Grand jury refuses to indict Texan for killing two burglars next door
posted at 7:38 pm on June 30, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Remember Joe Horn? He’s a free man, as of this afternoon. I didn’t follow the case last year when debate was raging, but ABC has a gripping account of the particulars. He was on the phone with 911, shotgun in hand, watching two burglars rob his neighbor’s house in broad daylight; the operator told him to stay put and that the cops were on the way, but Horn replied that he couldn’t let them get away with it and couldn’t be sure that they wouldn’t make a move on his house next. So he went outside, caught them coming out of his neighbor’s house, told them to stop, and when they didn’t he shot them both — dead, both in the back, although per the Chronicle link above one of the suspects ran towards him before veering away, which is how he ended up hit from behind.
The legal justification is supposedly the “Castle Doctrine,” a subset of Texas’s self-defense law that lets you defend yourself and your property by firing on an unlawful intruder without having to “retreat” first. Having spent the past hour poring over the statutes and giving myself a migraine, it seems to me there are two gray areas: One, whether Horn is to be thought of as defending his home, his neighbor’s home, or himself when the shootings occurred, and two, whether having the right to “stand your ground” (i.e. not retreat) entitles you to precipitate a confrontation that could have been avoided by simply not doing anything. The sections that authorize defense of property (9.42 and 9.43) do allow for deadly force — but only at nighttime in the case of burglary, presumably because it’s harder to tell what a burglar’s packing in dim light and also because a burglar who’s coming through the window at an hour when he knows people are likely to be home is likely to be a bolder, more dangerous burglar. The Horn shootings happened in broad daylight. Which means if he’s off the hook, it has to be on grounds that he was protecting himself, not his property, during the confrontation with the burglars. Per section 9.32, deadly force can be used if “immediately necessary” to save yourself from being murdered and/or robbed. That’s arguably reasonable in Horn’s case (although there’s no word of them producing a weapon), but what if he had just stayed in the house and avoided them entirely? Enter subsection (c):
A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
There’s the “stand your ground” provision. If it justifies him leaving the house to face them down, it’s not so much an exemption from the duty to retreat as an affirmative right to advance. And how was deadly force “immediately” necessary if it could have been prevented just by sitting tight? He’s got the shotgun and he’s watching them; if they try to come in his house, they’ll never know what hit them. Eh, whatever. It’s not worth parsing the statutes too finely since ultimately it’s in a (grand) jury’s hands and they’re not going to send an old man to jail for shooting two felons caught in the act, whatever the felony and time of day.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5
Likewise :-)
And, since we’re being honest here, so was I, on a visceral, emotional level. Wrong for me too, but there you have it.
Trust me, I am careful, extremely so, because I know full well what the consequences of me pulling the trigger are, right or wrong. It’s an enormous responsibility that I have hanging on my hip, and I most definitely do not want blood on my hands, innocent or not. It’s just that sometimes you have no choice or, to be more accurate, sometimes you, using the best judgment you can muster at the time, conclude that you have no choice, other than to do nothing and hope for the best. Hardly a day goes by without me mentally going through some possible scenario and wondering what I’d do under the circumstances, yet no matter how responsible I am and how much I think about it, there’s still a risk that I make a mistake and an accident happens. I acknowledge that risk, and I do my best to avoid it ever happening to me, but that’s no guarantee.
Which is why it’s not hard for me to put myself in the shoes of the homeowner in Baton Rouge. I like to think that I’d have acted otherwise, that I’d have said “it’s just a silly kid in a costume, calm down”, yet there’s also a possibility that I wouldn’t have. Because what price would I and my loved ones have paid if I’d been wrong?
There were no “safe options” in his case. Each carried a risk, and he just happened to pick the wrong one, as it turned out. I wouldn’t want to be him for anything in the world, knowing what he knows NOW but didn’t know THEN, and I’m not referring to the civil judgment against him.
I do too. I don’t know that I’d come to the same conclusion, since me never owning a gun again wouldn’t undo anything but rather put me at risk in the future, but I can certainly understand why he’d reach that conclusion.
And there’s the real punishment.
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 5:28 PM
You have no obligation to intervene. You also have no obligation to not intervene. You are not required to wait for the police.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 5:29 PM
There is no punishment for losing control of your car and killing someone, at least in NY.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Esthier, I strenuosuly disagree that the homeowner in the Hattori accident should be punished. He was acquitted and rightly so. There is no reason he should be financially raped, except to “send a message” to other homeowners and to pay-off the family. That is itself an ongoing tragedy. And Misha already explained why.
I didn’t think you were a liberal gun-grabber, but your emotive language concerning Hattori (and apparent belief that the homeowner is a homicidal criminal worthy of prosecution and punishment) sent up plenty of red flags for me. Your emotional approach leads to the inevitable abridgment of second amendment rights, which underpins all others, and that is the most dangerous of all.
I’m certainly not your enemy…I just disagree on this aspect of the issue.
Redhead Infidel on July 1, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Flenser said it. There is no obligation to do either. If I were Mr. Horn’s neighbor, I’d be extremely grateful, but that’s not the same as saying that I’d have been pissed off at him if he hadn’t acted.
The underlying point here is that whereas there is a point where you have at least a moral obligation to intervene and it’s not in all cases, the moment you start embracing the “it’s not important enough for me to get involved in” notion you start a slide, as a society, where you’ll eventually have a kid being curb-stomped to death while idiot sheep stand idly by letting it happen.
The difference between you and me, it would appear, is that whereas I, even without an obligation, consider intervening in the defense of my fellow citizens’ property a Good Thing, you’ve decided that in the case of “mere” property it is a Bad Thing.
Risking your well-being for somebody else when there’s no consequence to yourself for not doing so used to be called “altruism” and it used to be considered a truly noble trait.
In today’s me, me, me, me, MEEEEEE! society, not so much.
And that is sad.
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I’m having a hard time condemning this man. So Shoot me. This is the type of stuff you get happening when justice often fails to deal with hoodlums. I also expect parents to rise up after awhile with court systems that seem to do nothing to pedophiles decade after decade. It’s unreal with what they get away with a slap on the wrists.
diaphanous on July 1, 2008 at 5:38 PM
There’s another aspect that I wanted to bring up that you just reminded me of.
The civil judgment against the homeowner, in addition to being unjust since he’d already been acquitted, actually created an additional potential danger to other innocents, in that there is no doubt that the judgment has influenced other homeowners toward being extra super duper careful which, in a lot of cases, can be quite deadly.
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Depends on why you lost control I suppose. Most ways that you lose control would get you charged with reckless driving or reckless endangerment or something like that.
I’m glad we can be agreeable disagreeing.
Which is completely understandable and likely the exact thought process that man had at the time, especially with his wife right there yelling at him.
I agree completely. Though I do believe he’s learned a lesson now that he could have used then, and I don’t mean about gun ownership. Maybe nearly anyone would have done the same, but it seems to me that had he been able to just calm down, everyone would have been fine.
Maybe a class on dealing with stress or recognizing a threat would help, like simulations used for flights, where people are able to test out real scenarios.
I don’t know.
I do know though that it’s exactly cases like that which have law abiding citizens looking poorly on legal gun ownership, and while I disagree with those people, I understand their reaction.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I gotta go to work. What is sad is when people start mixing the value of life with other things in order to win an argument. Defending life is always altruist, so there is absolutely no contest whether one should intervene or not if someone is stomping someobody else. Defending other’s property is altruist if you don’t risk your life…if you do, that is called stupidity (unless is your job, thats it). The moral/citizen/whatever you want to call it obligation for Horn was to get involved calling the cops, which he did. The rest is on him.
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 5:48 PM
In my humble opinion, he has every right to precipitate whatever the hell he wants because if he is expected to hide like a pansy while these losers rob his neighbor, then his freedom is immediately compromised.
Metro on July 1, 2008 at 5:52 PM
That was sarcasm. I fully support legal gun ownership.
I’m fully aware that he isn’t a homicidal criminal (and I’ve never stated that he was/is). I’m just saying that he committed homicide and was reckless with his use of his firearm and should be punished for that reason.
Not all homicides are intentional, but that doesn’t mean the person who committed the homicide is or should be free from punishment.
Also, I agreed with Misha about the civil court trial. I just admitted that it seemed right to me anyway the same way it felt right to me that OJ was at least fined for murder.
It’s not justice, but then again, we don’t always get justice.
No, it doesn’t. There’s no reason for a person’s second amendment right to be threatened by anything I’ve said. If that’s how you’ve interpreted what I’ve said, then please, accept that I fully support gun rights.
Or don’t. I’m not getting anywhere here anyway.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Not True.
District Attorney Charles J. Hynes explained that under New York law, the single act of “losing control of a car” is not criminal negligence even if death or injury resulted.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 5:57 PM
They are not free from punishment as a rule. You keep acting like this one case from twenty years ago was happening every day. The reason people talk about it is because it was the exception, not the norm.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I’m sure he means that Lifsh lost control without doing anything that would have made him reckless; i.e. he wasn’t speeding, changing lanes frequently and unnecessarily, he wasn’t tailgating, he wasn’t intentionally fish-tailing or doing donuts, his car was properly maintained, he hadn’t broken any traffic codes, etc….
It is a fact that reckless driving, which can cause someone to lose control of a car, can be criminal negligence.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM
How am I doing that?
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 6:04 PM
I don’t think we’re turning on you, we just don’t agree and think your view regarding that one case is a bit idealistic. Try looking at it from the homeowners point of view. Do you think his primary concern was finding out what the intruder wanted or is it more likely he thought his life was in jeopardy and that he was defending himself and perhaps his family? Is there any evidence that the homeowner woke up that morning and decided he wanted to kill somebody and was just waiting in ambush for the first trick-or-treater to ring his doorbell, or was was he frightened by the intruder and, with adrenalin pulsing through his veins from fear of the unwelcome, uninvited intruder, fired at somebody who was mistakenly where he had zero right to be?
The jury obviously determined that there was insufficient evidence that the homeowner was chomping at the bit to kill somebody, anybody, and instead determined that it was just a tragic mistake. Who are we, sitting comfortably behind our keyboards to second guess what occurred that night?
How can we expect the homeowner to have had the presence of mind to somehow ascertain in a flash of time that the intruder was there by mistake?
Why should we punish anybody who honestly felt that their life was endangered in their own home, even if it turned out to be a mistake?
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 6:04 PM
On another post on HA, we have people lamenting the fact that no one ever seems to want to help when help is needed.
A crazy guy kills a defenseless child.
A man falls dying in the street while tons of people simply drive/walk by
A woman falls dead in an ER waiting room (in the frickin hospital) and NO ONE, not even the damn HOSPITAL STAFF
catmman on July 1, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Esthier, dearest, you are not my enemy. I like you just fine, just like before. You have your view, and the rest of us have ours, in agreement or not with yours, on this topic. No need to turn on anyone. Life and issues are not that simple, with perfect and unanimous answers, every time.
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 6:11 PM
We expect it because we’ve decided that citizens can be responsible with guns.
Maybe because we want people to think beyond that initial point of stress.
We don’t let it go if our soldiers kill a civilian even if it’s an accident. We press them to make sure they’re doing everything in their power to save civilians even when civilians put in harms way. We have regulations completely dedicated to the idea of sparing the lives of civilians.
And that’s while in the middle of a war.
It really doesn’t matter. As has been said already. That man has been punished. I’m sure he has a hard time living with what he’s done. Jailing him would only have given him more alone time to think about it.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 6:12 PM
But the natural conclusion of that mindset is that people should immediately jump out their windows whenever they suspect somebody might have broken into their house. No need for guns, an innocent intruder might get killed.
Why not get rid of guns altogether in that case? But then the innocent victims will no longer be an extremely rare occurrence, but will increase dramatically as homeowners become defenseless victims of criminals in their own homes.
The only way to ensure that no innocent person is ever harmed by a gun is to get rid of all guns. Of course, we already know that gun control increases crime and we’d also be at the mercy of a tyrannical government.
The net benefit of firearms vastly outweigh the cost. We wouldn’t be a free country if it weren’t for firearms.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 6:13 PM
I sincerely appreciate that.
And I overreacted.
It’s just hard to keep these discussions on topic. Disagree with me if you must, but it’s a bit much to turn my arguments into some sort of liberal anti-second amendment argument.
I understand that things get heated in here, but it’s frustrating to have to restate what I was trying to say 100 times because my argument was perceived as being something I never intended.
Thanks though. It’s been a long day.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I’m going to guess the answer will essentially be, “when all the various considerations and possibilities are factored together and it’s been determined, at length, that nothing could possibly go wrong.”
Of course, by then it’s far too late.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 6:18 PM
They needed killin’!
coldshot on July 1, 2008 at 6:20 PM
continued from above – pushed the wrong button…
lifts a finger to help for over an hour!
Here we have the case of a man who did not sit idly by. The ending was tragic, but wasn’t necessary. It was only necessary because a couple of criminal scumbags picked the wrong neighborhood.
People have stOod by for too long and done nothing. And people like Mr. Horn are tired of being victimized or seeing others victimized.
Why do we have an explosion of CCW’s around the country? Why are people BEGGING their elected officials, police departments, etc. to do something about crime? And what is the answer from those sdame officials?
Cower. Taking away (or trying to) the best means of seklf defense. Prosecuting an upstanding citizen for exercising his rights and protecting others!
Carrying firearms saved my ass in Panama and in the Philippines. Owning firearms allowed my wife to use one to protect herself and our children while I was working one night. I used one to protect my family once as well.
I my estimation, Mr. Horn is not responsible for what happened. The two goblins he removed from the gene pool ARE! Their actions precipitated the confrontation.
I am sick and tired of the respnsibility for crimes and their consequences being foisted upon the victims.
“Ohhh, he shot in em the back…”, “He should have stayed in his home…”, “He should have allowed the police to handle it…”, blah, blah, blah.
People have done all of those things and more and what is the result of that wisdom? More crime – more murder, more theft, more rape, more victimization. Yet the bleeding hearts want us to do more of the same!
A lot of us here on this blog celebrated the Heller decision last week. We took it for what it is. Yet I’ve got to read the indignation of people who are misguided at best calling the free exercise of that right into question?
The criminal justice system worked. Mr. Horn went through the process. He didn’t run away. He didn’t blame Bush, or his mommy and daddy. He didn’t blame the schools.
He blamed the criminals and flamed their asses for daring to victimize others!
catmman on July 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Surely there’s another conclusion. Surely you don’t actually believe that’s what I’m advocating.
I’m advocating caution when pulling the trigger, not caution when confronting the intruder.
Please. Come on. How many times do I have to assert my support for that right before I’m believed?
Which is impossible, as we can only get rid of legal guns…
Which is why I have not today, or in the past nor would I ever in the future advocate taking away our right to own a gun.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 6:24 PM
catmman on July 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM
After re-reading what I just posted, I want everyone to know that what I said was an “inartful” way of expressing my opinion – sorry for the language.
But I do not disavow any word of it!
catmman on July 1, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Not when it’s an understandable accident, we don’t.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 6:24 PM
My point, as I went on to say, was that we worry so much about civilian deaths that we hold trials over them and make laws that specifically tie the hands of our soldiers over them.
Basically, we care a great deal about the issue.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Even with no priors? You left that part out of when you quoted him. He was responding to your “what if they hadn’t had any priors”, point.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 6:28 PM
How are you doing that? You’re calling for some unspecified change to the law in reaction to an event which occured decades ago. I am givng you credit in saying that you think it’s a common problem. Because if you accept that it was some one-off long-ago event and you’re still obsessing over it on this thread …..
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM
I’ve noticed that on this blog and MM, we tend to say that this should not be done. You won’t find many people here endorsing the tying of our soldiers hands.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM
The Founding Fathers were, and most people are. If you have no right to protect your property, you have no life worth living. Innocents die all the time, from any number of causes; the % from people in the process of protecting their property is a minuscule number.
So a known criminal, in the middle of committing a crime, running at a person with a crow bar does not put a life at stake?
Not that I am conceding anything to your logic, just asking in the hypothetical world.
Horn had every right to be on his property, and his neighbors, and to be armed. You can place NO responsibility on him for he committed no crime before having to shoot.
The jury said he committed no crime by shooting either.
Voidseeker on July 1, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Esthier, what’s your opinion of the Haditha killings and trial?
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM
That is your opinion, and I fully disagree. Private Property, and the right to defend it, is one of the few primary reasons for the existence of the USA.
On the individual level it is still critical: what quality of life would you have if you had no assumed right to keep & defend your own property? You would not be able to stop people from robbing you. You could go away on vacation and come back to a new family living in your home and have no say about it. You could get car jacked and have to just accept the loss.
All of those sound absurd? That is because they are, here, in the USA. Private Property Rights are critical, and more valuable than the lives of criminals.
Voidseeker on July 1, 2008 at 7:01 PM
You need to take the time at this very stressful moment when you are fearing for your life to ask the innocent perpetrators about their prior rap sheet.
/s/ off
Some ideas and thoughts are like communism. It seems like a good workable idea until actual implementation. Then the bodies start to pile up.
PrettyD_Vicious on July 1, 2008 at 7:01 PM
I don’t entirely understand what your getting at, but my point is that there is only one way to make sure that something never kills an innocent person, and that is to eliminate the object.
I don’t question your professed support of the 2nd amendment, I’m questing your unrealistic view of what goes through a persons mind when there is an intruder in their home, and why the homeowner shouldn’t have been punished in that case, (although I’m not an expert on the facts surrounding the case.)
I don’t disagree, but when there’s an intruder in your home and you’re afraid for your life, you’re primary motivation for caution is to ensure that you and your loved ones survive the encounter. The wellbeing of the intruder is not a secondary consideration, at best.
If somebody breaks into my home while I’m here, as far as I’m concerned my only responsibility is to determine if it’s somebody I know that has reason to be there or is wearing a LEO uniform. After that, any caution I take is my prerogative.
The vehicular analogy to this case would be somebody driving down the street, having a child run out from behind a parked car and the driver not having time to stop or avoid hitting him. It’s a tragedy, but an accident nevertheless. Comparing that case to a drunk driver or somebody who loses control of their car because they were driving recklessly is specious, IMO. The homeowner had an intruder in his home, it’s not like his home is a public place where people can come and go at will.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 7:06 PM
For the record, I do not have a problem with you nor do I find you anti-gun/2nd Amendment.
I do disagree with you on points, but find your posts to be intelligent, and well written. You have your view, and I have mine.
I am more than happy to respectfully disagree with you view when it does not match mine as you present it logically without any projection.
Voidseeker on July 1, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Probably right. I think the only time our soldiers should be tried for killing a civilian is if it was done with malicious intent.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Woh! Five pages of comments here? AP, you obviously hit paydirt.
My two bits worth: If someone comes at me or my loved ones with violence in mind, be it day or night, the police will be called…. to collect the rubbish. I doubt they would say anything other than, “Nice grouping.”
Texas Nick 77 on July 1, 2008 at 7:12 PM
And in reading my own comment I should have added: “In fact they are so valuable that the Founding Fathers place them on level with their own lives when they signed the Declaration of Independence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Three things mattered most: life, property, & honor.”
Voidseeker on July 1, 2008 at 7:16 PM
I think the only time our soldiers should be tried for killing a civilian is if it was done with malicious intent.
…Or gross negligence, I should add. But the point is, not when it happens in the normal line of duty.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Have you seen a pic of the two dead felons? They look like obama supporters! No great loss.
elduende on July 1, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Hang on to them guns Texans they might come in handy when some lyin vermin congress critters decide you can’t drill for oil anymore also.
Shotguns a perfect home and neighborhood weapon by the way hard to miss and hard to wound.
Just point shoot and bury.
dhunter on July 1, 2008 at 8:49 PM
If this had happened 100 or 150 years ago the neighbor would have thanked the man for protecting his property and the bad guys would be buried. That would be it. Our society has actually become less civilized because people care more about those who are guilty than they do for the protectors of the innocent. People are willing to give the thieves a pass but are quick to condemn Horn. If the thieves had killed someone while committing the crime there are those who would still give them a pass. The penalty for stealing should not be the death penalty but at the same time if they are killed while committing the crime, so be it.
Rose on July 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM
And the good guys win one
JIMV on July 1, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Can I hear an AMEN?!!!
TheSitRep on July 1, 2008 at 11:16 PM
I am really late to the party here, since I’ve been fishing with my kid, but here’s my take: Joe Horn defended his property and exercised what we call down here “Texas Justice” which has been defined by state law here. To me, it makes no difference if the bad guy is inside the house or outside the house. Texas law agrees. If one is threatened, one has the right to defend oneself. To Mr. Horn, the two men posed a threat and he took care of it. Texas law is pretty clear here – we have the right to protect our property and our neighbors, if we feel threatened with our lives. Mr. Horn felt that way and took care of the situation.
A while back while the hubby was out of town, there was an incident at my house where someone was peeking in my windows. I’ve slept with my over/under put together under my bed ever since. When the hubby is gone, two shotgun shells live under my pillow for that “just in case moment.”
I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to pull the trigger.
pullingmyhairout on July 1, 2008 at 11:39 PM
My 82 year old dad was sitting on the front porch and was robbed in broad daylight by a man walking down the street who forced him inside the house.
I have had to call 911 the past two night because of people creeping around my neighbors house.
I am seriously thinking about buying a gun. I’m not afraid to use it.
GoodBoy on July 2, 2008 at 1:33 AM
People who have the inclination to break into a stranger’s house in broad daylight would likely be willing to commit violence in order to protect themselves from being arrested.
And they are not “innocent”; they are felons.
TexasJew on July 2, 2008 at 1:58 AM
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM
C
Amen
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 2:20 AM
Kinda surreal in that this verdict was handed down at this particular time.
Allow me to explain:
I live in the Hartford sub-urbs. As some of you may know, recently, an elderly fellow was run-over by some cretin in broad daylight and while said cretin sped away, no fewer than 4 cars drove past the guy lying in the road critically injured and another (swear to God, this guy should too ashamed of himself to show his face in public ever again) got in his vehicle about 10 feet or so from where the victim was laying in the street and drove away. The message sent by those people is: In this town, you’re on your own. If someone does something to you, something happens to you, we don’t care, it’s not our concern. Pretty powerful message there.
Joe Horn sees a couple of guys robbing his neighbor’s house. He calls 911 and grabs a shotgun. He reports a crime in progress and then goes out to confront the perps. He yells “Stop or you’re dead!” as clear a warning as can be given by a person weilding a shotgun or any other type of firearm. The perps decide they’re going to make a run for it, loot in tow. Horn shoots them both dead stopping the two men, who turned out to be convicted fellons in the country illegally, sending a pretty clear message to any other criminals in pretty much the entire state of Texas that you don’t waltz into that neighborhood and proceed at your liesure to perpetrate felonious acts against the citizens of that community because there’s a really good chance the end result of such endevor is a one way trip to the mourge and slab therein. The jury sent out an equally powerful message, perhaps even more potent though: people have a right to feel safe not only in their own homes but also in their own communities. Also That people should also feel safe enough to leave their homes and live their lives without fear that the moment they leave their homes the dreggs of society, or in this case, the dreggs of someone else’s society, have carte blanche to do as they please with regards to their homes and property.
Brass tacks: I’d rather live in a place full of Joe Horns than somewhere where literally dozens of people would witness an elderly man fall victim to a vicious hit-and-run, and then leave the dying man in the street, driving by, driving away after the fact, or not even bothering to check on him at all.
One is called a community.
The other is anything but a community.
SuperCool on July 2, 2008 at 6:43 AM
You must have missed this part of my previous post…
To me it is sad to see that there are those that would allow criminals free reign as long as there was no perceived threat to a person’s life or wellbeing, which is certainly a judgement call…perhaps you don’t understand the consequences of such an attitude? How about the mental well being of persons that are the victims of break-ins, robberies, etc.?
I really can’t even stand to discuss this matter with someone that is so far removed from the idea of protecting lawful citizens (and their property) from thugs.
Oh, and in case you didn’t know it, Rambo was an anti-war movie (you have seen the movie, right?). So, perhaps you were trying to state that I’ve been affected by a movie to think that violence in defense of oneself and one’s rights is a good thing? I’d like to think that I had that value system already ingrained in me, so that when I did see Rambo, I would sympathize with the lead character. Basically, I think your jibe failed.
Again, yes I need help understanding the idea of obeying or enforcing only certain laws. Perhaps as an analogy, you could explain to me why citizens should only be concerned when the government actually keeps you from speaking freely vs. someone detestable like a white supremist hate group?
In all seriousness, I think you are taking the position that only when a person’s life is demonstrably endangered should citizens get involved beyond the act of calling the police and I think that is a dispicable (sp?) attitude.
Geministorm on July 2, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Fantastic post.
Geministorm on July 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM
The only problem with that idea is that we generally find out whether or not a civilian was killed with malicious intent at trial.
Which goes into the two posts by flenser.
I agree that things would be better if our soldiers could fight without their hands tied behind their backs; however, I agree with our insistence in ensuring as few civilian deaths as possible.
Maybe there’s a better solution out there, one that would give them more freedom on the battlefield and also ensure less civilian casualties, but, not being in the military myself, I really wouldn’t know.
Having studied up on the Haditha killings and trial, I find it to be a setup, and I wish it hadn’t taken as long as it has to see our soldiers get justice. So many people who were involved with reporting the incident had an obvious grudge against America and our military and so many had dubious evidence.
Murtha is a piece of scum for saying what he did about our troops and if he were in any way decent, he’d at least apologize.
Clear enough?
I want the military to take every precaution it deems necessary to both fight the war effectively and see to it that no civilians are targeted and few are caught in the cross fires.
The thing is, I’m really not obsessing about it. Until this thread, I never even knew it existed.
As I said earlier, one poster brought it up and said what I thought was slanderous, that people here would live with things like that, and I said that couldn’t be true was surprised to find it wasn’t and have spent the rest of my time trying to explain why I don’t want to live with incidents like that while trying to keep my second amendment creds intact.
That’s it.
I don’t like the incident and don’t see how that should be a consequence of allowing gun ownership in this country.
As far as I can see, that was a rare event. If it were a common occurrence, that would be one thing, and maybe a new law would be necessary, but I don’t see how it’s something we just have to live with. The man was punished civilly, and he’ll have to live the rest of his life knowing he killed an innocent boy.
Esthier on July 2, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I am sick and tired of the liberal attitude that maybe I have a right to defend my life, but property is never worth defending. It’s a typical attitude from those who deep in their little Marxist hearts don’t believe in private ownership of property anyhow.
Voidseeker has done an excellent job in some of the above posts in pointing out the Founding Fathers beliefs on a citizen’s right to defend his property.
I’d like to add that (for most people) property represents the results of their hard work. Those who work for what they have should never have to surrender it to those too lazy to work but willing to steal.
Texas Nick USN on July 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Well, I’m not a Founding Father. As far as I’m concerned, my property, as meager as it is, is not worth an innocent person’s life.
It’s worth a guilty person’s life maybe under certain circumstances, but I don’t know if I could enjoy the things I own knowing innocent blood was spilled to protect it.
And I’m not talking about a right. Yes, people should have the right to protect their property, but people also have a responsibility once they’ve decided to take a life to make sure they’re taking a life that is a threat, either to property or to themselves personally.
A gun is a very powerful tool. I’m only saying it should be treated as such. Most of you already seem to agree, at least in your own lives.
I got that, really. It was all over your last post and couldn’t have been missed. But that’s not what I’m advocating.
I understand that innocent people sometimes die. The method of an innocent person’s death isn’t something that keeps me up at night.
We will never live in a world without innocent deaths, so outlawing one weapon does nothing but change the manner in which an innocent person will be killed.
I’m just saying that we don’t live with innocent lives being lost. As a nation, we do something about it.
Understandably, but it should still be a consideration.
No, that’s not quite the same. There was nothing the driver could do in that scenario to save the child. This man could have put his gun down, realized the door bell had been rung, looked at the man’s tuxedo costume or any number of things to have figured out that he wasn’t a threat.
Of course it’s an accident. I don’t disagree. But it wasn’t an unavoidable accident.
Misha already spoke for herself, but I’m sure all of you here who own guns think about situations like this and go through in your mind the thing you should do to prevent something like this from happening.
I’m not saying it’s a mistake others wouldn’t make, but I am saying that it’s a preventable mistake.
There was another, similar case that happened around that time. A kid shot his friend with a gun he thought wasn’t loaded.
That too was an accident, but he spent two years in jail because of it.
Now, I’m not saying they’re the same. The kid obviously didn’t make sure the gun was loaded and for that reason was being reckless with the weapon.
While I believe the other man was being reckless with his for not making sure the teen was a threat to him, I would still agree that the other kid was more reckless. I’m just using that story to explain why I would support some sort of punishment for that man even though the life he took was by accident.
That’s just my opinion.
All of you have made very compelling arguments (sincerely, I have thought long and hard about them), but in the end, I just believe innocent life is worth so much more than property that people should be given the responsibility to make sure the person they’re shooting at is not innocent.
Thank you. I was getting frustrated yesterday, but you are all very incredible people. I appreciate it that you took the time to assure me I hadn’t become the enemy. I overreacted and am glad none of you completely called me out on it.
And I agree. We disagree on this issue, but that’s alright. Ultimately it doesn’t change anything, and on the next red meat issue, we’ll likely agree again.
Esthier on July 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM
The bottom line is Police only show up AFTER a crime is committed. Those of you who want to depend on the good will of criminals not to maim or kill you and your family while in commission of a crime on your home or property can do so; you can also wait patiently for the police to come and take a report afterwards.(hopefully none of you has already been put in an ambulance with wounds or worse) I choose not to take that route. I will defend my home and family FIRST. Then the police can come and take a report.
Lunkinator on July 2, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I just heard the entire 911 call on the G.Gordon Liddy show. Some points to mention that I took from that;
1. Mr. Horn did *not* know the neighbors whom were broken into. He said that he knew the other side well, and if it had been their house, he would have already been over there and taken care of it.
2. He stated he wanted the police there right away. Over and over again he said to hurry up and get them there quick or he was going to have to take matters into his own hands because he wasn’t going allow them to get away with it.
3. He said he saw they had at least a crowbar, because they used it to break the window. But, he only saw one of them well and was unable to describe the second man other than being “black”.
4. The operator repeatedly said for Mr. Horn to stay in the house and that no property was worth shooting someone for (btw, does our government take that same attitude? I mean, throughout the history of man, isn’t property and land exactly the cause for most wars and innumerable killings?). Mr. Horn said he wasn’t going to stand for it. G.Gordon Liddy correctly pointed out to the first caller that the operator is in no way an official acting law officer and that his statements were simply advice.
5. Mr. Horn said point blank that he was going to shoot them and then later said that he was going to kill them. It was apparent that he was very anxious and distressed by the brazen behavior of the two men robbing his neighbor. But, he said he was going to tell them to stop and drop the loot or else.
6. The 911 operator seemed to think that Mr. Horn might accidently shoot one of his officers. But, then I wondered why if any plainclothed officers were there, why weren’t they taking action to stop the robbery? Mr. Horn was watching the entire time, he would have seen the officers and reported that to the operator.
7. I didn’t time it, but it seemed that the call lasted about 4-5 minutes before Mr. Horn put it down and exited his house to confront the robbers.
8. As the robbers were exiting the house they had robbed, the conversation between the operator and Mr. Horn became a many times repeated;
Operator: “Don’t you leave your house Mr. Horn”
Mr. Horn: “I’m going to do it, I’m going to stop them”
9. From the tone, it sounded like Mr. Horn was scared, but resolved to stop this from happening in his neighborhood and for them to get away.
Geministorm on July 2, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I’ve wondered about this also. Given my work experience and based on the fact that I know that area to have a gang unit I wonder if the plainclothed was an undercover gang office who heard the dispatch of the PD on the radio and made his way over there to take a look and wasn’t willing to jeopardize his cover. If that’s the case, it seems to me that his testimony before the GJ is why they didn’t indite Mr. Horn. From what I remember from hearing the tape months ago, it went down pretty fast.
Texas Gal on July 2, 2008 at 6:06 PM
And I think you need psychiatric help. Go figure.
Ropera on July 2, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Just released! The 3 statements from Joe Horn in video.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/07/templates/lineuppop.html?mcVideo=1631239835
After watching the first one, the latino community can not argue that it was motivated by hate against Hispanics.
Ropera on July 2, 2008 at 11:00 PM
However…
on the 911 tape Horn says (still inside his home): “I’m not going to let them get away with it, I’m gonna shoot. I’m gonna shoot.”
the dispatcher’s response: “Stay inside the house and don’t go out there. OK?… I know what you’re feeling, but it’s not worth shooting someone over this. OK?”
…and in the first tape of declarations to the police (previous post) he says that his intention was to stop them, not to shoot.
Getting out of the house was a bad call. Luckily for him these guys were career criminals, if they were kids with no priors he’d be in deep s**t by now.
Ropera on July 2, 2008 at 11:18 PM
It is really despicable on the part of the Houston Chronicle not to bleep the portions of the audio where the address of Joe Horn is mentioned.
Ropera on July 2, 2008 at 11:23 PM
If you are ever in a position of getting robbed, and I hope you are not, I hope that a policeman is near.
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Amazingly, we agree on something. Perhaps it was purposeful on the part of the Houston Chronicle?
BTW, thanks for the link, those were interesting to watch.
I think I’ll wait for a professional opinion, thanks.
Geministorm on July 2, 2008 at 11:32 PM
The police are employed to arrest criminals. The fallacy in our system is that they are not criminals until they complete their crime. This is why communities employee security agencies to advert and discourage crime.
During the years I live in Houston I was burglarized 4 times. If you have never come home to find your domain violated and your stuff taken, you have no idea just how personally shaking that experience can be. To know that someone was in your home taking things that you worked years to acquire and decided they had a right to take them from you.. that feeling is indescribable. In one of my burglaries they tried to kill my precious dog who tried to stand them off and was met with a violent blow to her head. Thankfully she did survive.
I personally think that those that are crying for Mr. Horn’s head do so because of their own personally responsibility in creating this underclass that has been fed on entitlement, who make their “living” by taking from others what they themselves won’t work honestly for because they have had everything handed to them by the government coffers.
I applaud Mr. Horn for his courage to stand up against these criminals and I have no doubt that he understood that if they were allowed to succeed, his home would be in danger of the very same.
If my neighbor’s house is invaded by rats, should I wait for those rats to move to my house, NOPE. I eliminate the rats.
Texas Gal on July 3, 2008 at 12:28 AM
You should read carefully all my statements in this thread before giving an opinion that has nothing to do with what I think. My main disagreement with Geministorm (and others) are only related to the obligation of confronting the crooks in defense of others’ property thus risking your life in the process.
Horn’s DOB and SS# are bleeped, why not his address? Although the police could have done the former, in any case I believe that is puttiing him at an unnecessary risk.
Ropera on July 3, 2008 at 12:40 AM
God bless Texas.
Mojave Mark on July 3, 2008 at 2:11 AM
I have no problem with the result, for a number of reasons.
a) we all have an interest in preventing crime or stopping it in progress;
b) police are only rarely in a position to stop a crime in progress;
c) unless house burglars are caught during the commission of a crime, they are rarely caught and the crimes rarely seriously investigated;
d) while there is no obligation to intervene to stop the commission of a crime, citizens should be permitted to intervene as long as they don’t screw up. If they screw up, they should be held accountable for screwing up.
e) when it comes to intervening to stop the commission of a crime, given the urgency of the situation and the potential for irretrievable loss of property or injury, I don’t believe that citizens should have fewer rights to intervene than police do;
f) the criminals in this case were challenged and given the option of not fleeing;
g) the rule is pretty straight forward: if you don’t want to be shot in the commission of a crime, don’t commit crime.
pussum207 on July 3, 2008 at 9:44 AM
A little reminder of the crime wave to hit this neighborhood…
And for anyone not familiar with the murder rate in Houston…in 2006, they were #2 in the country, behind Philadelphia. I lost my brother to robbery in Houston in 2007, so don’t give me this crap about not fighting back. Add the illegal & Katrina influx to Houston’s criminal element of all races, and Houston’s crime skyrocketed. My brother was just one of its many victims.
But don’t believe me. Read the articles for yourself:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/13448543/detail.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,223319,00.html
2008 Houston Murder Stats:
http://www.houstoncrimemaps.com/offense/murder/
You can also search by offense, neighborhood, date, district, beat, zip…and you’ll see how my former adopted hometown has become a warzone.
Joe Horn has done us all a huge favor.
Esthier, you may not feel your property is worth much, but wait until you’re robbed. You may change your mind. Right now what you’re writing smacks of Socialism, whether that’s your intention or not. Our Founding Fathers meant for all of us, regardless of wealth, to enjoy or property rights. So celebrate that this 4th for me. I have some trouble doing that, since I lost my father around the 4th two years ago.
After losing what I’ve lost in the last 2 years, I’ll be d$mned if they take anything else from me, including my weapons. And yes, I will somehow learn to live with taking the life of anyone stupid enough to try & enter my abode. That is something each gun owner knows they have to possibly face…when will criminals learn they may have to face the working end of a gun?
Miss_Anthrope on July 3, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5