Rochester, NY man charged with murder, claims self defense

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

The failure of the grand jury to indict him doesn't mean he's not guilty. Don't go about thinking that conviction or acquittal by a jury, grand or otherwise, is a true indication of guilt or innocence.

We may think he's morally culpable, and we may not approve of the grand jury's decision, but under the law, it's the only indication we have. Given that someone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the failure of a grand jury to indict someone means that legally, he is innocent.

Whether it's still possible for a second grand jury to indict is another question. I'm not positive, offhand, as to whether or not this would count as double jeopardy, although I don't think it would.

[Brian Pfleuger]

...the failure of a grand jury to indict someone means that legally, he is innocent.

I agree. Technically, legally, he is currently "innocent".

A quick review of Texas law makes it fairly clear, IMO, that his innocence is in the technical legal sense only.


Very much like I expect the situation in the OP to end up the opposite.

Personally, I think he is morally justified in his actions but I believe that legally he's SOL.

I think, logically he shouldn't have done what he did.

I think, morally, he was justified, so long as he didn't go out there with the INTENT of shooting that kid. Morally speaking I have no problem with him confronting the kids and bringing a gun to protect himself. Stupid? Yes. Moral? Yes.

Legally, he's up the creek without a paddle, I think.

[Hondo11]

That's not necessarily true. Many people believe that Horn was not indicted due to the cult-like celebrity status he garnered after the shooting. The failure of the grand jury to indict him doesn't mean he's not guilty. Don't go about thinking that conviction or acquittal by a jury, grand or otherwise, is a true indication of guilt or innocence.

People believe lots of things. The moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, etc, etc.

The fact is that Horn was not indicted because he didn't break Texas law as it is written. The threshold for a Grand Jury indictment is VERY low. All they have to do is think that an offense was committed, then they send it to trial to find out. The defense does not present to the Grand Jury, so it's the prosecutions case to make. They did not even think there was enough to go to trial to find out if an offense was committed, so they returned a no-bill. Simple as that.

I agree. Technically, legally, he is currently "innocent".

A quick review of Texas law makes it fairly clear, IMO, that his innocence is in the technical legal sense only.

Why put "innocent" in quotes as if to imply that he's really not? A quick review of Texas makes it fairly clear that he did not commit a criminal offense. Saying that he's innocent because of a technicality implies that he was guilty, but got off due to some trivial detail. He didn't "get away with" anything. His actions did not constitute an offense, plain and simple.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Why put "innocent" in quotes as if to imply that he's really not? A quick review of Texas makes it fairly clear that he did not commit a criminal offense.

Because I believe he's NOT innocent in a moral sense. You believe he is. Why should either of us be concerned about the others opinion?


Just like I feel that the guy in Rochester is morally innocent but doomed under NY law.

[pax]

And at this point, we've gotten far afield from the original topic, which was the tactics used by Roderick Scott in Rochester, NY. While what Joe Horn did in Texas is really interesting, it has almost no bearing on the legal or tactical situation in New York.

With that in mind, I'm going to close this one. I think we've gotten as much tactical meat out of it as we can. If you guys want to keep up the discussion, feel free to start up again down in Law & Civil Rights.

pax