Grand jury refuses to indict Texan for killing two burglars next door
posted at 7:38 pm on June 30, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
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: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
Whatever the statute says, I’d think there would be some common law precedent that if a person can use deadly force to protect himself (or his property) then a third party is also entitled to use deadly force in behalf of the person who needs protection.
Secondly, common law probably has precedence of the use of deadly force to protect property no matter what time of day it is. (That sounds like a particularly stupid statute by the way- if you have the right to protect your property, what should the time of day matter?).
The way I figure it, if someone endangers your life, liberty, or property- they ain’t got no room to complain when they get shot.
Sackett on July 1, 2008 at 12:25 AM
I’ve not been to Enchanted Rock but I have read the stories. That’s a good place to go. And I will. Thanks.
I think that Cap Hayes had the magic at his back and the guns were just an instrument of that magic… :)
Oh yea the micro-breweries in Fredericksburg .. I do need to visit there. And that is such a wonderful little German town. A memory from my childhood is visiting there with my parents and the phone in that house was one of those crank phones with a party line and the mother in the house telling the people on the line to get off so she could use it. My how times have changed just in my lifetime.. cell phones and GPS..
Actually I favor Shinner Bock because they don’t add sugar to their brew. And anyone who has diabetes can still enjoy a good ale.
Texas Gal on July 1, 2008 at 12:51 AM
I just finished a Shiner Helles Lager.
Johan Klaus on July 1, 2008 at 1:45 AM
I discussed this case with some other gun-toting friends. I think he was on very shaky legal and moral ground. He killed two people for committing a non-violent crime against an absent third party. His life wasn’t in danger. His neighbor’s life certainly wasn’t in danger. Florida’s law is similar, and there’s no way I’d kill someone for breaking into someone else’s unoccupied house. First — why initiate a confrontation? What if they had been armed? I’m not going to risk my neck for my friend’s TV set. Second, if you’re determined to stop the robbery, why was it necessary to shoot them? Why not just take your shotgun and go stand next to their car until the police arrive? Third, by going over to his neighbor’s house, he’s leaving his own house unguarded and vulnerable.
I know it sounds horrible, but this guy committed manslaughter without a very good reason. The right to carry a gun is not a right to make yourself an agent of law enforcement or of retribution.
Think of this another way… what if he was at the bank and he saw someone using his friend’s driver’s license to steal money from his account. Could he shoot him then? The crime isn’t very different — non-violent and against an absent third party.
A few ways the shooting would have been justified: (a) if he had been house-sitting for his friend — that is, staying in his house. Where you’re living (however temporarily) is your castle. (b) if his friend was at home, perhaps held hostage, (c) if, before he initiated a violent confrontation, the robbers initiated violence against him — say by pointing guns at him and telling him to stay in his house.
Mark Jaquith on July 1, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Texas Gal on July 1, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Try the Auslander restaurant there sometimes. Very atmospheric.
Whenever we go to Enchanted Rock, and my daughter runs all the way up to the top (she started at the age of 5 and is now 8), we spend the rest of the day in Fredericksburg and buy her an ice cream as a prize.
I remember many years ago, when Enchanted Rock was still private property (and you could bring beer - it’s now a state park, and you can’t), a couple of dumb frat boys from UT/Austin shlepped a very heavy cooler full of beer on a 100+ degree day and had to drink it all when they reached the top. That granite must have been about 130 degrees up there!
I was up at the top, witnessing this and remember thinking how much less taxing it would have been for them to just save some time to have drank those six-packs in the parking lot!
TexasJew on July 1, 2008 at 1:55 AM
That neighborhood just earned itself years of absolute calm. Burglars will view it as radioactive.
Excellent.
Black Adam on July 1, 2008 at 1:58 AM
By the time that they point a gun at you, you are probably dead.
Johan Klaus on July 1, 2008 at 2:14 AM
IMO breaking into somebodies home is such a heinous crime and personal violation that it’s tantamount to violence. People should feel secure in their home.
Good riddance to them both. I agree that Joe was probably on shaky legal ground but it’s not like he was in a public place and saw somebody using his friends drivers license; they were robbing his neighbors house.
If law enforcement had caught the guys instead of Joe then I would appose the death penalty in that case, since nobody was home at the time, though I favor far longer sentences than are the norm, but if the guys lunged at the cops after they were told to stop, buh bye.
And anybody who finds the risk unacceptable should simply avoid breaking into peoples homes. It’s not like it happens by accident.
The world is unarguably a better place without these two villains around, so I don’t see what the problem is other than as an esoteric philosophical exercise concerning vigilantism and the law, but that’s not what we’re talking about, we’re talking about Joe’s future. It’s not like he baited the criminals with the intent to kill somebody, and he wasn’t in a public place where other people would be likely to get hurt. He was at home. He was scared, pissed off, got carried away and did every law abiding citizens a favor, whether they appreciate it or not.
Luckily, in Texas, they appreciate it. Joe’s legal ground may have been shaky but that’s what juries are for and they decided in his favor.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 2:23 AM
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
Johan Klaus on July 1, 2008 at 2:28 AM
You are the one making assumptions about race. People with Spanish names occupy a pretty broad swath of the earth, and come from a variety of racial backgrounds.
There’s an orthodox Jewish rabbi by the name of Nathan Lopes Cardozo. He’s a profound thinker and outstanding lecturer. From his Spanish surnames would you assume he’s Latino? Actually he was born in Holland and is descended from Jews expelled from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.
rokemronnie on July 1, 2008 at 2:34 AM
At least he was able to rehabilitate two bad guys…permanently. I didn’t think the Grand Jury would pursue this, but if they had, it’s one time I was hoping to get jury duty. I wanted to ask the judge on which lapel we should pin the medal…
golfer1 on July 1, 2008 at 5:47 AM
The fact that this story is even up here for discussion and debate is a true testament to the sad state this country has turned into. Our forefathers are turning in their graves. Criminal have more sympathy and rights than law abiding citizens. I am a proponent of cowboy justice and that’s exactly what these two loser got. Good riddance.
rayvet on July 1, 2008 at 6:37 AM
I want to be Joe Horn’s Neighbor..
DaveC on July 1, 2008 at 7:30 AM
upon realising the two men were non-white becoming belatedly enthusiastic?
I could care less what color a burglar in my house is.
I cannot imagine anyone getting up in the middle of the night, who, upon hearing a noise in their house and finding a stranger in their living room or children’s bedroom,,, lets out a “happy sigh” of relief once they realize the intruder is the same skin color as their own!
JellyToast on July 1, 2008 at 7:38 AM
Despite the whole FDLS debacle, I still think Texas is an awesome state.
Mrs. Happy Housewife on July 1, 2008 at 7:57 AM
It’s quite possible we don’t know what actually happened. They say there was an undercover police officer who was there and observed, so maybe he told a different story to the grand jury than the drive by media told to the public?
In any event, unless Texas makes the grand jury testimony public we may never know what facts the decision was made on.
On it’s face, it appears the good guy won.
tarpon on July 1, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Just for the sake of discussion, if the second burglar had been armed and had not only been confronted by a man with a shotgun but had just seen his companion shot, would he, fearing for his life, been within his rights to shoot Mr. horn?
JonM on July 1, 2008 at 8:46 AM
I love my state.
God Bless Texas, where people actually have rights.
lgodfrey88 on July 1, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Excellent news!
awake on July 1, 2008 at 8:52 AM
That’s good shooting my friends.
Two criminal aliens were instantly and permanently rehabilitated.
Let’s just say, they were deported to the after-life.
TheSitRep on July 1, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Dawg’s a hero. Case closed.
Spanglemaker on July 1, 2008 at 9:10 AM
ha ha good one.
I like my white burglers shot dead.
A salesman came by the house selling alarm systems the otherday. I told him I did not want to discourage the from entering, as I have my own plans for them.
TheSitRep on July 1, 2008 at 9:14 AM
This reminds me of the story of the people that stood around watching a man kick his 3 year old son to death in the street and no one did anything.
On one hand, society will degrade and denounce those persons as heartless cowards. Then, we see this incident where someone takes action to protect lawfulness and property and he gets hammered by the legal ramifications.
If anyone has ever experienced a break-in, they can tell you how terrifying and invasive it is. He gave them fair warning after the crime was already in progress…too bad, not so sad.
God bless Joe Horn, he’s a hero. I want a neighbor like him, that’s for sure!
Geministorm on July 1, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Nobody should stand by and allow their neighbors house to be robbed. It’s a shame Mr. Horn’ life was interrupted for as long as it was just for doing the right thing.
For you people that want to whine about these two dead robbers, their blood is on their own hands.
Maxx on July 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Blech.
Double blech.
I live about 20 minutes from this neighborhood. A little background: that gang of illegal immigrants had been terrorizing that neighborhood for over a year, robbing and beating residents. And yes, even MURDERING them. The residents have understandably been on edge and there is a serious citizen flight going on.
Old Mr. Horn knew exactly what he was facing when he stopped those criminals. He WAS in extreme danger, and he did his town - and the rest of us - a friggin’ monumental favor.
Redhead Infidel on July 1, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Pfft. Useless by-stander who would just watch a crime being committed.
Please don’t move to Texas. We prefer our men strong and bold and courageous down here - and not afraid to take action.
Redhead Infidel on July 1, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Texas, where people like people making life and death decisions for them based on years of watching Law and Order, Gunsmoke and Bruce Willis movies.
Mr. Horn’s life was NOT in danger until he challenged the burglars, who didn’t even know he existed until he did so, so this defense is bullsh*t.
And, I suppose Mr. Horn was too poor a shot to shoot them in the leg, take cover and wait until the police arrived. Hey - maybe next time one of Mr. Horn’s stray bullets can kill a neighbour’s sleeping child! That’d be awesome.
Question is - was disobeying the 911 dispatcher the same as disobeying a police officer at the scene of a crime in progress? And since a plainclothes officer was right there as this was happening, wouldn’t Mr. Horn be charged with interfering with police activity?
And finally, people trying to make this into a race thing are retarded.
Dave Rywall on July 1, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Grand juries will indict a ham sandwich but they refused to indict Joe Horn and that just goes to show that what ham sandwiches do is more harmful to society than what Joe Horn did. It was all good and proper in my opinion.
Maxx on July 1, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Actually, I don’t believe this is a Castle Doctrine case. The change I’ve read, from the undercover police who witnessed the shooting, the perps were coming out of his neighbor’s house toward Joe Horn, who told them to stop, …
Now it becomes a question of threat.
Should he have left his house? Yet a different question.
desertdweller on July 1, 2008 at 9:33 AM
That’s an incredibly ignorant and stupid statement.
Redhead Infidel on July 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM
If a burgler comes into my home he deserves what he gets. IMO, he deserves no less if he goes into my neighbors home.
BTW, how was he to know whether or not his neighbors were in their home with their throats slashed?
And yes, I live in Texas and I own several guns.
BrianA on July 1, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Redhead Infidel - sorry someone peed in your cornflakes. But do tell me what specific training Mr. Horn had in dealing with potentially deadly situations. I mean, guns are dangerous and should not be taken lightly, right? One would think that gun owners, knowing they could be in situations like this, would take mature and responsible steps to ensure they knew what to do and to ensure the safety of the public in the area beyond the situation. So what were his credentials again? Thanks in advance.
Dave Rywall on July 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I feel the same way. Had he simply shot their legs, I’d be happier about this. As it is, the grand jury certainly sent a message that I support.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 10:13 AM
“BTW, the burglars were illegals, FWIW.
omnipotent on June 30, 2008 at 7:45 PM”
Isn’t that interesting…an unmentioned by the liberal MSM coverage of that case.
The result is another reason to be thankful for being American, in America! Americans on juries, particularly Grand Juries, are empowered to ensure just outcomes.
I mention by contrast a quintessentially liberal example of “justice”, the infamous Tony Martin case in Britain. Around seven years ago, Mr. Martin, a homeowner, was imprisoned for manslaughter (the Crown Prosecutor tried to get a murder conviction) for killing with a shotgun one burglar and wounding another, in his home, in the middle of the night.
Not only did the burglars have the proverbial criminal records as long as your arm, but Mr. Martin ended up doing more time than did the surviving burglar. The British “justice” system refused to give him parole as he refused to “show remorse for his crime”. He served his entire sentence, whereas the burglar did minimal time on his sentence and was then paroled.
This kind of “justice” is what the Democrats and their liberal judges and Supreme Court jurists will inflict upon America, one incremental step at a time, if they’re not stopped.
DavePa on July 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Citizen.
BrianA on July 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM
The man is old. Two younger, more fit men were stealing his neighbors things and were so unfazed by the man’s shotgun that they even started walking towards him on his property.
If I were holding a gun, telling a thief to stop, and he instead kept coming at me, I’d feel threatened.
Uh, I guess you didn’t catch the part where other posters recited the rap sheet on them? Having their names helps with something like that.
Good thing you’re alright.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Don’t want to get shot? Don’t be a burglar in TX. Pretty simple.
kirkill on July 1, 2008 at 10:46 AM
What a highly offensive comment to us Texans. Here is Texas, we believe in looking out for each other and standing up for whats right and I feel sorry for you and your stupid comment because the truth is, unless you’ve lived here, you wouldn’t really know crap about who we are and what we base our decisions on.
Texas, where people GIVE A SH*T about one another and each others property.
lgodfrey88 on July 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Most people agree on this. He even now says he regrets killing them.
I’ve yet to hear an account of this story that has the man leaving his own house. It was his next door neighbor, and their bodies were found on his property.
Sure, he didn’t have to point a gun at them and tell them to stop, but I don’t see how that is him initiating a confrontation.
Didn’t the thieves initiate the confrontation by breaking into his neighbor’s house?
Well, he was asked to look after the house and was just next door while everything was occurring. What right does he have in that situation? To simply call the police and hope they show up in time?
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 10:56 AM
As a Texan with a concealed handgun license, I’m pretty sure that Mr. Horn’s conduct was outside the bounds of the law. Our statutes do not authorize the shooting of next-door burglars in broad daylight.
That said, I wouldn’t have indicted him either.
paul006 on July 1, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Whoa.
Seems to me that he was very well trained. Two shots; two kills. Doesn’t get much better than that, unless he had been able to take them both out back to back with a single shot.
Had he done that, he’d be the defendant facing charges brought by two illegal alien plaintiffs. Dead men file no wrongful injury lawsuits. How many cases must we read about burglars suing homeowners for injuries they incurred while robbing them?
Hone your skill and shoot to kill.
Beo on July 1, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Everybody, even a SWAT officer, is too poor a shot to deliberately shoot somebody in the leg–and would be a fool to try anyway. If you’re going to use lethal force, you use it with lethal intent. Shooting people in the leg is Hollywood, a tactic one comes to view as viable only after years of watching Law and Order, Gunsmoke and Bruce Willis movies.
Blacklake on July 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I guess the people in Pasadena, Texas are sick of Central American gangs ransacking their neighborhoods.
I only wish McCain was as caring…
TexasJew on July 1, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Common sense prevails for once.
Static on July 1, 2008 at 11:01 AM
The burglars created the dangerous situation by committing a felony. So, no.
I mean that’s like saying a man on death row has a right to kill his guards, since he fears for his life.
You are seriously a bigoted @sshole and clearly don’t know the first thing about this great state which you’re are lucky to be associated with because of its inclusion in the United States.
Ah, you’re British. Now it makes sense.
He knew they weren’t home, because they’d asked him to watch their house while they were out of town.
You just spilled your prejudice against Texans all over this comments section, and now you’re asking who peed in someone else’s cornflakes?
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Gun control that works. Steady pull on the trigger.
Johan Klaus on July 1, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Ha! I laughed at that even though I’m one of the ones who wishes he’d shot them in the legs.
Maybe so, but in this case, the relatives and/or girlfriends are likely going to sue anyway.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 11:04 AM
…And, I suppose Mr. Horn was too poor a shot to shoot them in the leg, take cover and wait until the police arrived…
Dave Rywall on July 1, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Idiot.
Have you ever shot a gun, Junior?
Horn was a good shot. He killed them where they needed to be killed.
TexasJew on July 1, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Obviously you have never been in a confrontation with a criminal. I have and you do not aim at their legs.
Johan Klaus on July 1, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I think its great what he did. Glad there was no indictment.
We need more Joe Horns and less of those morons who let that poor man bleeding in the middle of the street after being hit by a car, not even bothering to help.
I commend the man.
becki51758 on July 1, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Not sure if anyone cares, but it’s a big day in Georgia for the 2nd Amendment!
I am terrible at linking so I apologize if this doesn’t work.
Branch Rickey on July 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM
That is why you also have to have a shotgun, you aim at the legs, the guy does not walk anymore, but you don’t kill him.
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Don’t forget another great thing about Fredericksburg: The Pacific War museum.
otcconan on July 1, 2008 at 11:33 AM
You people are willing to live with tragedies like the death of Yoshihiro Hattori in the name of “protecting” one’s property. I am not. Feel free to continue high fiving yourselves silly over the neighbour who was “protecting” someone else’s property, a stupid and dangerous precedent. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the next innocent person to be killed.
Dave Rywall on July 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM
If this neighbourhood is as troubled as I understand it to be, then I am concerned for Mr. Horn’s safety. If gangs and illegal aliens are involved, what’s to prevent them from going on a ‘vengeance’ killing? Everyone can be gotten to.
I’m glad Horn has been cleared. We need more hard-line defence of our freedoms from criminal predation.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Speak for yourself. You are an idiot if you think that. Just my opinion!
Branch Rickey on July 1, 2008 at 11:38 AM
That innocent person will almost certainly be the victim of a criminal, not a mistaken shooting. Of course, you won’t be crying out for changes in personal defence laws “if it saves one life” then, will you?
The fact that people like you can only ever trot out the same few sad incidents demonstrates how aberrant such an occurrence is, and how competent and responsible lawfully armed civilians are.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 11:39 AM
When all else is lost, invoke the spirit of racism.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 11:40 AM
They were ROBBING his neighbor. THEY were NOT innocent…
Branch Rickey on July 1, 2008 at 11:42 AM
No. You never discharge a firearm at anything unless you intend to kill it. If you don’t need to kill it, you have absolutely no business firing a gun at it in the first place.
Blacklake on July 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM
You just revealed your total ignorance about guns. Shotguns do not fire “bullets,” you imbecile. They fire “shot,” which is why they’re called shotguns in the first place. The shot consists of hundreds of BBs of varying sizes, depending on the type of load. That is why they make such a good home defense weapon. At short ranges, they’re devastating. After about 20 yards, they won’t even penetrate a wall. You could safely fire one on a home intruder without fearing for anyone else in the house.
…and, for that measure, without injuring any neighbors as well.
It’s also why hollowpoint bullets are better for self defense than full metal jacket. FMJ goes right through everything, the bad guy included, and as a result they won’t stop him, but they’ll go through walls and continue for quite a ways. A hollowpoint will mushroom on impact with bad guy, giving it more stopping power. It’ll also mushroom on impact with walls, making penetration less likely.
Still, like I said, the nature of the shotgun is why it is pretty much the standard home-defense gun.
Oh, and by the way, it’s pretty damn difficult to stop someone with a shotgun to the leg when they’re running towards you. It’s kind of like hitting a dove on the fly, only the dove isn’t out to do you harm, and so it’s a little less stressful.
otcconan on July 1, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Amazing!!! The justice system got something right for a change!!
landlines on July 1, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Quite right. A firearm is a tool of deadly force, and should only ever be deployed as such. You only ever bring a weapon into play during a situation that threatens life, and shoot to end that threat.
I imagine these witless fools that suggest “shooting legs” will be advising us to disarm people by shooting the pistol out of their hands - just like Cagney would do.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Credentials are he is an American with 2nd Amendment rights and a damn good neighbor!
Branch Rickey on July 1, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Then we will send the robbers to your home and then we’ll have a chat.
Branch Rickey on July 1, 2008 at 12:03 PM
There’s Law and there’s Justice. The two are not the same thing. Looks to me that the Grand Jury chose Justice over Law. I don’t have a problem with that.
.
GT on July 1, 2008 at 12:03 PM
And thankfully we don’t yet have to live our lives as pathetic, castrated, meek cattle, a la the Brits.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Enlighten us: What does the brazen daylight invasion and home theft by two criminals have to do with the accidental shooting of a foreign student by a man who has paid over half a million dollars in restitution to the family of the boy he accidentally killed?
Yes or No Bonus Questions:
-Was Hattori dressed strangely and accompanied by another person wearing a mask when he showed up unannounced at a stranger’s door at night?
-Are Hattori’s so-called “friends” blameless for sending him to a stranger’s door via intense teen peer pressure to fit into a society that was completely foreign to him?
-Are criminal incidents such as home invasion and burglary more or less likely to happen on the one night of the year that people are encouraged to wear a mask (i.e. Halloween)?
Commenters on this blog are required to melt down their lawfully owned guns to make Greenpeace(tm) approved eco-friendly flowerpots and put their complete faith in a government-administered security to save them in EVERY potentially threatening situation… and if not, then every commenter on HotAir.com is a racist that advocates the “killin’ of furriners.”
ScottMcC on July 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM
So he should have stayed inside his home, he was no threatened and the police was on its way.
I agree with GT above:
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM
It’s your kind of ignorance that overthrows law and order Dave Rywall, because in your perverse view, you always lay the blame on the wrong person. You don’t lay blame on the burglars, no, you lay blame on those only trying to protect themselves and their property.
It was burglars that were responsible for Hattori’s death, not the property owner Rodney Peairs. If people didn’t engage in burglaries, Hattori would still be alive today.
It’s burglars that cause the fear for one’s own life while doing nothing more than residing within your own home that caused the fear of intruders and the death of Hattori.
But people like you would encourage burglars into terrorizing more citizens, thus much more wrongful death and injury would result due to your brand of ignorance.
Maxx on July 1, 2008 at 12:16 PM
they were walking fast away from him
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 12:17 PM
About 5 years ago the owner of a Detroit bar, a retired cop who served on the late Mayor Young’s security detail, was alerted to two men who were trying to rob an employee in the parking lot. She tried to hold them there at gunpoint for the police to arrive, but when they tried to run someone over and drive away, she fired a single shot, hitting both men, who were later found dead in their vehicle parked on the I-75 service drive.
http://www.clickondetroit.com//news/2608035/detail.html
rokemronnie on July 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Being shot in the back is not always a sign of murderous intent, despite the Hollywood-edumification of the masses.
I would encourage you to gain an understanding of why this is the case by reading some of the superb expert testimony of Massad Ayoob - a preeminent figure in the world of self-defence and law.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Using one bullet to kill two men - she must be a scottish jew ;)
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 12:23 PM
This is an idiotic assumption based on your idiotic assumptions about gun owners and people who don’t think like you.
We’re not willing to live with that. No one has ever even implied as much. But apparently, arguing us on the merits of our arguments is not something you’re capable of doing.
These criminals were walking away with the man’s neighbor’s property. The question of whether or not they were guilty wasn’t a difficult one to solve.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Rywall,who peed in my cornflakes? Why, you’re the pissant here, so you tell me.
As one of my favorite men, Col. Beckwith, once said, “We ain’t makin’ no g-ddamned cornflakes here.” A milquetoast like you won’t know who he is, of course. Google it.
Redhead Infidel on July 1, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Yes, we are.
I’m be a lot more impressed with your imagined concern for innocent victims if you ever displayed any of it for the innocent victims of criminals. For some reason they never make it on to the “progressive” radar screen.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Sorry, it should read like this:
He did not act on self-defense. He went out of his home to prevent a crime.
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Either that or what he actually did would be preferable to the proposed foolish and profoundly risky half-measure of attempting to deliberately maim.
Blacklake on July 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM
BrianA on July 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Right on.
bridgetown on July 1, 2008 at 12:38 PM
What do you mean by “next”? Who was the first innocent criminal killed? Does the term Oxymoron mean anything to you?
Guardian on July 1, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Given the background of his neighborhood, the ’self defense’ issue is highly debatable, and TX law does authorize deadly force to protect property. Castle doctrine covers his right to be where he was - would you argue that a homeowner ’sought confrontation’ because they opened their bedroom door to shoot an attacker? They could have stayed inside while he looted, right? The whole point of castle doctrine is the affirmation that free people do not have to cower from criminal predation - they may righteously confront it and defeat it.
And the grand jury agreed.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 12:40 PM
This is the root of the issue. Dave Rywall thinks that all “life and death decisions” should be made by highly qualified government experts with degrees from Havard. Or, in Daves case, whatever the Candian version of Havard is. Under no circumstances should these sorts of decisions be left up to the sort of schlubs who watch Gunsmoke.
Hard to believe now, but liberalism was once a movement which championed the common man. These days they make the Tzar of Russia look like an advocate for direct democracy.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 12:45 PM
OK, I stand corrected. Apparently some people here don’t care if innocent people are killed.
No offense, but 1. He’s talking about Yoshihiro Hattori, a man who was shot and killed for innocently mistaking the house he was entering for a friend’s house. 2. The word oxymoron doesn’t apply here.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Gee, we can’t have that, can we?
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Gives a whole new meaning to those “Neighborhood Watch” signs.
bridgetown on July 1, 2008 at 12:47 PM
You don’t read so good.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I think flenser meant “yes, we are” prepared to live with such mistakes, not that he doesn’t care if innocent people die.
Mistakes will happen, it’s an imperfect world, and we can all only do what we can to minimise risk - but I am prepared to live with the reality of this, rather than submit to some deranged disarmament fantasy - the risks and costs of which are far higher, and meticulously (and sociopathically) ignored by prohibitionists.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I support the right of people to own guns, even though it’s statistically certain that some innocent people will die as a result.
Sort of like the way I support people’s right to own a car, even though doing so means some innocent people will die as a result.
None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand, where the people killed were not innocent.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 12:54 PM
It’s well, not good, and yes, I do. Yoshihiro Hattori was an innocent man. You just admitted to be OK with another incident like that happening.
I’ll bring the context if it helps:
His comment: You people are willing to live with tragedies like the death of Yoshihiro Hattori (Yoshihiro Hattori was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party when he mistook the address and entered the wrong suburban property and was shot by the property owner.) in the name of “protecting” one’s property.
Your response: Yes, we are.
It’s really a simple exchange.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 12:54 PM
From the Houston Chronicle:
This is a bit of a different story than most folks understand.
1) The incident was WITNESSED by a POLICE OFFICER
2) The intruders were in Joe Horn’s YARD and were APPROACHING Mr. Horn.
3) The intruders were commanded to FREEZE and DIDN’T.
A few “borderline” conditions still warrant some thought, but that’s the job of the grand jury to consider. My spouse spent six months on a grand jury once, it’s grueling. (not in Texas, though).
desertdweller on July 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I know, I know, it is though. But they guy contacted the cops, offered to stop them, the dispatcher told him to stay put, they were not on his property, they were not threatening him…you know, there is a limit for things, wheter we like it or not. What if they wer citizens with no priors?
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM
In the context of this discussion, the implication was not disarm or innocent people will be killed. It’s if we allow people to shoot first and ask questions later innocent people will be killed.
And that’s very different.
The man who killed that boy was wrong and shouldn’t have gotten away with it.
I’m not OK with another incident like that happening, and I was under the impression that other people here agreed.
It’s one thing to shoot a man who is in the process of committing a felony and a complete different thing to kill a man who has walked into your house unarmed.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Not well enough to grasp irony, it seems.
No, you not-so-good reader, I said that I was willing to live with it. Go ahead and scroll back up through the thread.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Shooting them in the legs wouldn’t prevent them from returning fire, and my understanding is that Joe used a shotgun, so no stray bullets. Even if he had used a handgun, I think your concern about a stray bullet is misguided from the standpoint that the chance of Joe accidentally killing a bystander was probably remote compared to the chance that these two lowlifes might eventually have killed bystanders, perhaps intentionally. In fact, shooting them in the legs would have greatly increased the chances of a bystander getting hurt because it might have turned into a shootout.
No, society is much better off the way Joe handled it.
Some of them, although I tend to think of them as brainwashed/misguided.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM
We have juries to decide these things. Our system is not set up to allow “trial by anonymous blog commenter”.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I quoted you. I know what you said. The implication of “living with it” means you don’t mind having another one occur in the name of protecting property.
And there’s no irony in your comment. Maybe you’re going by the Alanis version of the word, but unfortunately, she was wrong.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 1:04 PM
No sh!t. Thanks for enlightening me about this country’s justice system. Without your anonymous blog comment, I might have never figured it out.
But I guess it’s only my anonymous opinion that’s irrelevant. Yours is just fine then.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Considering the outcome it seems that, training or no, Mr. Horn handled the situation quite aptly.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »