Joe Horn has yet to be charged in the killings of 2 accused of burglarizing his neighbor's home

Nov. 26, 2007, 10:26PM

Lawyer: Pasadena man shot suspects out of fear
Joe Horn has yet to be charged in the killings of 2 accused of burglarizing his neighbor's home

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON
Associated Press

HOUSTON — A man who told police he planned to kill two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house shot them only when they came on his property and he felt threatened, his attorney said on Monday.

Tom Lambright, who represents Joe Horn of Pasadena, said his client was just going to take a look around when he went outside after hearing glass break at his neighbor's house. He had seen Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, crawling into and then out of a window, Lambright said.

Horn went outside, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, to see where the suspects were heading when he came face-to-face with them in Horn's front yard, Lambright said.

Horn is 61 and heavyset. The suspected burglars were young and strong enough to beat him to death with their bare hands, Lambright said. So when one or both of them "made lunging movements," Horn fired, Lambright said. "He's trying to protect his own life," Lambright said. "He's scared."

Pasadena police were still compiling their report on the shooting and planned to present the case to Harris County prosecutors within the next two weeks, police spokesman Vance Mitchell said on Monday. From there it is expected to be presented to a grand jury. In the meantime, Horn remains uncharged.

...more
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5330708.html

------------------------

"Tom Lambright, who represents Joe Horn of Pasadena, said his client was just going to take a look around when he went outside after hearing glass break at his neighbor's house."

Yeah right, he was going to take a look around guns ablazing!

The lawyer's comments are just soft-soap to try and somehow wriggle the man's conduct within the requirements of the law. But they will not fit, no matter how soaped and spun they may be.

If he was just going to take a look around, he should have left his gun in the house and/or peeked out the front window!

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You wanna make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm gonna kill 'em."

Have you ever heard any 911 tapes? You should listen and be properly appalled.

Many nights on the 'graveyard shift' I was the ONLY connection between phone calls into the PD and the cars on duty.

(That's because two of us were on duty, it was common for one of us to go out 'riding' with one of the patrol officers.)

This was many years ago when 'us guys' knew how to deal with emergencies...unlike a lot of the crap I hear lately where the phone person is a mostly untrained asshole who's more interested in questioning the caller than getting him/her some help.

They ARE training professionals.

Your reference is years old, but no longer valid.

I'm sure there still are very small towns who have minimum-wage dispatchers, but most towns of any size now have E-911 call centers for all emergency service personnel and those people are trained specifically for the duty at hand - and they make considerably more than minimum wage.

It was clear that Horn wanted to kill them (by his own words), and he did.

First of all, most 911 operators are fairly well paid. I've looked into doing dispatch before, and frankly starting pay was better than most teaching positions. Second, in some places dispatchers are actually members of the police dept. Even if they aren't, they get both initial training and ongoing training in the law, how to handle various situations, new equipment, etc. etc. Dispatchers have to wear many hats, including emergency suicide counselor, friend, cop, etc. etc.

Your characterization is a low blow and uncalled for, but from you that is not surprising.

I was a 911 operator, after being a Air Traffic Controller for the USAF. I was civil service and made good pay and had good training. 911 operator was correct here.

Because if they did then they pretty much said, "If you go outside you need to shoot first before you are shot."

So he should shoot the cops first? That definitely won't work as a self-defense theory.

then let them have it...self defense. :evilgrin:

Otherwise, he could have fired off a couple warning rounds to get their full undivided attention and told them to leave the neighbors house alone too.

For that he deserves some credit, says I.

What fits in the law will obtain regardless of your clever interpretations, sir.

:eyes:

nt

Sorry. I know you don't like to hear that but it's how I see it.

please :)

yes INDEED

as I have, and yes I am a guy who got back to my apt, didn't lock the door, and was confronted by 2 burglars after a short shower. You can be all safe and secure when zilch has happened to you, but I want this guy as my neighbor rather than you. You accuse KarlS... of being heartless. I suggest that you don't live in the real world. When people attack your neighborhood (think neighborhood watch), you defend your neighborhood. He wasn't out to kill, he was out to protect his neighborhood. I suppose that if they would have been possibly raping a neighbor, he also should have hidden???

Horn wasn't taking a shower, and the two burglars didn't break into his home. Rather, they broke into his neighbor's home, which was unoccupied at the time, took some things, and were coming out. Horn was on the phone with the cops, who were close by. Horn could have fulfilled his civic duty simply by being a good witness. Instead he decided to be judge, jury and executioner. He told the cop he was going to kill these two, and he went outside and did so. That my friend is premeditated, cold blooded murder. He wasn't defending his neighborhood when he pulled the trigger, he was committing murder, which is what he stated he wanted to do.

Oh, and the neighborhood that Horn lives in isn't some urban hellhole, it is your basic suburbia, full of the paranoid and trigger happy. I've lived in the inner city, without a gun, got to know my neighbors, and even stopped crimes. Guess what, I didn't have a gun at the time, didn't need one. If you ever move in to my neighborhood, please don't kill somebody because they're taking my stuff, thank you.

So stop playing around with could be's and maybe's and deal with the reality of the situation. The reality of the matter is that Horn planned to murder these two, said so to a cop, and then proceeded to go out and do just that. He should be charged with murder.

All he did was stay home, protect his neighborhood, and he called 911!!

He didn't plan a murder. He just got pissed that his neighborhood was being attacked! With your logic, I assume that you agree with Reagan that rape victims should sit back and enjoy it.

Sure he planned a murder. In fact he told the 911 operator that he was going to go kill these two repeatedly. In any other situation that would be known as premeditation, murder in the first degree. Legally it doesn't matter when you make the decision, just that you actually made it.

Sorry, but you can't be Superman, you can't hand out justice at the barrel of a gun claiming that you're "protecting the neighborhood." That's known as vigilante justice, and it is a crime in this country.

He should have stuck with calling 911. Instead, as he told the 911 operator, he went out to kill somebody. Murder, stone cold murder.

What the hell does the number of posts have to do with the argument?

1 intelligent post > 1000+ stupid posts.

Looks to me like paddlefish is a gun forum troll, not a particularly good one, but a troll none the less!

By your logic, you deserved to be robbed by two burglars since you didn't lock your door. And what does raping a neighbor have to do with this case?

A common feature of those who want to eliminate "scum."

On the basis of cold reading of the words of the law, and his own actions in the incident.

I also happen to think that he might have broken a law on the way... best to let a jury of his peers decide.

Horn committed cold blooded murder. He didn't need to go outside, the cops were close and were going to be there within a minute or so. All Horn had to do be a good witness. Instead, he took the law into his own hands, got his gun, and acted as judge, jury and executioner. All for material stuff. He wasn't defending lives, he wasn't rescuing a person, he shot two people over stuff.

He's a cold blooded murderer, and while I doubt that he gets charged as such, since this is in the state of Texas, I sincerely hope that those two families sue Horn for everything he's got.

But I suspect that you don't understand such legal niceties eh Javert.

No charges filed by the state equals no right to sue by the bad guys family. This is how it should be.

The two guys running away were no threat, Horn wasn't acting in self defense. He stated his purpose("I'm gonna kill someone") clearly and repeatedly to the 911 dispatch, and then he deliberately marched out and cold bloodedly killed two people. That is murder, and if the state doesn't file charges, the families have a right to both know why, and to sue the state on failure to carry out justice.

It is both idiotic and dangerous to allow a biased third party to dictate to the state who will be charged with a crime and what charge to file.

It would be a judge and/or a jury. Oh, and upon further research, the families certainly can sue Mr. Horn, even though charges weren't filed. It happens all the time, though granted, it sometimes makes the lawsuit more difficult to win.

Then the shooter cannot be sued by the family of the bad guys. That's the whole idea behind a stand your ground law. Not all states have this law yet, but those who do, the shooter is protected, of no charged are brought.

that would be the two husbands/fathers shot to death in broad daylight, right?

The two who broke into someone's home. The two that had no reguard for other peoples property.

Yep! We're talking about the same two people.

Or what's a criminal justice system for?

on those people the state determines broke a law.

Joe Horn does not equal The State.

... that calls 911 first.
... who talks with the 911 operator for a significant period waiting for the cops.
... who only kills felons
... in groups
... while committing another crime.
... who approach to within 15 feet of him.
... in his front yard.
... who admits what happened to the 911 operator while urging police to get there right away.

Stone cold. Yup.

and who is this person to be the judge?

I seriously hope that you don't find yourself on very many juries with that attitude.

I've had stuff stolen from me before. And sometimes it has really disturbed me. But I don't want anyone getting killed over my stuff. I just want my stuff back - and for the thieves to do time.

Now, if someone broke into our home and I had a firearm handy, I'd be forced to do what must be done to protect my family and myself. I hope I never have to be in that situation, but I'm not going to seek it out, either.

It could be argued that Horn "sought it out." He foiled a robbery, yes, but the plainclothes officers looked like they were about to do that anyway, from what I gathered from the 911 tape.

He said three or four times, while inside his house and well-protected (even holding a shotgun), that he was going to kill them. Then he did it.

Even DESPITE the ridiculous "castle" statute, there is no defense here.

If this guy is an old white dude and they have him stumble into court with a cane pretending to be hard of hearing and frail, they will no bill him.
Then he will buy another shot gun next week and do it again.

They really need to convict him of a felony and at least put him on probation so he can not buy anymore guns. He is a menace to the world as long as he has a weapon, but I predict he will be hunting minorities some more now that it has brought him so much attention. And the next one may be a meter reader or someone repossessing a neighbor's TV, in which case he will go to jail.

but because everyone with a taste of bloodlust will start doing it.

They'll say the same thing he did- "The law's're changed!"

I damn sure will duplicate his most excellent feat if possible.

I'm sorry, I don't get this: why do some DUers support the rights of thieves/burglars more than those of regular people who just want to be left alone? Can you explain that?

LOL....you really think that's what happened, here? You think this guy was being threatened somehow?

Dude called the cops, then LEFT THE SAFETY OF HIS HOUSE- yes, putting himself in more danger, not less- with a shotgun with the intent to intercept these guys and KILL them. Instead of letting the cops get them with the information he had already given, he went out of his way to needlessly take the lives of two people. Against all of the advice of the conscience on the other end of the phone.

This man broke the law, even the rather loose law presently in force in Texas: he formed a fixed determination to kill before encountering the two men and executed that determination. It was wrong of him to do so.

the penalty for burglary should be death, and without jurisprudence?

here... Does it all the time.

It's that Old West mentality, y'know. But it works only in places like Tombstone.

You are authorized to use force or deadly force to protect a third party's property to the extent that you would employ force or deadly force in defending your own property - that is deadly force is appropriate to the extent that you life is is threathened. So, defense of property - the burgulary - is not cause for the "death penalty". Despite the 911 transcripts and Horn leaving the house, if they entered his property and appeared threatening, he was justified in using deadly force. Details are still sketchy, but it appears they approached him and he responded. While the police were on the way, the burgulars were leaving with the goods - until they encountered Horn. The grand jury decision looks like a 50/50 chance for a no bill. I think the wife will maybe able to sue Horn.

why do some DUers seem to think some criminals are unworthy of 5th amendment protections.

LOL. Can you get any more sad in your excuses for murder?

It's truely a :wtf: thing. The poor, mistreated, it's all society's fault he's the way he is gets more compassion that his victim.

Some people are thugs because they want to be thugs.

that you would arm yourself with a shotgun, step outside the safety of your home, shoot and ask questions later. Did you listen to the 9-11 tape? This guy was a vigilante who waited for a chance to take a life over property. Dude you are heartless and yes I have been a victim of burglary many times but never have I wished a death sentence on the thieves.
patty lame's wife

Fuck a bunch of bleeding-heart support for fucking criminals.

If you could give a shit about "criminals", then let's just declare open season on drunk drivers, pot smokers, illegal aliens, speeders, poeple who drive without insurance and cable TV pirates.. I mean fuck it.. who gives a shit about the rule of law, or the 5th amendment, or justice?
I've got a better idea.. fuck a bunch of gun-happy, Clint Eastwood wannabe old curmudgeons who think the Bill of Rights is applicable to only good, law-abiding citizens.

I don't agree with any of the offenses that you refer to, but I don't know anyone who would agree with an individuals right to apply lethal force in stopping them. Most of us, armed home owners or unarmed, believe in the rule of law. The 5th amnedment and the other BOR amendments prohibitions/protections apply to the government by the way.

"The 5th amnedment and the other BOR amendments prohibitions/protections apply to the government by the way."

So does this mean that I'm free to violate my neighbors' righs at will? I'll have to remember that if the police ever come over because my music's too loud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights This site is the Wiki entry on the Bill of Reights. I think it is written in simple enough language for even you to understand. If ou have trouble ask a friend.

"So does this mean that I'm free to violate my neighbors' righs at will? I'll have to remember that if the police ever come over because my music's too loud"

Please do so and remember to act as your own lawyer. I am sure that the police - the government, in case you can't figure that out - will show you how the 5th amendment works. Even with a lenient judge you should get some time and we won't be bothered by you.

:rofl:

OK.. I'll play along then..



By your idiotic logic, only the government can be held accountable for depriving people of life, liberty or property.
And, if you're going to attempt to impugn someone's language comprehension, you might want to actually provide proof that you yourself have exemplary language skills.. "Rights", not "Reights".

No I don't think it is a valid source for an academic paper. I chose it because it is simple and I thought you would be able to find it. My Con Law books unfortunately all at the Summer house.

Apparently Wiki was too difficult for you because you still don't understand the amendment. Perhaps my typo so gleefully filled you mind that there wasn't room for thought. The Government can't put you in jail or take your property without due process.

Probably a spelling or grammar error in here. I'm not worried about it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Taking or destroying your property? If so, then you'd better start capping those uninsured drivers who might very well crash into your car. People who are a threat to your safety? better go after them drunks then, since they could possibly kill you in a horrific wreck.

Mr. Horn did not want to be left alone.

Y'think maybe...

:shrug:








Nah, probably not. x(

We have two gun happy, war mongers in the WH.

The cops would have shot him on the spot.

he would have been scrutinized a HELL of a lot more

If Horn was black and the theives were white, this would be an entirely different ballgame.

of the burglars.

50. Actually, I said it because the cops would have mistakenly taken him for one
of the burglars.

21. Good thing, Horn wasn't black.
The cops would have shot him on the spot

:(

I feel the need to take a shower.

What kind of human being would say this guy did the right thing?

:scared:

I disagree. He didn't go out to scare. He went out to kill. And burglary does not carry the death penalty as far as I know. What ever happen to due process.

I have no soft spot in my heart of hearts for a thief no matter the circumstances.

but would support a death sentences for stolen property.
patty lame's wife:-(

We've discussed this before, but the laws in Texas may provide for this action.

I can see why some people would be upset with Horn and call him a murderer (based on the dispatcher recording), but Texas law may protect him from prosecution.

I can't help but think that if Horn really just wanted to kill someone, then he wouldn't have called the police or waited so long on the phone for the police to arrive before stopping the burglars himself.

He couldn't stay in his house and leave it at that. He just had to go outside and start shooting because he supposedly feared for his life. That's like a passerby entering a bank knowingly being robbed and he gets shot in the process when he would have been better off staying outside away from the crime.

You say, "He couldn't stay in his house and leave it at that.".

Otherwise, I think you are correct. He couldn't stand letting 2 burglars fleeing from the scene of the crime and he was willing to use lethal force to stop them, as, arguably, Texas law allows. Some people would rather fight crime than let ostensible felonious criminals "get away". Others would prefer to stay less involved. I can understand both positions.

Your analogy doesn't make a bit sense of to me.

What, exactly?

:shrug:

n/t

It's a waste of time, good luck getting a jury to convict someone for protecting his neighbors house.

He wasn't protecting his neighbors house when he pulled the trigger, he was protecting himself.

Hmmmmm?

Nothing I've read indicated they were on Mr. Horn's property

I'll wait for the official investigation to determine if they were on his property. Like, for example, where were the bodies found....on his property? Because it would be a hell of a feat for someone shot to death to move themselves, post-mortem, out into the street.

But if it is found that his lawyer is telling the truth, and that the robbers were shot in his front yard, it sure shoots the hell out of (no pun intended) the prevailing DU view of Horn as stone-cold killer, huh?

It seems unlikely that Horn's lawyer would make up such an easily verifiable detail.

Horn initiated this confrontation...he was the aggressor. He trained his shotgun on two unarmed men and then shot them in cold blood. A jury should laugh his claim of "self-defense" out of court. I'm not surprised he's claiming they were on his property...that's the last shred he cling to for a defense. It will be interesting to see where the bodies were found and, after the forensic investigation, how and where they were shot. Even if it's proven that the victims were physically on Horn's property, the prosecution has more than enough evidence to portray Horn as a bloodthirsty, pre-meditating killer, not a scared homeowner defending his property.

and pointed out the fact to the dispatcher. It only became self-defense because he put himself in harms way. He went out with the intent of using that gun, not to use it as a deterrent. You don't cock the gun if you have no plans of using it.

Of course, he'd have to be charged first. Hopefully he will.

:popcorn: :hi:

Given that he called the cops, waited on the phone for a significant period of time, then shot the two previously-convicted felons (who were in the process of a second felony) within a few feet of his front door, there is ample evidence that his version of events (self defense) is plausible.

If the prosecutor were so gung-ho as to attempt to prosecute him, he should not select me for his jury.

Beautiful.

Didn't Orwell write about your philosophy?

His version of events is that he shot only after being threatened. The fact that the felons had approached to within 15 feet of him and his front porch supports this contention. Granted, there's a strong case to be made that he was being provocative, but I find it unlikely that a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime.

A cold blooded killer doesn't call the cops first.

And then goes outside actively looking to shoot people. Instead of being a good witness, with cops on the way, he goes out and actively seeks a confrontation that would, in his view, justify his killing two people and fulfilling his stated desire.

That's not self defense, that's premeditated murder.

See what they say. Somehow I doubt that you're right, most people have an aversion to killing people if they don't have to, and thus don't make those sorts of threats.

It's impossible to verify, so that's why he's throwing it out there. It's an asinine point.

But I do have several family members that I can question about his supposition, and they will all get a good laugh and think that it's an assinine statement.

... by pointing out that they're armed and "to hurry up before something bad happens".

Exactly as Mr Horn did.

I read just fine...you are free to swallow his "version" of events, but the facts are as follows:

1) he was told by the police to not go outside
2) the unarmed victims were not on his property
3) it was 2 pm in the day, not nighttime

All aspects of Horn not following the rule of law. Hope a jury agrees.

1) are we now willfully disobeying commands from 911 dispatchers?
2) Horn was told to stay inside, but said he couldn't....or wouldn't?
3) why did Horn make sure the 911 dispatcher could hear him load his shotgun?
4) your transcript indicates Horn said "Move" which would indicate that he was giving orders to the victims while training a shotgun on them. Is that the stance of a "threatened" man?
5) Horn claims he "had no choice" when he called 911....didn't he have a choice when the 1st 911 dispatcher told him to stay inside?
6) Horn is described as "heavyset" and "middle-aged" and "would have been no match in a physical confrontation" with the two victims...why then did he go outside and enter into a confrontation with the two victims?
7) "One or both of them made lunging movements"? So which is it....one or both?

a) 911 dispatchers don't give commands. That's the job of police.
b) wouldn't, obviously.
c) a phone can pick up a great deal, but your point is...?
d) It isn't my transcript, it's from the AP. And it indicates that he said "Move, you're dead." As in, "move and I'll shoot."
e) yes, watching burglars rob the neighbors through the blinds Alice Kravitz-style was an option. Instead, Horn went outside onto his porch with a weapon. The robbers were shot on Horn's yard at a range of less than 15 feet. It is reasonable to suggest that a person caught committing a crime would flee - unless they had violent intent.
f) Clearly, a fat old man who is not in condition to physically confront the two, um... victims... is a stone cold killer. Again, you're trying to make a point?
g) I don't know. I wasn't there. It's up to you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime you are accusing him of. It's not up to me to prove he's innocent.

And since 911 dispatchers are in contact with the police while taking the call, often times they are directly relaying the police officers' instructions.

a) 911 dispatchers are not police officers, but they are in most cases relaying the instructions of the police in situations like this
b) so we agree that Horn was not compelled to go outside...it was his free choice of his own will
c) The transcript indicates he asked the dispatcher if she heard him load his shotgun....why?
d) I see now...."Move (and) you're dead", not "Move (or) you're dead". Still, isn't this a curious thing for someone who is in fear of his life to say? Why would you say "move and you're dead" to someone who is apparently making a lunging movement already toward you? Unless.....the victims weren't lunging toward him and he was giving an order to them to remain still.
e) The only people who claim the victims were on Horn's property were Horn and his lawyer...I'll wait for a more impartial source to determine where the victims were.
f) My point is....why is Mr. Horn, a self-proclaimed old, fat man who doesn't stand a chance in physical confrontations....getting into physical confrontations? I'm not immune to snakebite venom, so I don't saunter into the rattlesnake house and start shit with the residents.
g) This isn't the court Mr. Horn will be tried in, so I don't have to prove anything. I believe he's guilty of 1st degree murder, you don't. And life goes on....

n/t

That's why it's ordinarily placed in the subject line.

What are you, the James Kilpatrick of the gun lobby?

:eyes:

Must be tired of defending a blood-thirsty old fool, eh?

Did you have something substantive to add to the collective wisdom?

admittedly, nothing nearly as substantive as posting protocol admonitions, no.

n/t, bee-yotch!

Call it morbid curiosity.

:hurts:

". . .and vowed not to let them escape."

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

With cops on the way, this man planned and executed the murder of two men. Need further proof? Look back at your own post. Not one shot, not even two, but three shots. The man went that extra shot further, after delivering two killing shots to the chest, he dealt out an extra shot to the neck of one of the men.

But hey, we can discern even more from Mr. Horn's own words

<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_3517564>


"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."

"I can go out the front , but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."

'Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "

Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."

Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"

Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."

Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"

Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away! '


And there it is, cold blooded murder. Oh, and what does the author of the castle defense law for the great state of Texas think?


"But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

That's the trouble with these laws, you've got trigger happy fools, not even trained and licensed to the extent that CCW folks are, thinking that they're empowered to be the neighborhood defense force instead of the neighborhood watch. So they go and mete out vigilante justice, sentencing people to death all over stuff.

Right here in this forum, not only by members but also mods. It's even gone so far as to post a picture of Joe Horn and suggesting he put his shotgun in his mouth and pull the trigger.



Odd though, the picture was not even of Joe Horn.




Imagine that.

What's the normal process? Does it usually go to Grand Jury or what? How long does it take to go before it goes to Grand Jury?

knocked on his door on halloween, it was some huge misunderstanding if i remember right but i don't think the homeowner was ever charged.

I think I remember this one.

The man was charged but acquitted.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DD123AF937A15756C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

On the subject.

1 - Have they located the home owner yet? Early news reports stated that they haven't contacted the home owner.

2 - Mr. Horn maybe lucky that the two where actually burglars not plain clothes officers or day labor hired to replace a broken window in the next door house or one of many possible explanations. Mr. Horn stated that he didn't know the neighbor well and then made the assumption that his interpretation of events was the only correct one.

:hi:

in Baton Rouge, LA. some time ago. He was looking for a party and approached the wrong house. The homeowners told him to freeze. He didn't freeze as he didn't understand the meaning. He was killed and the homeowners were exonerated. One paper reported that they thought he was a fair skinned black person.

THE STATE ATORNEY IS STILL BUILDING ITS CASE!

There is a process, I know everyone here thinks that they are legal experts, but the SA/DA (Im not sure what it is in TX) must build a case before charges are filed.

My wife once summed it up for me: "If the State Attorney did their jobs properly, we should never win a case, because if there is not enough evidence to convict, it should not go to trial."

first accounts said that he shot them in the back!