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 | regular view
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 2 3 4 5 Next »
Written like somebody who is comfortably typing.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Yep, and then again by refusing to stop.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Are you uncomfortable?
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Then it’s odd that you mischaracterised what I said.
No. “living with it” is not the same thing as “not minding it”. I live with the fact that tens of thousands of Americans die in auto accidents each year. It does not follow that I am “OK” with it. I live with the fact that innocent people get killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which I support. It does not follow that I am “OK” with it. I live with the fact that the comments sections on blogs are open to people with the thinking ability of a dust bunny. It does not follow that I am “OK” with it.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM
I think the rule of thumb is to shoot center-mass, especially when the target is moving. Everything above and bellow center-mass is harder to hit due to increased movement.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Bingo, desertdweller, and thank you for bringing some actual FACTS into this thread of idle speculation. I owe you one.
Oh how I wish that some people would actually acquaint themselves with facts prior to spouting off.
Another point to ponder for those who believe that Mr. Horn in any way did anything wrong here: Considering that a plainclothes detective was observing the whole incident while it happened, doesn’t the fact that an arrest WASN’T made tell you something about whether or not Mr. Horn’s actions were justified?
Remember, kiddos: The detective, other than being a bona fide LEO with, one may assume, some knowledge of the actual law, was actually THERE.
Those of you whining about the “inappropriateness” of Mr. Horn’s actions, on the other hand, WEREN’T.
As to the whole “he should’ve shot them in the legs” nonsense, go right ahead, you John Waynes out there, try it one day. For the experiment to be valid, you’d have to be in a crisis situation with your fight or flight response on full alert while you’re demonstrating your Wild Bill Hickock Mad Ski11z.
Not to mention that the DA will thank you when it comes to your Grand Jury hearing. I can hear it already:
“So you, Sir, are claiming that you were in fear for your life, yet, under such stressful circumstances (this is after he has read aloud, at great length, studies of the effects of being genuinely afraid for your life to the jury), had the calm, skill and presence of mind to accurately hit a small, moving target within the time span of a fraction of a second? Impressive.”
Or how about this one?:
“Sir, is the jury to understand that you, after claiming to be in justified fear of your life, and after having produced a lethal weapon and aimed it at the deceased, subsequently decided that lethal force wasn’t necessary yet you fired anyway?”
Damn, it’d be FUN to be the DA on that Grand Jury.
Civil liability? Fuhgeddaboutit. The Castle Doctrine takes care of that. If you’re no-billed by the Grand Jury, you have no civil liability. That was one of the cornerstones in that particular legislation. So the fiancee of the deceased goblin can forget about her dreams of sudden financial windfalls.
Instead, I’d like to see her brought up on charges of knowingly harboring a fugitive from the law. Unless, of course, she can convince the jury that she, being his fiancee, had no idea whatsoever about his immigration status.
Maybe she should just shut up while she’s behind?
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Saying you don’t mind having another one occur is not the same as saying you’re OK with it either, but I shouldn’t have to teach you English.
If you can live with it, then it doesn’t significantly bother you, at least not enough to do something about it.
And we’re not living with civilian casualties in Iraq. We’re specifically doing everything we can to avoid them and prosecute our own men and women if we believe the above wasn’t done. There’s a big difference.
The same is true of accidents. If we were just living with it, then we wouldn’t have so many traffic codes designed for the express purpose of reducing or eliminating traffic deaths.
But now we’re just arguing semantics.
I won’t “live with” or “condone” or be “OK with” or “accept” or “tolerate”, or any words you feel fit, a situation like the one where that boy was killed.
Gun owners have a responsibility, and that is just as important as protecting property and lives.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Well said.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM
.
This can’t be a serious comment, can it? “specific training to deal with potentially deadly situations”? Most every child here knows how to use a gun, and use it properly. Nobody needs ‘credentials’ to handle a gun correctly, and to suggest they are necessary or applicable smacks of total ignorance.
Think_b4_speaking on July 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Long live STRONG MEN!
Branch Rickey on July 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Esthier
Thanks for your response.
I don’t think your man on death row comparison works. In that situation the person has been captured, processed, tried and convicted. Yes, he may be in fear for his life but he no longer is allowed the same liberties or rights as a free citizen i.e. he has lost his right to life.
I agree that the burglars should be saddled with greatest degree of responsibility here, they being the ones who created the initial situation. But, unless there is an implied loss of rights when suspected of a crime then wouldn’t they have been entitled to protect themselves just like everyone else? After all from what I’ve read here Mr. Horn chose to exit his house and confront them, up till that point he wasn’t in danger.
JonM on July 1, 2008 at 1:41 PM
You’re welcome.
I still don’t think legally they’d have a leg to stand on.
They initiated this when they decided to steal and thus are responsible for what happens afterwards. People have been jailed simply for creating the circumstances where a death occurred.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 1:46 PM
And, finally:
Please note the “OR” highlighted above.
Turning to 9.42:
Again, emphasis mine. There’s the “he had no right to shoot the second guy running away in the back” argument shot to pieces.
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
It would seem so.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Seems to be solid.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM
This is fantastic news. Those illegal immigrant thugs needed killing in the worst way, and they got it.
I hope my neighbors will shoot any SOB they see robbing my house. We all need more neighbors like Joe Horn, willing to defend his neighbor’s property.
He told them to stop and they didn’t. Good riddance.
saiga on July 1, 2008 at 1:59 PM
A) You don’t have what it takes to teach me English.
B) I explicitly denied both your “OK” and “don’t mind” formulations. The phrase “can live with it” indicates less than whole-hearted approval. When people here say they can live with McCain, they mean “he sucks, but he’s better than Obama”. When I say I can live with it, it means that I accept that some such accidents will occur with widespread gun ownership.
It’s not for you to do any of these things. We have a judicial system to deal with these situations. It dealt with it.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
This is true…in fact, from what I read of the reports when this surfaced last November, one of the burglars ran for Horn wielding his crowbar.
This is also part and parcel of the Castle Doctrine…that you are allowed to protect not only your property, but that of your neighbor. Horn had been requested, from what I’d understood from the reports at the time, by his neighbors to watch their house. Even if the burglar had not rushed Horn, he had every right to protect his neighbor’s property.
Anyone who dug a little deeper when this story first broke would’ve soon discovered they not only were illegal, but had several aliases. This was known within days on several Texas blogs.
This notion of being able to shoot someone in the leg is, IMO, retarded. GOOD LUCK with that one, especially with a shotgun. Those making comments to that effect don’t do a lot of shootin’.
I’m perfectly content these rejects have met their Maker. Wonder which level of Hell they’re in?
Miss_Anthrope on July 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I have no problem with citizens shooting anyone in the process of committing a crime. They, the criminals, are only getting what they deserve.
docdave on July 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Thank you…what I had found when I researched this last November.
Miss_Anthrope on July 1, 2008 at 2:05 PM
No.
You might was well say that a criminal who sees his accomplice shot by a police officer has a “right” to shoot that police officer. A person committing a crime has no right to kill somebody in the course of that crime. If you stick up a liquor store and the man behind the counter draws a gun, you have no legal right to shoot him in self defence. And no moral right either.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM
You’re not only “OK” with it, you savour it. How would we tell the difference on the ‘brilliance’ gauge?
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Indeed. The interesting part is that the man did this with 911 on the phone, talking him down from it. Neighborly constitution, indeed.
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Thank you Misha, your posts always shed much light on the matter.
Maxx on July 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM
The people manning the phones are most certainly not qualified in any way, shape or form, to ‘talk’ anyone ‘down’ from such a situation.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I worry about people who think that we can come up with some perfect “system” which will ensure that nobody ever does anything wrong. I believe E lived under one such attempt at a system.
Freedom implies a certain level of mess and muddle, and sometimes, even of injustice. It’s something we have to live with.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Glad to hear that Harris County Grand Jury decided to release Joe Horn. He’s a good neighbor. And I’m glad that some counties in Texas have enough sense to counter balance Austin’s Travis County. Would that every illegal alien knew that Americans would shoot them dead for burglarizing in their neighborhood. There would also be a significant drop in kidnapped missing children.
BTW, Harris County has a most beautiful young lady who just won Miss Texas, Brooke Daniels.
maverick muse on July 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM
flenser, I’m agreeing with you on topic – where did you come up with your flawed conclusion about E’s “system”, if that is referring to me? There is no ideal, not here on earth, anyway. Where there are people, there’s “mess and muddle”. I agree fully with your “freedom” statement.
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 2:31 PM
And that you won’t do a damn thing about it, which was my whole point.
And yes, in America, we have a forum for that aside from anonymous blog comments.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM
For all you lib anti-gun marxist trolls out there remember this:
You go right ahead and dial 911. You stay on the phone with the dispatcher. Have faith that your last words (screams?) will be caught on tape for your loved ones to play at your funeral (assuming all of your loved ones aren’t waiting next to the same phone WITH you…)
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
PS – That last sentence isn’t a knock on police. I were one.
catmman on July 1, 2008 at 2:34 PM
maverick, might as well tell and show.
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 2:35 PM
He was talking about your experience under a communist system.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM
What would you have us do about it?
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 2:39 PM
I should add that don’t think his comment was directed at you, he just used your experiences as an example.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I said the system you used to live under. Somebody here said you are from a former communist country. I did not say it was “your” system.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 2:45 PM
And I worry about people who don’t think we should try and penalize those who do something wrong.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
FR, if that’s the case, yes I do have the experiences of that system. However that system did so much wrong and didn’t get remotely close to anything “perfect”. The Utopian view of communism, and its harsh practices, are two opposite realities, something the idealists never grasp, or ignore purposely.
To be sure, I don’t consider flenser one of them (communist idealists).
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
flenser, thanks. FL set me straight and I’m sorry for the misinterpretation. We’re good :)
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Participate in democracy. Aren’t we the ones who are always saying that the only thing evil needs if for good people to do nothing.
Protecting someone is one thing. Firing aimlessly at a lost teenager is something altogether different.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM
When you get tired of venting, you could try making a suggestion. But I won’t go along with anything that gets rid of trial by jury, or that takes decision making power out of their hands.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Wonder what their party afilliation was?
Akzed on July 1, 2008 at 2:52 PM
The left will claim them, illegally.
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 2:52 PM
That’s what it became. But from all accounts there was a lot of genuine idealism in the early days. Lot’s of bad things in life are brought to us by people who mean well.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Indeed. May Hitler, Lenin, Marx, Engels, the Castros, Chavez, Osama, etc. die again (as my grandpa used to say), or just drop dead, if they’re still consuming oxygen.
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I did.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 2:57 PM
But it was an accident. I don’t remember the details of the case, but didn’t the guy barge into his home wearing a mask? And didn’t the homeowner tell him to stop but he didn’t understand English well enough and continued to advance? The guy shot him… an innocent man died, but one who had no business being where he was. It’s a tragedy, but it was an accident. In that case both of them were victims. Accidents will happen.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I’m pretty sure that that isn’t an accurate depiction of what occurred.
FloatingRock on July 1, 2008 at 3:00 PM
A few years ago the cops came to the neighborhood for an orientation, I think for a neighborhood watch meeting. They said clearly, and with conviction “if someone breaks into your house, or attempts to, and you should kill them, make sure you pull them into the house”.
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Sorry Misha
Those sections that deal with deadly force are for nightime. this incident happened at broadlight.
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Good advice. We should appoint cops to be judges instead of lawyers.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM
What was it?
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 3:08 PM
That’s the same advice my mother used to give me, now with the new Texas Law we don’t have to concern ourselves with getting their blood all over our floors. (Just teasing ya E)
Seriously, there are plenty of reports in the news from the beginning of this incident last year that state these criminals made a move toward Mr. Horn and came into his yard. The man was standing there with a shotgun pointing at them. Told them to freeze and they continued to move towards him. Now, that’s some bold “victims” .. I tell ya.
Texas Gal on July 1, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Easy target (please note how a damn foreigner used the word “target” on topic :)
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 3:12 PM
That has limited application to the justice system. Are you suggesting that we have a mass democratic vote on whether somebody go to jail?
There is already a democratic system in the form of the trial by jury. But I gather you are not happy with that.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Ok, so now that this guy got off for being threatened and defending his neighbor’s home can we please let the border patrol agents free who were doing their jobs, feeling threatened, and protecting all our homes, and still didn’t kill the drug-smuggling criminal?
NTWR on July 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM
So are car wrecks involving alcohol.
Doesn’t mean we don’t prosecute accidents.
Owning a weapon is a great responsibility.
Apparently he was dressed in a tuxedo, like John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever, and he rang the doorbell. When Mr. Peairs said “freeze,” the kid stepped towards him saying, “we’re here for the party.”
He recklessly took a life and should have paid for it.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I didn’t say that.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I’ll only say this once, because it’s a whole ‘nuther avenue of conversation – if you follow this advice, you will go to jail.
I don’t know who those cops think they are, but advice like this is fucking insane.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I thought you didn’t want to replace our justice system.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Nope, but it’s a common misunderstanding:
Please note that only theft and criminal mischief are singled out specifically as having to occur “during the nighttime.”
Arson, burglary, robbery, and aggravated robbery do NOT. Otherwise, they too would have had a “during the nighttime” appended to them.
In this case, it was obviously a burglary. Nighttime clause does not apply.
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Hehe! touche.
But I can’t hear your accent when you say it..:)
Texas Gal on July 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM
As you should.
No, that’s stupid.
Do you really have no idea how a citizen can influence the law with regard to gun owners killing innocent people?
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Seems like the jury disagreed. How do you propose getting juries to do your bidding?
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 3:25 PM
With my magic powers. The same way I keep getting you to ask me stupid questions.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Sorry, Esthier, but your analogy doesn’t work. Driving while intoxicated is a crime already, which is what you’d be prosecuted for if you were to have an accident while doing so.
Shooting at a stranger advancing upon you on your property while ignoring an order to stop, furthermore in the middle of the night in a crime-ridden neighborhood, is NOT illegal.
I don’t mean to sound heartless, because I do most CERTAINLY agree with you that what happened to that poor kid was a tragedy, as I’m sure that homeowner does as well, I’d hate to be him and having to second-guess myself for the rest of my life which I would, were I him, but once you start armchair quarterbacking like that, you end up with legislation that says that you basically have to let the bad guy kill you first before you’re allowed to defend yourself.
The Hattori story is one of the more heartbreaking ones I’ve ever heard, but that doesn’t constitute criminal neglect on the part of the homeowner.
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I notice that no matter how many times I ask to spell out what you want to do, you keep dodging. But I’m going to keep asking.
Tell me how you want to influence the law with regard to gun owners killing innocent people. I don’t mean the process of changing the law, such as writing you Comgressman, I mean what specific changes do you propose.
Was this man drunk?
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 3:29 PM
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 3:20 PM
They didn’t say you should kill anyone. They said that if you do, by accident, and leave ‘em outside you definitely will go to jail, even though they tried to attack you or your home. Otherwise, chances are the juries will side with you the homeowner.
To be absolutely sure, don’t take this as any advice. It’s a discussion of what really happened. The room was full of neighbors who can prove it.
Also, in same meeting the cops told about burglers slipping on an old lady’s rug, on a parquet floor, breaking their leg, suing and winning.
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I pointed out that the jury disagreed with you about this case and asked you what you’d do to make sure there was a different outcome in the future.
It’s a perfectly logical question. Maybe my mistake was in asking a perfectly logical question of a person wallowing in her own feelings. You seem to be more interested in posing as “more moral than thou” than in anything else.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Tampering with the scene of a homicide will put you away for a long time.
Whoever was giving this ‘advice’ was a cretin.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Reckless use of a firearm resulting in death is illegal as well.
That jury didn’t believe he was reckless, but he was found to be so in the civil trial, which charged him $650,000 in damages.
Analogies aren’t your strong suit.
I’m not proposing a specific law change. That kind of thing takes a little more research and thought than a conversation in blog comments can have. I’m only proposing that we have the power to do something, and many victim advocates have proposed laws after a tragedy and have succeeded in changing things.
I do not know what law I’d propose in response to that boy’s life being taken, but considering it was Halloween night, they had decorations on their house, the kid was wearing a tuxedo costume and rang the doorbell, I’d think we already have laws in place that simply failed in that case.
The fact that he was punished civilly, like OJ, diminishes slightly the need to do anything. It’s over. His family was compensated, but this isn’t something our society can live with.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM
No, you asked how I’d get them to do my bidding, which is stupid. They’re not my slaves.
No, that’s you. You’re so convinced you have me figured out as naive and stupid and believe you are so high above me even though we agreed about everything on this issue except for the death of an innocent boy.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Arguably the worst time to be listening to ‘victim advocates’ and making such changes.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 3:47 PM
People here seemed to agree when the victim advocates wanted child rapists sentenced to death.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:49 PM
True, but doesn’t challenge my assertion.
FYI, I have wanted the death penalty extended to all rapists for many years now…..
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I understand.
I would agree with that, especially rapists who beat their victims or are repeat offenders.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 3:56 PM
The Hattori tragedy is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the Horn case. Let it go. Sad, but sometimes bad things happen when you’re young, drunk, and stupid. In fact, sometimes bad things happen to good people. And the homeowner in the Hattori case is one example. I’m sure he didn’t ask for tragedy to explode into his life, but it did.
What should be done? Restrict gun ownership…restrict gun rights? What, exactly, should be done to mitigate an accident that already happened? Legislate?! The percentage of accidents that happen as a result of legal gun ownership is minuscule compared to the percentage of potential crimes that are averted thanks to gun ownership. It seems to me that emotions and hindsight on the Hattori case are warping this issue on this thread.
Redhead Infidel on July 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Reading this, I’m going to reiterate the idea from my previous post. People stood around and watched a kid get kicked to death by his dad, and others wondered how they could do “nothing”. Well, this attitude is easy to understand when society expects you to not get involved and to give leniency/understanding/rights to criminals. The government and the laws are there to protect us, normally from the lawless. The police force is a reactive agency, hence they do not prevent crime, just respond to and investigate it.
Just ignore the criminals, just stand idly by while they perpetrate a crime against your neighbor, just ignore your morals (if you have any) and any obligation to doing what’s “right”…its is very easy to see where this will lead. No amount of logic will make sense to people that are bringing up, “shoot him in the leg”, ” should have stayed in the house”, “he is initiating the confrontation”, etc. You’ll just never get how completely inane you sound and I could never be a friend to someone that demonstrated such a lack of concern for a neighbor at the expense of the criminals’ not doing a serious enough crime for you to get involved or try and prevent their crime.
Perhaps the real question here is not whether Mr. Horn should have intervened, but whether death was a suitable outcome to this event. Well, when persons are willing to ignore laws, chances are they will ignore or fight attempts to prevent them from committing crimes by even authorized agents (the police). Mr. Horn had no device that could make the criminals halt their activity *except* the threat of physical harm. Thus, the question can be put to our entire society; when morals and lawfulness fail to prevent crime, what threat or deterrent will cause people to self-police?
Imprisonment – if caught, most will make every effort to evade, escape from, or use the legal system to circumvent imprisonment.
Physical harm – we won’t allow torture or maiming, although the death penalty is still on the table.
Ostracism – In a society as diverse and large as ours, this isn’t very effective. Nor do people care if they are cast out. Look at OJ Simpson, for a large section of our society he has been ostracized, but that seems to have had little effect on him.
If any of those solutions were actually effective, wouldn’t we see less crime? The real solution is to have an armed citizenry, as even our recent relatives knew well. The vast majority or citizens are law abiding, and there is irrefutable evidence showing the connection between armed citizens and low crime levels…
So many eloquent writings have been made about appeasement and standing by while crimes are done that I can’t do it justice so I think I can sum up my feelings in two lines;
You are a very poor citizen if you witness and allow crimes to be committed without taking action to stop it. I would submit that you must not just ignore or avoid wrongdoing, but actually (and actively) oppose it, or you are guilty by allowing it..
Geministorm on July 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM
More Guns, Less Crime
In order to keep these numbers down, I accept that we will have to live with a few rare accidents. I think that is what flenser is getting at, though I wouldn’t presume to put words in his mouth. While I acknowledge Hattori’s death was tragic, it’s definitely NOT a reason to restrict gun ownership and frankly, it’s an emotional trap. And this is what happens when you succumb to that emotional trap:
Now that is something I’m not willing to live with.
Redhead Infidel on July 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Amen.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I disagree. You are second guessing the jury.
I disagree. It is something our society can live with.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Are you serious? do you equate stealing with someone getting kicked to death? You need help
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I never said there was a connection. Someone else did. I thought that person was slandering the good people here at Hot Air and replied that no one here would be willing to live with it as that poster claimed.
Someone else completely contradicted me. I admitted my mistake, and that person started trying to explain to me why things like that will just happen.
That was never my point. I agreed with all of you on the Texas case. Suddenly I’m a liberal gun-grabber for thinking a kid going to a Halloween party shouldn’t have been shot and that the man responsible should have been punished.
Figures. People here turn on each other, making enemies completely unnecessary.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 4:26 PM
To quote “Batman Begins” – “Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society’s understanding”
Those of you that subscribe to the “don’t get involved” mindset are civilized society’s albatross.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I’m trying to get you to tell me what exactly it is that you want to do. Forgive me for not jumping on board when you say that we have to do “something”. If you come up with a suggestion I may even agree with it. But I’m inclined to think that the cure would be worse than the disease. If dozens of innocent people were getting gunned down every year by trigger-happy home owners, there might be a case for some action. I just don’t see a reason to change the law in unspecified ways based on one case from twenty years ago.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Maybe there isn’t a reason. I’m just not willing to live with innocent lives being lost in the pursuit of protecting your property.
Like I said, I’m sure we already have laws that should work here. One possible or potential miscarriage of justice isn’t necessarily the fault of the law.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Are you hinting at suicide here?
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Sure. Why not. I don’t want innocent people killed, so I just want myself killed.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 4:42 PM
That person was me. As I explained, we don’t live in a perfect world. Bad things do sometimes just happen. People accidentally run somebody down with their car, and it’s not neccessarally a homicide. I recall the Crown Heights riots – they started when some Jewish guy ran down and killed a black kid. The driver was not indicted.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 4:42 PM
I’m aware that it was you. I didn’t name either person and intended nothing by not naming either of you.
And that’s what you explained later, not what you wrote then.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Since the only option other than living is dying, and since it seems a teensy weensy bit unlikely that anything on planet earth can prevent tragedy, I’d say you’re out of luck.
What I’m really getting at is the vapidity of such “I’m not willing to live with X” statements. It’s hopelessly theatrical posturing at best.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 4:48 PM
You’re right, I do need help. I need help explaining a simple point to you.
Spelling it out…
People stood by doing nothing while a man kicked his young child, eventually resulting in the child’s death (and the father’s when the police finally had to shoot him). People here, including yourself it seems, are advocating standing by while two thugs rob a neighbor’s house. Its an attitude that is permeating our society; don’t get involved, don’t put yourself at risk, let the police handle it, we shouldn’t try and stop criminals, etc.
For you, at what point is it OK to get involved in preventing a crime that you’re a witness to?
Geministorm on July 1, 2008 at 4:49 PM
FYI – all dead humans are homicides (that’s what it means). Homicide is not synonymous with murder.
LimeyGeek on July 1, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Depends on the number of lives, if you ask me.
I understand your concern, but it’s a balancing act. On the one hand you have people’s right to defend their property as well as themselves, and on the other you have people’s reasonable expectation of not being gunned down at random.
The extremes are either 1) allow everybody to shoot first and ask questions later, no matter what the circumstances and 2) outlaw self-defense entirely to protect innocents from being shot by mistake. The solution, of course, lies somewhere in between. And this is where I refuse to let emotion guide me. We’re looking at one case of one poor, innocent teenager being shot by a homeowner who thought he was about to get attacked against an estimated 2 million violent crimes averted every year due to the use of firearms.
Granted, I’d think a whole lot different about it if I were the father of the kid, but it sounds like a pretty good trade-off to me from a societal point of view.
As the the punishment of the guy who shot him, that’s not justice. As a matter of fact, it’s the exact opposite of justice. This whole concept of being criminally acquitted and civilly held liable is, has always been and will always be utter, despicable, illogical nonsense, just as it was in the case of OJ.
Either you’re guilty or you aren’t, period. Saying, in effect, that “we’ll find you not guilty in criminal court and then find you guilty in civil court, just so everybody gets their pound of flesh” is a flippin’ travesty. It’s a joke, and an exceedingly poor one at that, and it reflects very poorly upon our justice system.
Which is why the immunity clause in the Castle Doctrine is a huge step forward. If you’re not charged, then you dinna do it, as far as the law is concerned, and you cannot later be held liable for something that the jury has already found that you’re not liable for. This whole “we’ll split the child down the middle and let you each have a half” crap is the kind of muddled, illogical, idiotarian nonsense for which liberals have become, justly, infamous.
Misha I on July 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM
You don’t actually live in the USA do you?
I know nothing about you personally, but just from that comment I can infer that you have little to no understanding of how/why this country was created nor how it changed the world.
We did not start the USA on the idea that the common man was incapable of doing anything. The fact that in your mind one would have to be “specifically trained” to deal with the situation here is laughable.
One does not need to go to school or receive a piece of paper from some overpriced building filled with failures who are unable do anything in the real world to understand that robbing someone’s home = bad. Nor do 90+% of US citizens see any problem with a person defending themselves, their property or their neighbors from criminals.
WHO CARES if they had no priors? Since we are playing in the land of hypothetical would Horn have been right to shoot them if they were in the middle of killing a kid, and they were citizens with no priors?
It is way past time for criminals to stop being looked at as victims. They CHOOSE to break the law. The second they make that choice they loose all standing with me. Felons, those convicted and those in the process of committing the crime, are NOT victims and deserve what they get. If they had chosen NOT to commit the crime the end result would be different.
Voidseeker on July 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I get that and really didn’t want another semantic argument, which is why I responded the way I did.
By “living with” I don’t mean I’d rather die. I mean I’d rather do something than live with it.
We don’t live with civilian deaths in Iraq, we prosecute soldiers, sometimes when prosecution isn’t even necessary.
That’s what I mean.
I understand that viewpoint and can appreciate it. I just don’t agree with it.
I agree. Though I will admit that I was glad OJ at least had to pay something.
And yes, the balancing act is somewhere in the middle. If you own a gun, please protect yourself, those around you and even the property around you, but also be careful.
Even if you aren’t sent to jail, do you really want that blood on your hands?
That man didn’t and said at the trial that he’d never even own a gun again. That’s an extreme stance, but I understand it.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 5:12 PM
If we’re being pedantic, as you seem to want to be, then let me point out that I did not say I explained it “then”, simply that I explained it.
What do you think of drivers who run innocent people down accidently with their cars?
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM
At what point? A person’s life or wellbeing at stake. What do you think? Or you need help to see the difference? I think that if you can not see the difference between property and a life, you do need help.
Horn did what he was supposed to do, he called the police. And did not complied when he was asked by the dispatcher to stay put. He himself acknowledged that it was not a good move.
Do you think that if someone is breaking in your neighbor’s home and no lives are at risk, besides calling the police you have the obligation to intervene? and if you don’t do it you are a bad citizen? You are watching too many Rambo movies my friend.
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM
We do live with them. Our bombing campaign in Iraq at the start of the war certainly killed many civilians. It was predictable that it would. And we did not prosecute anyone because of it. Part of the price of war is that innocent civilians will get killed.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 5:24 PM
That they should be more careful. Manslaughter is still illegal, as is negligent homicide and several other legal terms.
Accidents happen, but that doesn’t mean there’s no punishment.
Esthier on July 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM
yeah! of course! there is a life at stake! you shoot them! Do you have any doubts and that is whay you are asking?
Ropera on July 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »