being deceptive using a situation That completely did not ride on "stand your ground" To make this point And Tom responded Within the scope of his argument. It may Have been smart for him to have referenced those statutes to explain why he wasn't convictedBut was not sleazy due to the fact that John also didn't reference that. Additionally to give him the benefit of the doubt he is a catastrophic injury lawyer not a defense attorney.
@@Valkires1 -- "everything Tom said was correct" Except for the bit about the guy being guilty of murder. Because according to the law, he quite clearly wasn't. I don't know about you, but when a lawyer is trying to tell me about the law that's applicable to a situation, I expect them to a.) get it right, and b.) not be ignoring those parts of the law that are inconvenient to their argument.
@@ETuss713 Dear youtube lawyer. Please explain to me two things. One) it says your property, not the property of another as Joe Horn did. 2) in 9.42 in order to use deadly force all it says all three must apply. In sub point 2) it says it has to occur in the night time. This was in broad daylight, so the condition was not met. So how then does 9.42 apply to this case? Hint, it doesn't. I'll wait for your answer, which will never come. lol
Maybe a stupid question but would there ever be a scenario where something was objectively reasonable but not subjectively reasonable? Like someone is killed and they were actually an imminent threat but the person that killed them couldn't have known? Or does objectively reasonable trump and act as both?
If someone broke into my house hand had the possibility of harming me or my family in any way I would happily go to jail to protect them. No matter what
And if they genuinely wanted to harm your family, it wouldn't take long before people realized that they could take you out of the mix by getting you sent to jail first, then you wouldn't be there a few weeks later. Abusing the system happens.
Almost never as in real life, the trial doesn't start 1-2 days after the murder took place. So there is plenty of time to prepare, you know about all the evidence and the witnesses beforehand. The court case isn't an arena for the lawyers to figure out the case, but to present and argue their case to the judge or jury.
Turning your back on a deadly threat is inadvisable, which is why any duty to retreat wouldn't be very practical. If it doesn't apply to most self-defense situations, all it does is create more unnecessary legal perils for would be victims that successfully defend themselves.
@@parjai97 staying behind cover rather than drawing attention to yourself. if you have a weapon wait until using it wouldn't endanger yourself or others.
@@zendell37 due to the limitations of disabilities disabled people actually do receive a greater scope for employing various self-defense measures, because their disability leaves them at a disadvantage, creating a disparity of force.
At the Amber case, how did she manage to open the apartment? Did she not use a key to open the door and discovered the key did not fit the door? The real question is, how this murderous cop entered into this man's house without using a key? This is the key element of the story no one is asking for and that is being omitted.
@@parjai97 But if you had watched the video, you'd know that first and foremost, there needs to be an immediate threat of bodily harm before you even get to that point. Watching your neighbor get robbed is not immediate bodily harm. Therefor, it wasn't a legal thing to do
For anyone interested in self/home defense philosophy, I recommend looking up Massad Ayoob, Mickey At CarryTrainer, the works of Jeff Cooper, John Lovell, Clint Smith, and many many more.
The main thing that sticks out to me, when I discuss this issue with my friends, is that it quickly becomes obvious that "justice" or "what is the right thing to do in this situation" are completely irrelevant to them; the most important thing to them is finding some way that they can justify killing someone. They simply want to kill someone and get away with it. The simple fact that they spend so much effort seeking out edge cases where they are justified in killing someone and absolutely no consideration for de-escalation or avoidance gives lie to their protests that they are "just good people trying to do the right thing."
Thanks for the explanation of these self-defense laws! I lean towards being more sympathetic to people who use lethal force to defend themselves and their property from aggressors, but I agree that that case in Texas that was brought up goes way over the line into murder territory. And it's too bad there wasn't a murder conviction, because it just adds fuel to the fire of people who don't believe in the rights of people to defend themselves and others in earnest.
The literal difference between "stand your ground" and what existed before that is that before you had to deescalate if possible. And if you're not a sociopath or indeed a psychopath, you would deescalate anyway. So "stand your ground" only helps psychopaths, racists and the thin margins in between those two. If you can live with yourself after taking someone's life when you didn't have to (and that's the operative phrase that makes stand your ground so evil), you're quite simply a monster.
Well in Texas if a neighbor asks you to watch their property you have thr same legal rights in terms of defending it as your own property so look at it from the perspective of they were breaking into his house and you should have a better understanding of his legal right to use force. His story what they they charged him and then ran after realizing he had a gun not that they immediately ran away and as farms I remeber there was no surveillance and it would be very difficult to discover his story given he was the only witness
In the State of Michigan break ins are weird I don't know the exact laws on when deadly force is reasonable in Michigan but in Michigan you better use deadly force cause if the robber or attempted murderer survives they can sue you for injury which is ridiculous.
@@IRepko I can try and find the story but a robber fell through the roof of this persons house and landed on a knife and hurt himself and sued and won 10k
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. The Horn case had nothing to do with personal protection, it had everything to do with property protection. That's why he was justified.
Hardly anyone ever talks about, if you have a gun, you raise your chances of being shot. If someone robs a house, and you have no gun to hurt them, they don't have to shoot you. If they rob your house and you go for a gun, they must shoot you, to preserve their own safety. Almost everyone acknowledges this when thinking about cops dealing with someone, If a person draws a gun, the cop most likely must shoot them. but when it come to home defense thinking of it from the criminals point of view, nope, no that makes no sense. lol
Friends of mine don’t keep guns because they’re afraid of robberies, they’re afraid of bigots, Who would like nothing more then to see them dead. Remember it is a privileged position to live comfortably knowing no one wants to murder you.
My husband and I watched this John Oliver segment before I watched this video. My husband pointed out the inaccuracies in what John Oliver was claiming but didn't have the eloquence to help me understand. This is great to help elaborate, thanks!
Got an interesting one for ya to cover. "Law Abiding Citizen" has many different court appearances and the main one i would like u to review is when he is in court in front of the judge
Jury has the ability to say, no it wasnt murder, the burglers decided other peoples stuff was worth more than their life. Its called jury nullification.
Joe Horn is a Texan hero. Was amazing when the neighbors came together to chase out the racist New Black Panther Party scum that tried to "protest" him because of course the only real reason he shot the criminals was because they were black... NBPP is no better than the KKK.
Based on some of the comments I think it's important to remind everyone of the vast differences in these laws from state to state. Even if those laws have similar names or origins. Keep up the good work
Yes, especially since in Texas, where both Joe Horn and Tom are, it's legal to to use deadly force defend a third person's property from theft at night. So he was clearly wrong, even though he's in Houston, where the case happened.
You sure didn't piss me off, Solidus. Good work on your mission to disabuse individuals of their misconceptions on laws and what Duty to Retreat truly means. You are a true ally to the Sons of Liberty.
To me it's another one of these laws that may look fine on paper, but once it got to being enforced it was pretty clear how things were going to go, law enforcement prosecutors and juries are far more likely to find some people to be objectively dangerous than others, especially with the way jury selection is carried out The missaplications of the law are problematic, but also easily foreseen and likely an intended feature
I don’t know. If the burglar was shot lying on the ground in the back, I think it would be pretty reasonable to send the shooter to prison. But kicking down someone’s bedroom door is a big difference from surrendering.
@@graydonsharp5165 The second you break into someone's home, you forfeit your rights to your life until you are long gone from that home. So no, even if shot in the back, I still wouldn't send the person to prison. The day I break into someone else's home is the day accept I may be killed because of the harmful actions I putting on other people.
I've seen numerous news stories where they mention how the 911 Call center operator tells the person on the phone not to do something and it's usually made into a big deal that the person didn't follow what they were being told. What authority does a 911 operator have over the people that call in?
@@MetalGearSEAL4 I know that Georgia has a catch-all law that makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to follow an official order from any government official (not just police).
To be fair, Texas Penal §9.41 does not immediately appear to extend defense of property beyond your own (ie to your neighbors), however, “in lawful possession” would appear to allow the defense of a neighbors property if that neighbor agrees to allow you to defend it when they are away. Possession does not imply ownership.
Long story short, Texas only allows deadly force to protect a neighbors property, if that neighbor ALLOWS it. If neighbor had come back and said, “no way I did not allow that” then Horn might have been charged.
I'm very late to this, but the algorithm told me to watch some older stuff so here I am. Spent the whole video waiting for the controversial take. I can't understand how *anyone* could pass on pursuing murder charges against this man. And I also agree with John Oliver: I would be putting real thought into whether moving was financially feasible. This is a dangerous neighbor to have.
Problem with all of this: You cannot know if something was objectively reasonable after the attacker is dead. " They were reaching for what I thought might be a gun." for example. All this means is that somebody had a hand near or approaching their waist....you know, the neutral standing position. Plus the example of Joe Horn shows that he was found not guilty even though 2 people were murdered so this law is still obviously a problem. You cannot ignore the real world applications of a law for the theoretical ideal it could have been.
The law is not a problem at all, two criminals were legally stopped from committing theft of a property at night. In addition to that, both men were on HIS property when he shot, so he was defending himself, which he had full right to do. He had the right to use deadly force to prevent the robbery and he had the right to use deadly force to defend himself. The only issue here is people being ignorant to the law and the facts of the case.
This is a very good explanation of 'Stand Your Ground' in my opinion. It's refreshing to see someone explain the important details of this issue without inserting talking points or political mantras. I'm also someone that believes any restriction of 2A related items to law biding citizens is an infringement. So yea, make more content like this.
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. The Horn case had nothing to do with personal protection, it had everything to do with property protection. That's why he was justified.
If I remember correctly, in the Horn case in Texas, not only was he told not to go over but when he did there were 2 plain clothed police officers getting into position near the front of the home when he came out and shot the burglars. I think in the report they said they were waiting on uniformed backup officers to arrive.
John Oliver is the real life version of the "My Bike got stolen recently but I think whoever stole it was probably more happy to get it than I am sad to lose it, so whatever" lol
This channel is proof pirates can be reformed and adjust to society. After a life of crime on the open seas. Great video.
The pope was a pirate, coming and lorenzo de medici loaned a pirate money to run for pope he won and in turn created the medici power house.
Every story has pirates.
@@brittherself as they should. And every pirate has a story.
@jaydenrock Historically speaking, most pirates were military navy soldiers who found themselves with no way of making a living after the navy sort of disbanded. It's complicated.
@@yosefzanerva806 man, that’s actually sad. I suppose things haven’t changed much since that time. Instead of becoming a awesome pirate, they become homeless because of crippling injury or PTSD.
Avoiding politics was the old Tom. Pirate Tom needs to make sure the people know he is allowed to have cannons on his ship.
James Madison approves
@@benselectionforcasting4172 as does Thomas Jefferson
But what if pirate Tom is merely a trader? Misconstrued as a pirate, unfairly.
@@TheseUseless 'Twas merchants that first inquired about cannons on private ships. They got the okay, matey.
And machine guns in their homes.
Attorney Tom sees purple unicorn: pulls out AR 15
I was hoping Tom would say bang and we could see some additional acting.
Target acquired air strike inbound
Mmmmmm, Being the size of a horse, .223 probably isn't going to be efficient. It absolutely can, BUT using larger caliber rounds is a better guarantee that critical organs will be damaged to the point of instant failure thus, a more humane kill AND leaving the meat relatively unda..... Oh, we're talking about DEFENDING against the Unicorn, not hunting it, my bad my bad. XD
@@BrianZuma Target transmitted to naval support, 16 inch shells inbound
nah he just needs to give the unicorn the good old kentucky plug
Excellent analysis. This is exactly what I teach my conceal carry students here in MN.
A justifiable self defense claim requires 5 pillars:
1. Innocence
2. Imminence
3. Proportionality
4. Reasonableness
5. Avoidance (most of the time)
Know the law so you can win the fight after the fight, the legal one.
Any private citizen who chooses to engage in a gunfight when there is an option to do something else without endangering themselves or others is a f*cking moron in my book.
In this situation what if the second person drew a magnum and blasted him in the head while he was shooting the first person? It's Texas and they're criminals, so you would have to be crazy or stupid to assume they're unarmed.
One of the biggest takeaways when I took my concealed class, NEVER shoot someone in the back.
It's not an excellent analysis, Joe Horn was within his rights to stop the theft of a third person's property at night, which is why the grand jury through it out. It's a totally different section of law than what Tom showed, it's Sec 9.41 - 9.43. Joe is a hero.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 BLUF: You're right there is more than he talked about; however, I think it all hinges on whether deadly force was immediately necessary. With cops already on the way, I would argue it was not.
9.42 (which specifies whether or not deadly force is authorized) still requires deadly force to be IMMEDIATELY necessary first, which I think @AttorneyTom did talk about. 9.42 also specifies "he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means," which in this case, I think it is unreasonable to believe as cops were en route. The following quote though is an 'or' statement which I think leaves room for debate: "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury" but this would take us into the Deadly Force in Defense of Person which @AttorneyTom did discuss in detail here.
I think number 3 should be removed. Lol.
This is the best I have seen someone talk about a political figure while avoiding political commitment or bias. Great video.
Except he missed the point. Horn wasn't found innocent over Castle Doctrine. Texas has a law allowing for use of deadly force to protect property.
The "comedian" used what was NOT a stand your ground case as an example.
@@dr.pewpew2619 i didn't know that. Maybe time to move to Texas!
@@alech9418 everyone hates the arrogant Texan, until they realize we'll welcome you to the club. Grab your boots, and roll your shoulders back. 😉
@@dr.pewpew2619 Lol, already have boots. I am from Kentucky.
@@alech9418 good. Pick up a little arrogant on your way over and join the party!
Hey Tom, I’m actually really thankful that you took the time to go through that guide on the justification of lethal force. Even if it’s probably obvious to some people, or you think it might have pissed off other people, I know that watching this video was worth my time because I learned something new today.
Man you are really good at picking good topics for videos whether they come from you or the ones you select from your fans
Init
Your girlfriend is smart attacking you from the left, since you can't see her
Clever girl…
I love how he starts dropping so many more y'all's after he mentions that he is a texan lmao
I'm not a Texan, but I drop more ya'lls when I hear about Texas lol
@@Hi_Brien lmao
He's a cowboy pirate, the rarest and best kind.
@@Rex73777 what
I called the police when I was assaulted and was charged and fought a gun possession for 3 years. Ended up beating the charges at 2 prelims. Now, question for Tom, "why on earth would anyone feel safe calling the police?
I bought a pie and found a piece of plastic in it,
Now I spend my days warning people any which way I can about the dangers, evil and futility of buying pies.
Satan loves Pies
@@wessonliam7423 I do too. That's why pie loves me.
Mmmmmm pie.
@@wessonliam7423 i think you are missing thr point.actung as if disincentivizing dealing with problems yourself and actively punishing those people who do is a good idea is naive at best and negligent at worst. Not the least of which because law enforcement is not infallible or available or both in most situations. People who live outside of large cities generally don't have that kind of access to police. Basically punishing people who defend themselves is idiotic because it completely ignores very important factors in a defense scenario
@@wessonliam7423 A better approximation is finding a glass shard in a pie.
It doesn't really matter if you feel safe about it its the law right
I don't feel safe wearing a seatbelt but still should wear it
I seriously doubt the grand jury really considered this as "stand your ground." I would bet they just didn't want to send someone to prison for shooting burglars, even though Horn's life wasn't in danger.
Depends on the state tbh. A New York jury would. A Texas one wouldn’t,
I don’t think he should go to jail tbh, the guy Tom reacted to is a clown, people have pets, important documents, mementos, heirlooms, etc. worth way more than a PS5. I would feel way worse knowing my neighbor watched my house get robbed and done whatever to rather than committed an act of vigilantism to protect my livelihood or more.
@@NerdestGamaer the cops were already on their way. Vigilante justice is a slippery slope that gets messy quick. And either way, someone’s life (whether or not they’re a criminal) is worth more than a family heirloom. If you think otherwise, your priorities are seriously fucked up.
@@NerdestGamaer eh, I wouldn't want to take my chance with a jury, I know this sounds heartless but if I saw it, I'd just hide.
@@Razor-gx2dq. Nah, thats not heartless at all. Thats what one calls, cowardice.
I just finished my last 2nd year law exams 30 minutes ago.
Hope you did well :)
@@AsianBoi616 Thank you very much! I tried my best and gained valuable lifelong skills, that’s my objective for going to law school.
@@Videokers1234 Great to hear it. The learning is always the most important part imo
Most excellent!
Ouch that sucks. I'm a 2L too but we finished 2 weeks ago
Alternative title:
Solid snake takes down British man with stand your ground law
Big boss
This is good
I think that's not really the case. Tom was arguing from a theoretical perspective but John was arguing about the way it is actually applied. Just saying "the law says differently" doesn't help if the courts (for some reason or another) disagree.
So, Big Boss takes down Major Zero?
@@jacobhamilton2473 Boss... You killed a child.
The horn case isn't a case about self-defense in Texas you have a right to defend property including your neighbor's property
Thats what i was waiting for and looking in the comments for. Tom should have brought this up even with multiple mentions that only texas has this law. I think he didnt mention it because the way he said it is essentially how it works everywhere else and he was focusing on self defense.
Are you saying he was justified to defend his property with lethal force under said penal code, but had he been defending his life under stand your ground as described, he would not have been justified?
@@lukemacri6557 yes because he went over to his neighbors house/appartement to shoot.
wait is this actually true?
@@phantom3969 yes in TX you can defend your property and someone else's. Your stuff is literally little slices of your life.
I'm just now finding this video. As someone that is firm in my own belief about gun laws, I felt you did a very good job at not advocating for any particular stance. I felt it was a very good, objective take to have based on facts and reason. I'm sure it was very difficult putting this video out at the time that you did. Bravo!
Haven't watched Tom in a while- why does it look like he's going to build a haven for soldiers so that they wouldn't be abused by their governments?
An "exterior paradise" mayhaps?
He got in a fight with a bear, shot his gun, the bullet ricocheted onto his eyes.
Jokes aside:
He has a lazy eye, and a patch is part of the treatment to fix it.
Sounds like a haven.
Nevik Maybe the outer kind
There was a case near where I live where a gentleman came home from work and witnessed three men jump his neighbor. He went inside and called the police, but he also grabbed his AR-15 incase things escalated. And then the attackers started to stab his neighbor. When the guy who called the police saw the stabbing, he ran outside and ordered the attackers to stop; they didn't, and he shot two of them. If I recall, one of the attackers had started to confront him when he shot. I do not believe he was charged with a crime, which is good, but my state doesn't have stand your ground laws, so I wonder how close he came to a murder charge
So, part of the argument for stand your ground laws and against duty to retreat is that "duty to retreat" has a massive potential for abuse from an aggressive/unscrupulous prosecutor. Duty to retreat requires the ability to retreat, which can be more or less manufactured by a prosecutor if/when the jury isn't made aware of precisely why the ability to safely retreat wasn't there. In this case, it's fairly clear why retreat was not an option. Lethal force was being used on the neighbor, so lethal force became a proportionate threat.
Well, it's reasonable to use lethal force when someone is actively murdering someone. You retreating would not have stopped the crime, and i believe all states allow you to defend the life of someone else.
He would be protected under the Good Samaritan Act.
Imminent threat of bodily harm to another person who can’t retreat is probably sufficient to remove your duty to retreat.
He didn't come close, that is the grievous bodily harm part. You would be covered with good Samaritan laws in pretty much every state if it doesn't have a law that covers it.
You should talk more about stuff like this to give us some of that knowledge and background of the laws
Yes seriously!
I think it's good to know that the actual laws aren't as wild as they appear when hearing about them.
But it's equally worrying that they are not implemented as intended.
Thank you for sharing this video.
it should be obvious that the rigorous law making process wouldnt put texas back into the wild west, unfortunantly you have dickheads like john oliver intentionally lying about what the laws are to push his political narrative.
How the heck does a person open a door to a place that is not their home and _actually_ think it is their home?? Just by scent alone, I would be able to tell that I may have the wrong place.
it happend at my old place once most building where i use to live looked the same
a old lady moved next to us
one day she parked her car in front of our garage and openend our front door
( we sometimes open the front door a bit to give the house some fresh air )
she made it into the living room before realizing that she was in the wrong house.
it was a pretty weird event 😂
she was so red.
@@sownheard Oh, I feel bad for her.
So, ya, I can see how that would happen for an elderly person. I can even see how it would happen to a person who is either mentally handicapped, or a person who is taking drugs or something. It just makes me wonder and has me more skeptical when it happens to a person who is a trained officer and (I would think) would be more sensitive and aware of her surroundings than the average person, due to the training.
Anything can happen?? I suppose.. it just feels like a trained officer would be extra aware. 🤷♂️Maybe not? But I am for sure skeptical.
@@Inertia888 I'm an experienced cook. In the kitchen, I can move faster than your eyes can see, coordinate with 6 people around me non verbally And verbally at the same time, and by sense of smell alone I can tell what has or has not been added to a particular dish. But when I just finished a double and I'm off the clock? Man I have tried to make Kraft Dinner and forgot to add Water. When someone has a fast paced, high stress, immersive job, you cant expect them to be "on the clock" at all times
@@MarkusHound Ok, I can see that logic.
@@Inertia888 that being said, the proper response to walking into what you Think is your house and finding a Person, is look at Literally any other point of reference. Like "did they steal the TV? Wait a sec, I have an LG, that's a Sony" or "is there another one in the kitchen? Oh Wait, I don't own a Slapchop, let alone 6 of them in various sizes" or in the very least "If I shoot this fucker is he gonna land on something I give a shit about or make a massive mess? Hold up, I don't own a tank full of lobsters OR a Justin Bieber throw rug". Any of which might clue ya in to "this is Not my fucking house". But instead she just "So, I started Blasting".
I like how you started the opening and that you were upfront about having seen and recorded a video about this previously. Great work.
Edit: and thank you for correcting to manslaughter and not murder. That is my pet peeve.
It could be murder, if someone lured someone else into a situation specifically to make it look like the shooter was defending himself. I agree in most normal situations manslaughter would be the better charge if other conditions are not met for a good shooting.
I would say that this might be a good case for murder. That man didn't accidently kill someone. He stated his intent to shoot these guys. I would say this would be a good case of second degree murder.
@@HelloHuman1 If you're referring to the Joe Horn case then you're basing your opinion on feelings, not the law. The law states he had the right to use deadly force to defend a third person's property from theft.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 Could you specify what law you are referring to. Because that stituation neither "stand your ground" or the "castle doctrine" are applicable. I cannot find a texas law that allows to protect your neighbor's property with lethal force. Either way Jeo Horn had a duty to retreat. He was safe in his own home with the police on there way. Instead of being a responsible adult he decided to initiate his own form of vigilante justice. There are clear violations of the law that make his actions not an act of self-defense but an intentional killing of two people.
@@HelloHuman1 You are wrong in absolutely every regard. 1) It is included in the Texas Castle Doctrine under Sec 9.43. 2) Texas has no duty to retreat and 3) He broke no laws. Joe Horn is a hero who acted within the law and you're an emotion fool who doesn't understand the case or the law in Texas.
I'm glad you mentioned the duty to retreat in many states, i didn't know about that. 👍👍👍
It's VERY different for every state. Some states it's acceptable to shoot if someone is in your house, period, end of story. Some states you have a duty to retreat to the point of being expected to flea your own home rather than defend yourself.
Be careful, know your state and local laws.
I’m not specifically going to say how I know this, but if at all possible you should always try to escape and not confront even if you are legally allowed to use deadly force. This kind of thing can affect your children and spouse.
If I may also add court cases can absolutely cost you far more then you can easily manage to afford financially.
The above being said, (written) better to be judged by twelve then carried by six, (or worse one of you loved ones being carried).
I’m in a “Duty to Retreat” state (Massachusetts) but we do have Castle Doctrine. But in my state, unless you’re in your own home, you need to literally be backed into a corner to legally use lethal force. Massachusetts’ legislature absolutely despises the 2nd Amendment. As soon as I’m able, I’m leaving this craphole state.
@@mphdesigns19 good luck.
@@mphdesigns19 try living in Socialist Canada. 🤮
Thank you for this, Tom. I am a fellow Texan and a fan of both you and John Oliver, so I appreciate this analysis. I have my license to carry and, if you get a chance, I would love to hear your take on the laws around proper use of deadly force in self defense of oneself or one’s family in a situation outside the home. Specifically, I am interested in the workplace, while driving, in a place of worship, and other public settings. Thanks and appreciate your work here!
Wait your a fan of john Oliver but you carry a gun and go to church?
Each state is different, so he cant give you specific advise. His intro is pretty accurate as long as you dont live in a commie state.
If you live in a commie state you have a duty to retreat from your own home.
With regards to place of worship, given that most religions have doctrines against acts of violence, regardless of legality, I would find it morally unethical to bring a gun into a place of worship, however given recent acts of violence against churches, synagogues, and Mosques I can understand concerns over ones well being and the well being of your community, therefore I believe the question should concern the gathering of local unsanctioned militia to stand watch outside the place of worship.
@@madestmadhatter Most does not mean all, the Bible discusses self defense at several points, both old and new testament. So theirs the majority religion of the US off the books. Same applies for Judaism as the Old testament is their whole religious text.
@@TJ-bg4fwI... Don't think you understood what I said, to phrase it differently, don't invite violence into the church, stop it at the front door.
@@madestmadhatter You stated that most religions have doctrines against violence. I just pointed out the biggest and most common ones have no qualms about defending themselves.
This is why it pissed me off George Zimmerman got away with blatant murder using stand your ground law. He legit followed and kept following Trayvon then engaged him until he swung then shot him. How he got away with that is beyond me and dumb juries and bad lawyers because the other side said zero logical points to Zimmerman. I would have destroyed him in Court. What about Trayvons stand your ground law when he was stalked by Zimmerman? That's why he HIT Zimmerman because he stood his ground and followed what every parent tell their children stranger danger if someone you don't know tries anything get away or fight. Yet the law backed up his death.
I've found that any time you want completely incorrect things said in an angry British accent, John Oliver is the way to go.
I kinda want to understand what the heck a lazy eye is, but he won't take off his darn eyepatch
I'm still waiting on him to jazz up that plain Jane eye patch !
@@209_mentality4 lol agreed
The lazy eye is the one not under the patch. You wear a patch to make your lazy eye stronger by makin it your dominant eye. A lazy eye is usually just relaxed more than the other. Like one stoner eye
@@aydenh.6355 hope that helps
@@TheStuckNorris ah, thank you. You a doctor, my freind?
I commend you in making such a great response! The internet needs more good content like this. Just started watching you lately, I will now subscribe!
Yup, he thought he would piss everyone off but I feel like he did a great job. Nothing political, just facts and not demeaning to the party that was wrong about something. It's amazing how much people will listen when you are not arguing or being combative
Attorney Tom is awesome!!! Some of his stuff is down right hilarious, but it's ALWAYS informative and accurate. 😊
11:00 The fear of Tilda Swinton is an objectively reasonable fear. If you can see Tilda Swinton then it's already too late. You would be well within your rights to "stand your ground," but by that point it doesn't matter if you run or fight. Now it is Tilda Swinton who will decide your fate.
Jesus Christ that's ja -Tilda Swinton.
If my neighbor shot a guy breaking into my house, I'd probably buy him a beer.
I mean you will have to clean the up the blood and bullet holes but yeah me too lmao
just make sure you are careful about sending anyone to grab something from your house
I'd buy him a keg not just one
i would fucking move that's absolute idiotic the the punishment for theft is jail not death.
Not only is the neighborhood shit that neighbor is a maniac
whats to stops him from killing you or your family members if he gets mad one day.
at least if you live next to him i wont have to 😂
I don't think they allow you to supply beer to those in jail and/or prison.
You were so scared about posting this but I found this extremely informative and I agreed with everything you laid out, especially Ricky's sentiment. Thank you for the video.
I know that John Oliver exists. I just can't remember what he did, and when he did it, to have me know him.
Edit: The sitcom Community
He was a fake reporter for Jon Stewart.
@@Egilhelmson and now he's a left-wing pundit pretending to be a comedic news commentary show.
Im an avid gun lover, and i recently just went to get my concealed/open carry (oklahoma). and 100% am for people defending themselves (even if lethal force be necessary)
and even i would consider that murder and would have said as much...
Love your video's tom! Love hearing your stance on these things its always interesting
You don't need a permit for carrying a gun in Oklahoma
@@kgkbuugj didn't they change the law in 2019?
@@kgkbuugj Yes i know this. But the class goes over important laws and instances That common people might not know or realize. I honestly suggest taking the class so people can know the laws. Even if you dint get the permit.
Plus this permit allows me to carry in a few other states as well, texas and new mexico being a couple of them which i do have to travel to on occasions.
@@luauboi yeah November of 2019
@@whitetigerfire1 ok man. talking about Texas, it is also in the process of becoming constitutional carry as well!
Idaho's stand your ground law specifically and explicitly states "The victim does not need to ascertain wether or not the threat was real"
God bless Idaho.
@@hiphopguy0 Fuck Idaho.
@@jamesdragonforce smarter people than you created that law. Maybe you should do some research and figure out why the wording is as it is.
@@joshuakennedy8094 because they want vigilante justice
@@joshuakennedy8094 As someone living in Idaho, it has nothing to do with intelligence. If you've never thought there were dumb laws on the books, then I've gotta doubt your own intelligence.
In my small city, there was a famous case a few years ago in which a 17-year-old Turkish-born exchange student from Germany had stolen from a man's garage several times. The homeowner decided to stay up waiting for the kid and catch him in the act. When the kid showed up, the homeowner confronted him and ended up shooting him in the back as he ran away and killing him. Although my state has relatively strong stand your ground laws, the homeowner was convicted of murder.
I would have expected this to be about the protection of property law (Texas Penal Code 9.41 and 9.42), but looking into it, that only applies to your own property.
I really appreciate you keeping the content objective, and not inserting your political opinion into the discussion. You do a great job of this
Loved your analysis. Really made it clear when it was ok to use deadly force and will show this to all my dumba$$ friends who think Ohio’s new SYG act means they get to shoot someone if they feel threatened.
Even if it's a justified shooting it could cost upwards of $100,000 to prove that in a court of law.
@@mnhorsewoman boo hoo. I'm sure that really evens out all the murders that are brought out because of the laws
Yeah I live in Ohio and some idiots thought that too
@@Regu269 Way to interpret that comment in the least charitable way possible. He clearly mean "even if they were correct you still shouldn't do it"
@@mnhorsewoman Gotta get concealed carry insurance, if you're involved in a self defense shooting they'll provide attorneys and cover all court costs up to 1 million dollars.
If my neighbor was willing to risk his life to protect my property, why would I want to prosecute him?
Because next week he might shoot you for a parking violation.
I'd highly doubt it.
Because not many people would want to have a neighbour that values property over human life, even the life of a criminal.
So technically, if someone calls me and tells me they’re going to kill me tomorrow, I can set up the perfect ambush in my home?
Unless you live in a state that has duty to retreat and no castle doctrine. They'd probably charge you with premeditated murder. Pretty wild world we live in. Better have some lye and a shovel.
The Ricky Kidd case really showcases one of the things in our judicial system that is often improperly done, the prosecution. Not enough noise is made about prosecutorial misconduct/withholding exculpatory evidence, overcharging to get a plea deal, and prosecutors worrying more about their win/loss ratio rather than getting to the truth of the matter which is what the standard should be.
We really appreciate you tom. And a politically polarized world, very few people want to stop and look at facts and talk about basic law or basic truth regardless of their opinion on it. You are absolutely are such a breath of fresh air, and I am currently studying law and criminal Justice in school, so I really appreciate your videos.
Polarized country*. But yes you're absolutely right
You did a great job explaining a scenario where fear of grievous injury was subjectively reasonable but not objectively reasonable. Are there scenarios in which the fear is objectively reasonable but not subjectively reasonable? If so, what would be a good example?
Not an (US) lawyer, but possibly: a martial expert proficient in disarming attackers who shoots an attacker who wields a knife. Objectively, it is reasonable to fear serious bodily harm. Subjectively, the martial expert could have disarmed the attacker without killing him. But even then, it might be arguable that in the specific situation, it is too much too ask to risk any bodily harm because even if you are proficient in disarming attackers, there is still a small chance that it does not work. So, practically it may never occur that something objectively but not subjectively reasonable.
The door locking mechanism installed in all of the apartments that Botham lived in prevented the murderer from being able to open the front door without the proper key. She broke in, and killed him.
The front door as in lobby to the apartment buildings or the door leading into the individual apartment??
What door locking mechanism is that specifically? Just like a regular lock? And was the door actually locked?
@@eastcoastitalian8758 the front door to each apartment locked as soon as it was closed. This set up is in all hotels and all of the dormitories I've visited, so when that info was released her story made no physical sense. There are a lot of issues with this case, but the physical evidence points to her being a murderer with a badge.
@@Greenteabook not all apartments are like that. My dad's friend is a landlord and there is just regular locks. No front door to the complex that locks by itself either. They are really old apartments though.
I'm pretty sure the case was where the door was already opened when she got there.
I think the issue that John Oliver was pointing out is reality vs. law. YOUR analysis is correct, but look how soon after the law changed did someone take their ability to use lethal force so far from rationality, then be a 'hero' and not a killer.
The law gets in the way of what’s right and wrong. If someone tries to take your life, theirs is forfeit. As for theft, I didn’t value my property more than their life, they valued my property more than their life.
Horn was actually the castle doctrine, not stand your ground. You can apply castle doctrine to your neighbors there apparently.
You should watch this video more carefully, and read the cases that exist.
This case isn't applicable to castle doctrine either.
@@AcolyteOfLucifer some states carry the castle doctrine over to their neighbors' house
@@diasent Still doesn't make it not murder.
He was not in imminent danger.
His neighbour (who he knew wasn't home) was not in imminent danger.
The "duty to retreat" (meaning avoid or deescalate the conflict when possible) would have required Holm to stay inside the safety of his own home, which the operator clearly suggested to him no fewer than 14 separate times.
But he chose not to avoid conflict, and instead opted to go out and shoot two people in the back. No matter how you spin this, it's cold-blooded murder. People should definitely not be awarded medals for this kind of callous behaviour.
@@exarch404 justifiable homicide isn't murder. He didn't have the duty to retreat. Deescalation isn't a part of duty to retreat. All duty of retreat means is that the bad guys win. The innocent and the people who can't defend themselves must submit to the evils of our society. The life of the bad guy outweighs the life of the innocent. That is duty to retreat.
I love that u don't have agenda as LegalEagle but u trying to introduce the law to ppl. Thank you Tom!
You should do a punished snake cosplay (although wrong eye covered) from metal gear solid. Would be so funny abs awesome ahah!
“Punished” attorney Tom
The duty to retreat is such a stupid law. Someone has a gun pointed at you? You better run otherwise if he doesn't kill you the legal system will. The duty to retreat is used so often to punish innocent people while allowing criminals to do as they please. As someone who lives in a duty to retreat state, I've seen people I've known get thrown in jail for rightly defending their lives or their family's lives. It's a law to defend criminals, not victims.
Thank you for the analysis, Tom. I watched the segment when it hit RUclips, and I think it's really important that you broke down the case of the Texas guy and clarified for layman like me that that case basically was a mishandled murder case. Helps put the whole thing in perspective in a way the John Oliver bit failed to do.
Joe Horn did not commit murder. This was an opinion piece by Tom disguised as an objective fact.
Texas Penal code 9.42 is why Joe Horn did not commit murder. As he is a Texas defense lawyer, Im sure Tom is aware of and understands 9.42 but yet failed to mention it. That is a sleazy way of trying to pass his feelings off as more than that.
@@ETuss713 Spoken like a true murderer. I KNOW THAT'S YOU JOE!
@@ETuss713 I have been looking for this comment! You are right, according to 9.42 and 9.43 Joe Horn was within his rights, Tom was either lying here or totally ignorant to the law. But he was also ignorant to the facts, both men were on Joe's property when he shot them! Joe Didn't murder anyone, he's a hero who protected his neighbors property from thieves and acted fully within the law.
Idk how you'd make any enemies with this video, it's a totally objective and bipartisan look at the law with no insertion of political opinion!
The new enemies will be about a misrepresenting the case, and ignoring state law.
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. The Horn case had nothing to do with personal protection, it had everything to do with property protection. That's why he was justified.
@@dr.pewpew2619 It explicitly states it has to be your property. Apparently you didn't watch this video.
@@AcolyteOfLucifer Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
Read it again...actually let me help you. It does NOT say it has to be YOUR property.
@@AcolyteOfLucifer I just realized something. You're talking about castle doctrine, aren't you? I'm not. You can defend property in Texas, not just a home.
@@dr.pewpew2619 and there's no property worth killing someone over
Excellent video man, I'm glad you put so much work into making this not about your opinion. Respect
"No property is worth shooting someone over."
That dispatcher obviously doesn't have a pet.
I don’t think that was inclusive to pets
BTW, no property is worth a life. Seems like the Supreme Court disagrees with the fleeing felon rule. If you are suspected or actually stealing more than $2,500 worth of property in Texas, and you are clearly fleeing, is not lethal force permitted under the fleeing felon rule, including shooting in the back? That is why I don't think he was charged. And we need to quit charging people, mistakenly or not, trying to do the right thing. Had the home owners been there, what would happen? If you commit crimes, especially robbery or burglary...and especially someone's HOME, you are asking someone to kill you. Don't do it, and give the guy who did this at least the credit for stopping a crime. I don't want people to die, but I don't want crime, and if you make everyone who tries to stop crime (with a gun or not) a criminal, well what is the point? Look at SF now, you don't even have security guards trying to stop guys on bikes coming in with trash bags to steal. Is that what we want? Because if you make people afraid to protect themselves and their property, that is what we will end up with....Don Lemon joked about "crime on the rise", then had to backtrack when it was...yes, crime on the rise. Stop coddling criminals, you take someone elses stuff, you should be taking a chance on being shot and/or killed, then it will stop. I don't know the rates, but I suggest you compare New York or new Jersey or California with Texas as far as home burglaries and home invasions, what do you think is the difference. Fear of guys like this, if nothing else these two became martyrs in a real life PSA....sorry to be crass, but its true. So when they stop robbing houses, all the shooting of people in the back will be murder and we won't need to even discuss it. But no, lets start demonizing the guy who shot two burglars in the back.
I think that's the main issue. The law can say one thing...yet it's not in a vacuum. It's in a society that'll apply it in a different manner. So we have to ask questions on how that man got away with it...and if despite having a two limb test (subjective and objective) in practice the subjective test is given more weight. So basically it's okay to question the laws and the policies surrounding them especially if they're being misused.
Thank you.
You first initially stated how you did not want to engage the political subject matter. Many can relate to that, and in spite of that, you made great content.
I appreciate your objective report and expanding upon the facts.
I don't mean to play favorites here, comparing the to Internet lawyers, I so much prefer you. Legal Eagle Although very intelligent, his bias shine through. It's off putting to me and also you can clearly see him approach certain topics from an angle instead of being more open minded in an approach.
Attorney Tom is as Neutral as one can try to be.
Except in this one. This one was opinion. He neglected to mention 9.41 and 9.42 of the Texas penal code where Joe Horn was 100% justified to shoot. That is why he was not indicted.
I believe Tom is fully aware of them, but did not mention it to make his opinion sound like a fact. Pretty sleazy approach actually.
@@ETuss713 I do agree with your assessment that because of those 2 statutes he was free and clear; However, this video was about "stand your ground". Ignoring Texas statute 9.4 everything Tom said was correct, And I believe without that statute he would have been convicted. I do not believe John Oliver brought up that statute and Tom was just responding to John Oliver's points.
In short Oliver was being deceptive using a situation That completely did not ride on "stand your ground" To make this point And Tom responded Within the scope of his argument.
It may Have been smart for him to have referenced those statutes to explain why he wasn't convictedBut was not sleazy due to the fact that John also didn't reference that.
Additionally to give him the benefit of the doubt he is a catastrophic injury lawyer not a defense attorney.
@@Valkires1 -- "everything Tom said was correct" Except for the bit about the guy being guilty of murder. Because according to the law, he quite clearly wasn't. I don't know about you, but when a lawyer is trying to tell me about the law that's applicable to a situation, I expect them to a.) get it right, and b.) not be ignoring those parts of the law that are inconvenient to their argument.
@@ETuss713 Dear youtube lawyer. Please explain to me two things. One) it says your property, not the property of another as Joe Horn did. 2) in 9.42 in order to use deadly force all it says all three must apply. In sub point 2) it says it has to occur in the night time. This was in broad daylight, so the condition was not met. So how then does 9.42 apply to this case? Hint, it doesn't. I'll wait for your answer, which will never come. lol
You have nothing to worry about Tom. I believe you are right in what you have said in this video. Thank you for the education.
The eminent tickle threat was very funny lol
Maybe a stupid question but would there ever be a scenario where something was objectively reasonable but not subjectively reasonable? Like someone is killed and they were actually an imminent threat but the person that killed them couldn't have known? Or does objectively reasonable trump and act as both?
If someone broke into my house hand had the possibility of harming me or my family in any way I would happily go to jail to protect them.
No matter what
And if they genuinely wanted to harm your family, it wouldn't take long before people realized that they could take you out of the mix by getting you sent to jail first, then you wouldn't be there a few weeks later.
Abusing the system happens.
But you wouldn't... if you have castle doctrine or stand your ground
@@eschelar you.... you do realize that would require more than one person right? And one of them would need to be willing to die right? Are you daft?
how often does things in ace attorney happen in real life (like lawyer got an outdated autopsy report or asking stupid question to buy time)
pretty sure stuff like an outdated autopsy report would not be possiblle because everyone would be notified of a new autopsy well before the trial
I just started playing Ace Attorney! What a weird coincidence!
@@KasaiKouhai I'd hope so.
Duty 😂😂😂 also duty to retreat is stupid.......
Almost never as in real life, the trial doesn't start 1-2 days after the murder took place. So there is plenty of time to prepare, you know about all the evidence and the witnesses beforehand. The court case isn't an arena for the lawyers to figure out the case, but to present and argue their case to the judge or jury.
Turning your back on a deadly threat is inadvisable, which is why any duty to retreat wouldn't be very practical. If it doesn't apply to most self-defense situations, all it does is create more unnecessary legal perils for would be victims that successfully defend themselves.
If you can't turn your back, you can't draw your gun.
@@SimonBuchanNz you're under cover, they're shooting. Which is easier?
@@parjai97 staying behind cover rather than drawing attention to yourself. if you have a weapon wait until using it wouldn't endanger yourself or others.
@@SimonBuchanNz I bet disabled people with mobility issues could draw easier than they could flee.
@@zendell37 due to the limitations of disabilities disabled people actually do receive a greater scope for employing various self-defense measures, because their disability leaves them at a disadvantage, creating a disparity of force.
I want to live in a country where thieves forfeit their right to live when they rob someone.
At the Amber case, how did she manage to open the apartment? Did she not use a key to open the door and discovered the key did not fit the door? The real question is, how this murderous cop entered into this man's house without using a key? This is the key element of the story no one is asking for and that is being omitted.
If every time a law was misused, we took it off the books, we’d have no laws. Call it out when it happens.
You just gained a life-long subscriber..not because of your politics, but because of how you presented your legal argument
Even my concealed carry instructor disagreed with the horn case. He had no reason to do what he did in my opinion.
In Texas there's duty to defend property, even your neighbours. If you witness someone stealing you can kill them under certain circumstances.
@@parjai97 Yeah, but there's no reason to kill someone who wasn't threatening you. Your stuff is all just material anyway, you can replace it
@@the_rose_garden01 just saying what the legality is
@@parjai97 But if you had watched the video, you'd know that first and foremost, there needs to be an immediate threat of bodily harm before you even get to that point. Watching your neighbor get robbed is not immediate bodily harm. Therefor, it wasn't a legal thing to do
@@the_rose_garden01 for it to be considered stand your ground, it is not stand your ground, it's property defense
“Any of THAT…okay?” I love you man😂😂
For anyone interested in self/home defense philosophy, I recommend looking up Massad Ayoob, Mickey At CarryTrainer, the works of Jeff Cooper, John Lovell, Clint Smith, and many many more.
Man I freaking love Clint Smith! But he has excellent points that everyone should consider.
The main thing that sticks out to me, when I discuss this issue with my friends, is that it quickly becomes obvious that "justice" or "what is the right thing to do in this situation" are completely irrelevant to them; the most important thing to them is finding some way that they can justify killing someone. They simply want to kill someone and get away with it. The simple fact that they spend so much effort seeking out edge cases where they are justified in killing someone and absolutely no consideration for de-escalation or avoidance gives lie to their protests that they are "just good people trying to do the right thing."
you should hang out with not crazy people then and make sure to not compare apples to oranges
Thanks for the explanation of these self-defense laws! I lean towards being more sympathetic to people who use lethal force to defend themselves and their property from aggressors, but I agree that that case in Texas that was brought up goes way over the line into murder territory. And it's too bad there wasn't a murder conviction, because it just adds fuel to the fire of people who don't believe in the rights of people to defend themselves and others in earnest.
Not to me room that man has been treated as a hero on fox and by the nra. They make it so easy to hate them for siding with murderers
The literal difference between "stand your ground" and what existed before that is that before you had to deescalate if possible. And if you're not a sociopath or indeed a psychopath, you would deescalate anyway. So "stand your ground" only helps psychopaths, racists and the thin margins in between those two. If you can live with yourself after taking someone's life when you didn't have to (and that's the operative phrase that makes stand your ground so evil), you're quite simply a monster.
@@DrZaius3141 why should I be required to deescalate? Dont try and rob me and you will be fine
Well in Texas if a neighbor asks you to watch their property you have thr same legal rights in terms of defending it as your own property so look at it from the perspective of they were breaking into his house and you should have a better understanding of his legal right to use force. His story what they they charged him and then ran after realizing he had a gun not that they immediately ran away and as farms I remeber there was no surveillance and it would be very difficult to discover his story given he was the only witness
@@barneystinson2781 Congrats on being a psychopath, I guess.
I love your clear and repetitive emphasis on the two pieces of perceived threat. Made tons of sense.
In the State of Michigan break ins are weird I don't know the exact laws on when deadly force is reasonable in Michigan but in Michigan you better use deadly force cause if the robber or attempted murderer survives they can sue you for injury which is ridiculous.
You got a source on that? Sounds crazy as hell
@@IRepko I can try and find the story but a robber fell through the roof of this persons house and landed on a knife and hurt himself and sued and won 10k
I wonder if it's a real law if it's not enforced. Any coward who'd shoot a man in the back should be hung
I think it's important to mention that some states count damage or theft as property in place of bodily harm.
Which is based
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. The Horn case had nothing to do with personal protection, it had everything to do with property protection. That's why he was justified.
@@dr.pewpew2619 that’s fucked up.
This is why I switched from Legal Eagle to you! Because you stay out of the politics! Your the best keep it up
Can you talk about Firearms law in General. It can be extremely confusing for the uninitiated. Stocks vs. Braces for example.
Hardly anyone ever talks about, if you have a gun, you raise your chances of being shot.
If someone robs a house, and you have no gun to hurt them, they don't have to shoot you.
If they rob your house and you go for a gun, they must shoot you, to preserve their own safety.
Almost everyone acknowledges this when thinking about cops dealing with someone, If a person draws a gun, the cop most likely must shoot them.
but when it come to home defense thinking of it from the criminals point of view, nope, no that makes no sense. lol
Friends of mine don’t keep guns because they’re afraid of robberies, they’re afraid of bigots, Who would like nothing more then to see them dead. Remember it is a privileged position to live comfortably knowing no one wants to murder you.
My husband and I watched this John Oliver segment before I watched this video. My husband pointed out the inaccuracies in what John Oliver was claiming but didn't have the eloquence to help me understand. This is great to help elaborate, thanks!
I appreciate the realistic response to Oliver’s jokes
Got an interesting one for ya to cover. "Law Abiding Citizen" has many different court appearances and the main one i would like u to review is when he is in court in front of the judge
Actually, when Horn went outside, the burglars were right in his front yard.... So there is that
On God?
But still never tell a 911 operator that you intend to shoot someone. It makes it look pre meditated
@@cobra64th21 did you see the video where the New Black Panther Party racists showed up to his home?
9.42 of the Texas penal code justifies Joe Horns actions. It is why there was no indictment.
Purple unicorns, pink elephants, purple teakettles lol that unicorn did appear to like your shoulder and neck quite alot 🤣🤣
Some states also have laws involving protection of others and if you believe that another person's life/property is in danger
Like in Arkansas where I live you have the right to use lethal force to stop ANY violent felony.
Jury has the ability to say, no it wasnt murder, the burglers decided other peoples stuff was worth more than their life.
Its called jury nullification.
Joe Horn is a Texan hero. Was amazing when the neighbors came together to chase out the racist New Black Panther Party scum that tried to "protest" him because of course the only real reason he shot the criminals was because they were black... NBPP is no better than the KKK.
Joe Horn is a murderer
Appreciate this video. Clears up some things really well. I also like Oliver, but it's never a bad thing to hold people accountable.
Based on some of the comments I think it's important to remind everyone of the vast differences in these laws from state to state. Even if those laws have similar names or origins. Keep up the good work
Yes, especially since in Texas, where both Joe Horn and Tom are, it's legal to to use deadly force defend a third person's property from theft at night. So he was clearly wrong, even though he's in Houston, where the case happened.
You sure didn't piss me off, Solidus. Good work on your mission to disabuse individuals of their misconceptions on laws and what Duty to Retreat truly means. You are a true ally to the Sons of Liberty.
To me it's another one of these laws that may look fine on paper, but once it got to being enforced it was pretty clear how things were going to go, law enforcement prosecutors and juries are far more likely to find some people to be objectively dangerous than others, especially with the way jury selection is carried out
The missaplications of the law are problematic, but also easily foreseen and likely an intended feature
I personally couldn't send someone to prison for shooting a burglar.
I don’t know. If the burglar was shot lying on the ground in the back, I think it would be pretty reasonable to send the shooter to prison. But kicking down someone’s bedroom door is a big difference from surrendering.
@@graydonsharp5165 The second you break into someone's home, you forfeit your rights to your life until you are long gone from that home. So no, even if shot in the back, I still wouldn't send the person to prison.
The day I break into someone else's home is the day accept I may be killed because of the harmful actions I putting on other people.
I've seen numerous news stories where they mention how the 911 Call center operator tells the person on the phone not to do something and it's usually made into a big deal that the person didn't follow what they were being told. What authority does a 911 operator have over the people that call in?
it's literally their job to tell you what to do numbnuts
@@Regu269 it's thier job to connect and send the right authorities and give those authorities the right information.
@@Regu269
They do not. They can only advise.
@@MetalGearSEAL4 I know that Georgia has a catch-all law that makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to follow an official order from any government official (not just police).
@@evannibbe9375 a government employee janitor some place is laughing evilly.
In Texas though the law gives all rights to defending your own and your neighbors property even with lethal force.
To be fair, Texas Penal §9.41 does not immediately appear to extend defense of property beyond your own (ie to your neighbors), however, “in lawful possession” would appear to allow the defense of a neighbors property if that neighbor agrees to allow you to defend it when they are away. Possession does not imply ownership.
Long story short, Texas only allows deadly force to protect a neighbors property, if that neighbor ALLOWS it.
If neighbor had come back and said, “no way I did not allow that” then Horn might have been charged.
Just an update, Ohio passed a stand-your-ground law a few months back and has taken effect.
I'm very late to this, but the algorithm told me to watch some older stuff so here I am.
Spent the whole video waiting for the controversial take. I can't understand how *anyone* could pass on pursuing murder charges against this man.
And I also agree with John Oliver: I would be putting real thought into whether moving was financially feasible. This is a dangerous neighbor to have.
Problem with all of this: You cannot know if something was objectively reasonable after the attacker is dead. " They were reaching for what I thought might be a gun." for example. All this means is that somebody had a hand near or approaching their waist....you know, the neutral standing position. Plus the example of Joe Horn shows that he was found not guilty even though 2 people were murdered so this law is still obviously a problem. You cannot ignore the real world applications of a law for the theoretical ideal it could have been.
The law is not a problem at all, two criminals were legally stopped from committing theft of a property at night. In addition to that, both men were on HIS property when he shot, so he was defending himself, which he had full right to do. He had the right to use deadly force to prevent the robbery and he had the right to use deadly force to defend himself. The only issue here is people being ignorant to the law and the facts of the case.
This is a very good explanation of 'Stand Your Ground' in my opinion. It's refreshing to see someone explain the important details of this issue without inserting talking points or political mantras. I'm also someone that believes any restriction of 2A related items to law biding citizens is an infringement. So yea, make more content like this.
Its frustrating that you even have to explain all of this. It's so hard for me to understand how everything you said here isn't common sense.
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. The Horn case had nothing to do with personal protection, it had everything to do with property protection. That's why he was justified.
You assume a lot from people if you expect this to be common sense
If I remember correctly, in the Horn case in Texas, not only was he told not to go over but when he did there were 2 plain clothed police officers getting into position near the front of the home when he came out and shot the burglars. I think in the report they said they were waiting on uniformed backup officers to arrive.
John Oliver is the real life version of the "My Bike got stolen recently but I think whoever stole it was probably more happy to get it than I am sad to lose it, so whatever" lol