Joe Horn Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.

When is it OK to shoot first?

In the Lone Star state, where the six-gun tamed the frontier, shooting bad guys is a time-honored tradition, and Horn's case centered on a Texas state law based on the old idea that "a man's home is his castle." The "castle law" gives Texans unprecedented legal authority to use deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplaces. And no longer do they have an obligation to retreat, if possible, before they shoot.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters at the courthouse. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances. ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

'I'm Gonna Shoot!'

Horn called 911 in November to report a burglary in broad daylight at the house next door.

Continued at link: http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1

Thank God I don't live in Texas. Or D.C.

across the country to find the line. All of America will soon be the Wild West again. Shoot first , ask questions later.

Two lives were taken because a hot head with a gun shit his pants watching a crime. And, he walks free, with no punishment whatsoever. He is a murderer.

They do matter to you, don't they?

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

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

Pasadena police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said a few weeks after the shooting that a plainclothes detective had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He said the detective saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

It appeared that neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present, Corbett said.

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (getaway driver). He ducked at one point."

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.

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

intended to murder them. He should have stayed in his own home. If they broke into his house, then he could have shot them with a tiny little bit of impunity. What he did was inexcusable and barbaric.

...with the U.S. Constitution. Beyond the Second Amendment.

The civilian had no right to order them to do anything. There was a cop there.

The 911 operator REPEATEDLY told him not to leave the house, and NOT TO SHOOT.

Get over yourself.

The Heller case had nothing whatsoever to do with the use of deadly force.

He is a murderer.

I'm glad that you have a more stringent moral standard than the state of Texas does, but according to their laws he is not a murderer.

:rofl:

You make me sad.

Appeals to "isness".

The implicit becomes explicit by simply slapping a label on something. No supporting argument or discussion needed.

Everybody "is" an expert on the law.

Either you see things MY way or you "are" one of "them".

Isness has no beginning and no end. Isness just "is".

Seriously, I doubt many on this discussion would survive a challenge to hold it in E-Prime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

The map "is" not the territory.

I believe I would not have shot those men, had I been in Joe Horn's shoes that day.

Empty out those prisons! Liberte, fraternatie, egalitie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're bound to have plenty more burglars as the economy worsens and people become desperate. We can solve everyone's problems by just executing them all on the spot. Great idea.

What odd things people try to use to back up their reasons for murder.

I think you would only have to kill a few in each state to cut the break-in rate substantially. I'm up for it. Some people have negative value to society.

I hope Joe Horn moves next door to you.....

....ought to be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt you're capable of it. If nothing else, you ought to leave DU and start hanging out at FreeRepublic, where sick attitudes like yours are welcomed....

burglars aren't just burglars, once they've made a decision that it's okay to enter my home to take my property, they very commonly decide they might as well rape or even kill when they see i happen to be alone or undefended

disclosure: a relative of mine was gang-raped in her home by burglars

i doubt they entered the house with the thought of raping and permanently harming a woman in her 50s but once they were there and she was asleep and helpless...

the kind of person who deliberately gets together and plans to break into somebody's HOME is not a good person with any internal inhibitions and we're better off as a society if those people are removed

older people are not held in esteem by burglars, to assume that as an older man mr. horn had nothing to be afraid of, well, i don't know, they came onto his property and he knows that they are bad guys, i don't think he should have to wait until they actually shove him down and break old bones or otherwise threaten him, sometimes your only chance is to get off the first shot

i'm glad i wasn't sitting on this jury to be forced to make this decision

mr horn was there, the guy on the other end of the telephone line at 911 WASN'T there and WASN'T at any risk, at the end of the day how do you second guess these decisions? a possible injustice done to KNOWN burglars and housebreakers doesn't bother me the same as a possible injustice done to a homeowner or concerned neighbor trying to keep himself and maybe others safe

you don't know what family tragedy may have caused mike l. to feel as he does about burglars, but i will say, once you or yours have been victimized, your thoughts may change on this subject, burglars are NOT just people doing property crimes, look into it, a burglar/housebreaker is not on the same level as someone who picks a pocket or quietly steals a purse out of a cloakroom, there are non violent non confrontational thieves but burglars are not in that category, by entering someone's home or business they have demonstrated their willingness to go violent if need be to get my property

What price is Horn paying?

So, I doubt he could have possibly been found guilty of that.

A man shoots and kills two men in broad daylight, and not even an indictment! Some people spend time in jail or pay fines for negligent homicide, for a driving error that resulted in a death.

This man committed pre-meditated murder, times 2. If the victims had not been immigrants he'd be in jail. It is disgusting.

And I think the grand jury was wrong. And, I think Joe Horn was wrong.

Should we just shoot illegal immigrants when the cross the border? Should we shoot every drug deal? Should we shoot and kill every criminal in the country?

Fess up. You're making up this shit as you go along.

but of course, the DA is lying and the officers are lying and the papers are lying.







You're right and everyone else is a liar.


there, happy?


:sarcasm:

Listen to the 911 call and tell me you don't hear a bloodthirsty old man who was just aching for an excuse to kill a couple of foreigners. Tell me you don't hear that hate (not fear) in his voice when he says "Bang!!! You're dead!". He was told many times to stay indoors, as it would have made him and everyone else safer, but he was far more interested in leaving the safety of his house so he could finally kill some people in a situation where he thought (correctly so, apparently) he could get away with it. He's a sick, sick, murdering bastard. There is such a thing as proportionality, and that fuckwad Horn doesn't know the meaning of the world. If there's a hell, he's surely going there.

"There is such a thing as proportionality, and that fuckwad Horn doesn't know the meaning of the world. If there's a hell, he's surely going there."

Were the burglars armed? Did they threaten anyone? Because if they didn't, this should be a crime. Period. And I think if it were one of your own wayward kids, you might think differently about their execution.

Please state the direct observations of the situation that you witnessed personally that grants you greater clarity regarding the situation than the grand jury.

of consequence.

Please explain your personal involvement in the situation. Describe your own observations, and explain your presence at the scene of the incident such that you were able to make these observations.

We could do a show of hands:

Who thinks Horn was reasonably afraid for his or his neighbors' lives?

His neighbor wasn't there.
Nobody's life was in danger.

And there was NOTHING reasonable about Mr. Horn that night.

Did he know at the time his neighbor wasn't there? Did he know the two burglars weren't about to kill him?

The criminals were already out of the house and they were attempting to leave. And I'm pretty sure that Horn knew he wasn't in danger considering the fucking bastard shot them in their backs.

Homicides do not always involve a crime. Sometimes the law allows homicide by allowing certain defenses to criminal charges. One of the most recognized is self defense, which provides that a person is entitled to commit homicide to protect his or her own life from a deadly attack.

Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!"

Horn said he was threatened by the two habitual criminals. Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston.<1> You can second guess a criminal and wait 15 to 20 minutes for the police to arrive but some of us will not.

A plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car.<3> His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".<1> Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

He shot them in the backs, as they were fleeing.

The police detective who watched the entirety of the situation disagrees with you. n/t

Did they die on Horn's property or not?

A plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car.<3> His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".<1> Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

Both are on Horn's property and they ran at him. A plainclothes Pasadena officer, who had just pulled up in his car, witnessed the entire incident and did not arrest horn.

http://www.texasdefenselaw.com/recent_news/2007/12/joe-horn-and-texas-defense-laws.html

It's insane how you are trying to make this sound like self-defense. The 911 operator urged him to stay inside, he clearly WANTED to kill them. That's sick. And it should be punished.

1. they were on his property

plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car.<3> His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".

-----<1> Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ----ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away------ from him toward the street when he was shot in the back.

Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.


They charged joe and then angled away (possibly discourarged when he raised the shotgun?) and he shot them on his property.

Complicit, chickenshit, liar...mix of all the above? That's a long time to be in a car while guns are being waved about. Maybe that's how they do it in Houston.

...is exactly when you want to stay in your car.

It's not a policeman's job to risk his life to protect you. Some will do it, but that's not their job, they aren't obliged to, and you can't rely on them to do it.

If that were true, cops would never exit their cars in crucial situations.

Pelosifan: " They ran at him, then ran away, then he shot them in their BACKS."

Police Capt. A.H. Corbett: the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ----ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away------ from him toward the street when he was shot in the back.

Are you new to the whole "english language" thing?

Texas law contains provisions for such matters and is likely part of the reason the Grand Jury refused to indict.

I guess I just disagree with Texas law on what is acceptable and what is excessive.

No guarantee that they would not return with guns blazing or friends with guns blaz.....


Well, you get the idea.

How the fuck was it self-defense for him to leave his house and threaten THEM with a shotgun?

Are you serious? You really think they would have beaten him with a crowbar? THEY WERE SHOT IN THE BACKS.

I mean if you feel that your valuables must be protected then why not employ the device of insurance? Things like computers, tv's and other electronics are in a constant state of improving quality and declining cost. In a way certain cases of theft could be in your self-interest.

Also anyone employing such deadly use of force may have to surrender considerable time and money representing themselves in the legal system.


Its almost like the self-righteous have never heard of cost benefit analysis.

Just let the criminals steal whatever they want, insurance will cover it!

Of course, your logic only applies to theft.

is it biological? Is it environmental? Lots of places on Earth have much less crime then the U.S. Why?

Fear of theft could also cure affluenza, which is killing the planet...a far greater crime.

On a serious note though, there are experts in the medical field that say it's in the genes of those that become career criminals. Depends on the mother's health and other factors at the time of conception, some of which can be virus related. It's said to affect the makeup of the child in the womb.

Sounds far fetched at first but.........

You sound like just another good ole' boy to me.

Bye.

(Nice user profile.)

We're dying to know. You'll have to come out and show us what you are sooner or later.

Maybe you should try it sometimes. You think they are so eager to pay you?

it's almost like some posters don't know wtf they're posting about

certain cases of theft could be in your self-interest.



i've never known an HONEST person to profit from collecting on their insurance, between deductibles and devaluation of the property you're out a lot of money

Stupid dead criminals that is, bringing a crowbar to a gunfight, heh!

:rofl:

That fucking piece of shit needs to get a taste of his own medicine. It would serve him right.

Fact... convicted criminals charged horn on his own property.


A plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car.<3> His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".<1> Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston

Whether or not they did charge, they weren't charging when they were killed.

Even illegal, criminal lives are worth more than that. It sets a horrifying precedent. Shoot first, kill on site and walk away. As long as your skin is lighter than the victims.

I'm going to repeat that as many times as you do this. He either provided false testimony or is a total fucking failure as a cop and should retire in disgrace.

Please explain your observations so that we may understand how the facts of the case differ from the report of the police officer.

From the testimony that has been repeated ad nauseum.

Detective was in the car. Had a clear view of the events. Witnessed two men being ordered to freeze by a man with a shotgun. At some point, they didn't do so, and ran in a direction that to the officer was towards the gunman. They then turned in a different direction, and ran away from the gunman, at which time he fired a number of shots.

When, if at all, should the cop should've gotten out of the car and taken the situation into control like his job dictates he do so?

My observations are drawn from the testimony given.

He's either complicit or a shit cop. I'm voting for the first.

When, if at all, should the cop should've gotten out of the car and taken the situation into control like his job dictates he do so?

This confrontation probably lasted 5-10 seconds. Was he supposed to leap out of his car at superhuman speed and talk down at least one and possibly 3 armed people with no backup?

It's not a cop's job to risk his life to protect an individual.

OK, you roll up to a call of a robbery in progress. You spot at least one subject with a shotgun and a couple of others running about. Quick, who's who and what's what? Now all you have to do is jump out of the car, and expose yourself to fire while taking "control" of an already out-of-control shooting scenario. How many seconds do you think you have to do this? Is it sixty seconds, or is it five? If you start running towards the scene are you going to take fire? Can you shoot accurately while running full speed? Hurry up, make the decision.

The police aren't there to protect you. "Oh save me you manly man with the big gun and the professional training!", hah. They're there to write up the reports and hopefully make an arrest after the fact. I don't know anyone who wears a badge who fancies himself Superman. There are plenty of opportunities to get yourself killed in the line of duty if you rush headlong like a fool into every call.

That's all you supporters of this pile of shit have.

It is not the legal duty of a police officer to protect civilians. This has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.

tekisui:
"Shoot first, kill on site and walk away. As long as your skin is lighter than the victims."



wow, just.......wow

and they had been shot, all hell would have broken loose.

If they had broken into homes in a black or latino neighborhood and been shot, I doubt the media would have even picked up on the story.

You know, you aren't required to do what a dispatcher tells you to.

Maybe there are situations that occur that you have to act outside of what they say, but they are officers of the law or at least representatives for them. In my area, dispatchers are also trained deputies/firemen/emt's, so they know what they are doing, many other jurisdictions are the same. Horn decided that the dispatcher didn't know what he was talking about and gave him a lecture on the law, his weapon, and the legality of his shooting the suspects. It's clear he had no intention of following his directions.

Disobeying what a dispatcher is telling you can result in turning a bad situation even worse. What if the information about the suspects hadn't been passed on to the patrol officers and they saw a guy running at two other people with a shotgun? This guy put his own life in danger out of stupidity and his poor decision making under pressure cost two criminals their lives. I don't think that what he did was murder, but I cant justify giving him a free pass either.

There are very few jurisdictions in which dispatchers are deputized or sworn.

More importantly, you're on the scene and they aren't. Even in the military, with a chain of command, that's justification for disregarding an order. When a fellow-civilian who happens to work with cops tells you to do something, you aren't under any obligation to.

Some of the dispatchers here are sworn reserve or part time deputies, others are fire fighters and EMT's. One city department requires their officers to work dispatch at least one day or night shift each month to increase communication and cooperation between divisions.

Beyond that, most dispatchers have thorough training in crisis situations and beyond that they are receiving information back from the officers to relay to the caller.

I just can't see the logic in saying that it was a good idea to go outside to confront these two suspects over a property issue. Horn escalated matters to a point well beyond what it originally started. He put the neighborhood and himself in danger by becoming a momentary police officer, a decision that he had reached well before he walked out that door.

From the same poster: A categorical statement "Vigilante justice is ALWAYS wrong," followed immediately by a profane statement advocating vigilante action against the alleged vigilante.

It's all a part of a game my husband & I play.. we choose a news article..read it aloud, and then asks "Texas? or Florida?"..

A plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car.<3> His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".<1> Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

The guy felt threatened.

Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!"

I listened to the 911 call..and this man INTERJECTED himslef into a situation..

Were the 2 guys doing wrong? yes.. Is stealing some "stuff", punishable by firing squad in America?? I guess so.:(

No matter what that little devil in your head tells you, it won't change the facts of the case.

Does the transcript of the grand jury or anything else say how he was threatened? Did they have a gun?

and toss in the occasional Ohio.

But then again, this was a Texan jury.

It had everything to do with being confronted by 2 men on his own property.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=178135&mesg_id=178135

Most folks, if charging, take the slug in the front of the body.

then changes lanes and speeds past, I'm unloading at their gas tank. They "charged" me. And fucking criminals deserve to die, right?

:eyes:

:shrug:

If they hadn't decided to rob that house, they wouldn't have been shot. I have no sympathy for them, nor do I think it would be justice to punish the guy who shot them.

:eyes:

Simple. Don't enter another person's property with the intent to commit a crime. If you're trying to make me feel sorry for the criminals, you're not succeeding.

Good luck with that.

What's your idiotic point?

people other than burglars that will break into your house. They will break in to not only rob you but beat/molest/rape/etc. Some don't want your money, they want you...or your daughter...or son.....


Food for thought: there are idiots out there that think there is no mathematical possibility any of this could ever happen to them, they blissfully feel it only happens on that show that follows later American Idol.

In that case, I think we should just kill all men right now, since men commit more violent crimes than women.

...maybe that's just me.

I think that their should be limits and consequences for taking lives.

Not everyone who does so is or should face consequences. The world isn't so black & white to insist on consequences every time.

judge jury and executioner. Many are forced to accept punishments for reckless endangerment, negligence and other "accidental" deaths or injuries.

I don't like having values placed on individuals lives. This life is valued, where this one is not. I understand self defense, but in this case, I think that is a stretch. But, the value of the buglars lives was so low, that not even a crime or an accident was committed.

However, the fact the people were in the middle of committing a crime meant they "devalued" themselves, and, like it or not, people committing crimes burglary, rape, assault, etc. will be treated with lesser value than the victims.

...how a propety owner should conduct a trial prior to employing deadly force when confronting a threat. Be specific.

Many states allow for the use of deadly force should an individual reasonably believe that his or her life is at risk, even if the perception is incorrect. For example, a criminal brandishing a non-functional firearm could create a reasonable perception of imminent danger, even if that perception is based upon the incorrect assumption that the firearm is functional. In such a situation, most states would consider the use of deadly force in response to that perception to be reasonable, even though the individual's life was not actually at risk.

Additionally, many states also allow for the use of deadly force against a reasonable fear of grevious bodily harm, even if such harm would not necessarily result in death. Do you oppose such an allowance? Many states also allow for the use of deadly force in defense against sexual assault or kidnapping, even if the risk of such events does not coincide with a risk of death. Do you also oppose that allowance?

Many states recognize that it is reasonable for an occupant of a home to believe that his or her life is threatened when an intruder trespasses with clear criminal intent. Do you oppose such a recognition? If so, then how do you propose that a home occupant safely determine the motive of an intruder prior to using deadly force against the intruder?

In this case, the Grand Jury weighed the facts and followed the law.

Maybe we should just start with children vandalizing public property. Shoot them then, and they're sure to never commit more serious crimes.

That would be like me saying "A person should just watch his wife get raped/killed and not be allowed to do anything about it".

That's an extreme emotional argument too. Neither is relevant to this case, so why bring it up?

All on my property!

I'm going to need a higher capacity magazine!

They deserve what they get. Shoot them as they run away laughing after threatening you if you don't give them what they want. Trick or treat my ass.

He took the law into his own hands because of his caveman mentality. We're going to be seeing alot more of this in states like Texas and Florida, and especially since the recent SCOTUS decision. Gun nuts are now under the misinformed impression that they can get away with anything.

This has been established in front of a Grand Jury.

Hell yeah, let's shoot them all@!
:eyes:

Though I seriously doubt it.

is followed by "he was wrong". God Bless America!

It's a damn shame two career criminals will never be able to break into another home, isn't it? Maybe my home was next? Maybe some other criminals will have a "holy shit" moment thinking about this and stop breaking into homes? Are dead criminals REALLY a bad thing?

Wouldn't even need a neighborhood "crime watch", just put a sign up saying Joe Horn lives here.

The 911 dispatcher warned Horn to stay inside at least a dozen separate times, telling him, "An officer is coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

Then Horn — sounding angrier by the moment — cited the new Texas law.

"OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir," he said. "And you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it."

Moments later, Horn saw two burglars leave his neighbor's house, one of them carrying a bag filled with cash and jewelry.

"I'm gonna kill him," Horn said.
"Stay in the house," the dispatcher said.
"They're getting away," Horn replied.
"That's all right," the dispatcher said. "Property's not worth killing someone over. OK?"
"---damn it," said Horn, who then defied the dispatcher.

"Well, here it goes, buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going," he said.

"Don't go outside," the dispatcher warned.

---From the article

That was jury nullification.

"I'm gonna kill him," Horn said.
"Stay in the house," the dispatcher said.
"They're getting away," Horn replied.
"That's all right," the dispatcher said. "Property's not worth killing someone over. OK?"


What a sad commentary on society that here... even here, we have people (assuming they're not trolls) defending this shit.


And the fucker knew there was an officer outside... so he knew they'd get caught.


Bloodlust is out of control here. People defending this are not right in the head.

They seem to be as bloodthirsty as that sick fuck, getting off thinking about what he did. I can't believe there are this many disgusting people here at DU. I mean, WTF. I'm just going to have to put them on ignore. Anyone who thinks like that has nothing to say that I want to hear.

I'm positive about a couple of them... the rest... *sigh*

I seriously doubt that this would have been the last house that they would have broken into. They could have killed in innocent person in their next caper.

He waited a long time before interceding himself. He wasn't going to let those thieves leave without a confrontation, but the 911 tape shows that he called the police and waited until the thieves were fleeing.

Many people say he just wanted to kill someone (which I understand given his statements to the dispatcher), but as I see it he really wanted the police to get them.

If he really did want to murder those thieves, all he had to do was not call the police and ambush them.

Instead he waited until the last minute to intercede, gave them a warning, and then used lethal force.


This is in no way to blame the police -- the dispatcher was great and it looks like the police responded as fast as they could.

When he didn't get permission, he got angry and killed them anyway. Any sane, rational reading of this article concludes that.

It's tragic to see how many of them are proud of how diseased they are.

Its pretty clear he wanted to stop the burglars and was more than willing to do so.

He waited for police until the burglars were fleeing

He demanded that they stop.

And then things are unclear as to whether they were a threat or not to him, but at any rate he used lethal force.


We'll never know if if Horn would have shot had the thieves stopped, dropped the loot, and put their hands up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being able to protect yourself and your property, but saying "Boom, you're dead" doesn't exactly convey to me that this guy was thinking about just stopping these guys. He made numerous comments to the dispatcher that he was aware of the laws and talked of shooting them - while he may have not been intending to kill them, he had obviously come to the conclusion in his own mind that gunfire was a foregone conclusion.

As someone who supports gun rights, I can't think of any logical reason or explanation of what this guy did. He was ordered by an authority - the police - to stay in his house and not escalate matters further. Plus, this guy wasn't in immediate danger when he made the decision to exit his house, he was trying to do the job of the police - of which he wasn't trained or prepared to do. I highly doubt I would leave my home to chase down two guys who had stolen some stuff from a neighbors house. I would call the police, get a description, and observe as much as I could. There's no need to put yourself in danger if there isn't a life threatening situation at hand.

But in the end, its perfectly legal to confront criminals while armed. In fact, I generally would like to see more people confront criminals (armed and not armed) instead of just being an observer for a police report.

Yes, its dangerous, and, yes, you can make a horrible mistake (which you should be held accountable for) but community action and involvement is the best way to reduce crime.

In this situation, Joe attempted to do just what you say you would do -- observe and report to the police. The difference of course, was that he wasn't willing to let the burglars flee without a confrontation.

From the onset, he was riled up and you could hear the tension in his voice. His words seemed to indicate that he was itching for a confrontation - i.e. "want me to stop em'?" and the gun legality talk.

I'm all for community action, but where does it end? What if I have a son who was away from college, military, etc. and stopped by for a surprise visit, knowing that my garage window is unlocked and he can get into the house through there? Does the neighbor have the right to come over to my house with his pistol to confront the person that came through my window? Granted, these guys did have a crowbar, but its not hard to imagine scenarios where this could end in disaster.

Even further, when Horn left his house, he put not only himself but his neighborhood in extreme danger. If those two guys had been armed and Horn walked outside, a gun fight could have ensued or Horn could have shot and missed, sending a bullet into a home, possibly injuring or killing someone inside. Same could be said for the criminals. Had he stayed inside, the situation wouldn't have escalated. He obviously wasn't trained to handle a situation like this, so taking it into his hands (especially on a property issue) just seems a little over the top for my tastes. I wonder if he honestly thinks it was worth it to put himself and his neighbors at risk in that way?

I wonder about it too.

wanted to ice somebody so bad he could taste it...

Where a man gets off scott free for escalating a situation to the point he shoots two people in the back, while the cop not only merely watches, but actually hides.

Sad, sad that this sort of attitude is now spreading beyond Texas and Florida. Sick people, sick values, sick society.

So young, so many more houses to rob...

You're saying the KKK only lynched criminals, like these two robbers?


:shrug:

Or, murdered, as in this case. And, just like in the "good old days" of white sheets and nooses, this murderer got away with it.

one of them runs towards him (from the eyewitness account posted above), and they end up getting shot? It's easy to sit at your computer in the cold clear light of day and rant and rave about rootin' tootin' Texas-style vigilante frontier justice and accuse the guy of being a murderer, but I'm more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt (as the Grand Jury decided to do).

anyone's attitude would change if, say, these two men had raped a child, and were then running away when they were shot by Mr. Horn.

There sure were a lot of people clamoring for blood after the SCOTUS child rape decision.

However, I still think that his intentions from the onset was to get his gun out and play policeman. He knew from the tape, that no one was home next door - therefore, no ones life was in jeopardy. I would have exited the home if I knew someone had been hurt or injured so I could attempt to stop them, but this guy knew it was a burglary and he still felt like he needed to be a policeman and do their jobs for them. A burglary next door is hardly justification to act in the manner he did.

nobody was in danger. I apologize if I didn't word it correctly.

The point is, a lot of people think there is a point where the crime is heinous enough to warrant death, state-sanctioned or not. The issue is *where* to draw that line.

It's a really tough line to draw, because people's interpretations and value systems vary wildly. What justifies my making the decision to pull the trigger could be entirely different in yours. It's a tough call and just like most police officers, it's a decision that many don't take lightly and changes lives not only for the victim but the officer and their families.

I just know that I certainly wouldn't have pushed confrontation in this situation. In my mind and my interpretation, burglary does not justify my putting myself in danger to stop two thieves. Had it been in my own home, perhaps, but not in this situation.

Not because I'm fundamentally opposed to it or anything, just because I am a heavy sleeper and I wouldn't trust my judgement in the mental fog coming out of a sound sleep. I also couldn't live with myself if I accidentally shot my wife or children, or if any of them accidentally shot themselves.

Another reason I don't own a gun is that I really, really dislike thieves, and deep down, I am afraid I would pull a Joe Horn given the chance. So I don't own one.

I own a few firearms, none of which are loaded but the ammo is nearby in case its needed. I figure the security system or the dog will give me plenty of warning should a situation arise and give me time to wake up and make a judgement call.Plus, I've taken a lot of training as a reserve officer that I would hope would help me make the right call. But the thought does scare me that if I didn't make the right decision or if I injured or harmed someone else unintentionally.

Contact the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/mgmtndx.htm

I believe the "Criminal Section" would be the one to address this case, if you believe Joe Horn violated the civil rights of the people he shot (and that the state of Texas failed to do the right thing).

Gathered as much information about the suspects as possible, and relayed that to the police.

Even a justifiable shooting can ruin your life.

Seems Mr Horn was protecting his neighbors property as he would his own. The grand jury of his fellow citzens agreed.

Where Mr. Horn's actions would not be defensible.

I've also been taught repeatedly that if you have any doubt as to whether a situation calls for use of deadly force, you don't shoot.

That's the number one rule - don't point your gun at something if your not willing to shoot to kill it. Period.

Beyond that, you never, ever pull your weapon if you are not sure if its something to pull a weapon over. Period.

I hardly call a neighbors home being burgled being a justification to go outside and confront two people, putting yourself and the neighborhood in further danger. If lives and the public safety were being threatened, I would wholeheartedly support the action but I can't make the leap to armed escalation in this scenario.

Plus, this guy was a condescending asshole to the dispatcher. He ignored orders and was obviously very, very nervous and probably not in the right mindset to make this kind of decision.

It sounds like this guy was itching for some "action" and was determined to use his shotgun that day. He ignored clear directions from the police dispatcher to stay in his house and not to escalate the situation. He was extremely rude and arrogant to the dispatcher and expressed that he "knew the laws".

If these guys had broken into his home or was threatening someone else - I could see it. The guy just kept saying "I had no choice" even when he clearly had one and that was "stay inside the house". Further, "Boom, your dead" doesn't count as a call to stop and the time it took for him to say that and the first gunshot was a mere second - hardly enough time for one of the perps to turn and threaten him.

This guy was bloodthirsty and a clear example of what NOT to do if you are a second amendment advocate, of which I consider myself to be one. How he is being heralded as a hero is beyond me.

but I thought he said "MOVE, you're dead," not "BOOM, you're dead." Please correct me if I'm wrong. That one word does change a lot of the meaning. I also wonder if these two fellows spoke and understood English. Does anyone know?

Here's the tape:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

I swear I think he's saying "move." I'm almost sure I can hear the 'vuh' phonic. He was definitely looking to shoot these guys though. Of that there is no doubt.

Each time I listen to it, I come to a different conclusion. Google tells me that the transcripts vary - some say "boom" and some say "move".

You know, like the little vidiot gamers do. :)

Exactly.

Says a lot about the people doing so, I think.

Finally, after all of our politicians abandon us there is a place to live that is working on taking back the rights of private citizens. God Bless Texas! You people should be lucky to live here. On top of that, you should be lucky to have a neighbor like Joe Horn. Let the CRIMINALS get away you all say... mabye they will come back... mabye you and your family will be home next time. Like the football player who was killed in Florida after criminals REPEATED their home invasion and finally ran into someone at the house. Should we have any sympathy for ANYONE who is killed in the commission of a criminal act. Whose choice was it to commit these acts in the first place? Oh and I am sobbing in my pillow for the poor (widow?) of the criminal who will have to raise her child alone. If she would shut the hell up and quit complaining mabye she will raise her child to not commit crime, as we see what the end result of that is. Im sure she is doing fine letting her child sleep on a blanket on the floor of her southwest houston apartment, paid for by our tax dollars, with a 52 inch plasma tv in the living room given to her by our federal aid, like all the other moochers down there. Im sure she will sue in civil court to get more money out of a taxpayer to replace her fiancee's income. Oh wait, he probably did not have one anyway. I pray to God that anyone who thinks Joe Horn should have charges pressed against him does not find themselves starting down the barrel of a gun of a criminal who might have thought against committing the crime if there was a real fear of death in his heart. Let this be a lesson, stay out of my yard, and keep your freeloading hands off my property. As it should be nation wide, so it is in Texas, if you leave your place of residence out to do no good... you just might not be coming back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lived near Pasadena, or as it is also called by the locals, Stinkadena.

This makes perfect Texas sense. Of course, everyone down there isn't like Mr. Horn and the Grand Jury......but there are enough to make Texas life, well, unique.

new_beawr,

I usually give the benefit of the doubt to shooters who are not known criminals, to cops, DAs, and jurors, but it strikes me as too convenient that the officer who arrived in a car described a sequence of events that just barely puts Mr. Horn within the bounds of the law that permits deadly force in defense of a neighbor's property. I'm no legal expert, but this one does seem questionable to me based on what I know.

By "group bias" I mean a systematic skewing of testimony and other evidence, interpretation of the law, instructions given to the grand jurors, etc., in the direction of letting Horn off. I don't mean to imply a necessarily deliberate, intentional skewing, just a systematic one.

I am interested in your opinion because you seem to be familiar with the culture.

And who will question it if not the (federal) Justice Department?

(note my relatively new signature line BTW)

I don't think Mr. Horn was ever going to be prosecuted.

I don't think Mr. Horn was ever going to be prosecuted.

But they did have to go through the motions of having an investigation.

:kick: