Re: The Saga Of Joe Horn: Texas Man Cleared In Shotgun Shootings

On Jul 9, 4:01 pm, Tiglath <te...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 4:55 pm, John Mianowski <spamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 2:58 pm, Tiglath <te...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 3:36 pm, John Mianowski <spamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 2:19 pm, Tiglath <te...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder.
>
> > > > > If Texas law allows to take life to defend property as I believe
it
> > > > > does, then Texas need be put on trial.
>
> > > > Having personally sat on the grand jury & heard all of the
evidence,
> > > > you're in a position to make that determination, no doubt.
>
> > > The evidence is OUT in case you didn't notice.
>
> > > They were not attacking him.
>
> > > Horn shot them BOTH in the back, after telling 911 he was going to
> > > kill them.
>
> > > If you find any of this exculpatory or other piece that is show it.
>
> > Not up to me; I'm not the one making the claim.
>
> > It's a basic principle of law that, whomever makes the claim must
> > provide the evidence to sup****t it.  The one who claims that an act
> > was murder is the one who must furnish evidence of such claim.  That's
> > how it works in court, at least in TX.
>
> The claim is made, read it again.  I ask again.  What part of the
> evidence I base my claim on you find insufficient or exculpatory?

The claim was:

> > > > > The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder.

Now it just needs sup****ting evidence.  For example, what you saw &
heard in that grand jury room.

JM