I Told Ya So: Texas Man Cleared for Killing Burglars

[Xiahou]

And for that matter, it should be illegal to shoot someone on your lawn to begin with. Unless they come inside the house, there's just not enough justification to use lethal force.

It's not though. The emotional/moral arguments are separate from the legal one.

If I understood the tape correctly, he decided to go outside when he saw them carrying "loot" - when he actaully went outside he said that he did not see where they were going. He only mentioned that they were on his frontlawn when he went back in.
It does not seem that he went outside because they entered his property.

That doesn't really matter though. There was no law prohibiting him from going on his own front porch. If he then saw two known burglars on his property and felt at all threatened by their actions (the only other witness, a plain clothes officer who had arrived on the scene said at least one of them initially appeared to run at Horn), he was within the law to shoot.

[Ser Clegane]

That doesn't really matter though. There was no law prohibiting him from going on his own front porch. If he then saw two known burglars on his property and felt at all threatened by their actions (the only other witness, a plain clothes officer who had arrived on the scene said at least one of them initially appeared to run at Horn), he was within the law to shoot.

I am not questioning that what he did ultimately was within the law - based on the information I can see in this thread I simply have my doubts that his actions were justified (and I certainly disagree with some general views in this thread with regard to what is justified and what not)

[Redleg]

Lemur was indeed correct.

Its obvious to me that even if the old man was cleared by the grand jury because he was within the technical aspect of the law, that he did not meet the intent of the castle defense law. The law was intended to allow people to defend their home and property against theft and invasion by those who they believed "intended" to harm them. When he placed himself into the deadly situation against the advice of the 911 operator, I believe he removed the reasonable aspect of the law.

[Don Corleone]

Well, Lemur, YOU WERE RIGHT. But this 2nd ammendment supporter wishes you weren't. This guy sounds like Charlie freaking Bronson out there. Shooting people in the back as they're running away from you... reasonable fear for one's life....

I don't argue that the police are woefully inadequate, and they themselves would tell you that it is their job to maintain civil order first, investegate crimes that have occurred second, and then if time allows, prevent crime third.

And that's why there's things like the Castle Domain precedent. But this guy antagonized them, and from what I can tell, they were non-confrontational.

When I went for my concealed-carry permit, the rule on 'fear for your life' was that there was no other option, you could not avoid the situation. That's clearly not the case here. This guy should have stayed in his house. Dialing 9-11 was the right thing to do.

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them.

I wonder Wayne LaPierre will publish this in the next Rifleman.

[Xiahou]

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them.

He saw them smash the window in with a crowbar before crawling thru broken window to gain entry to the house. Minutes later, he saw them leave thru the same window carrying a sack of "loot". I think he was fairly safe in assuming they weren't helping his neighbor move.

Furthermore, if I was helping my friend move via a broken window and then while crossing thru the neighbor's yard, the neighbor pointed a shotgun at me and said "move and you're dead", I would probably stop...

[Reverend Joe]

Furthermore, if I was helping my friend move via a broken window and then while crossing thru the neighbor's yard, the neighbor pointed a shotgun at me and said "move and you're dead", I would probably stop...

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying?

[Devastatin Dave]

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying?

Guess they should have learned the language of the country in which they are ILLEGALLY within...
Bang!!!

[FactionHeir]

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them.

He told the dispatcher that he saw them break in with a crowbar...

[Xiahou]

I am not questioning that what he did ultimately was within the law - based on the information I can see in this thread I simply have my doubts that his actions were justified (and I certainly disagree with some general views in this thread with regard to what is justified and what not)

I think even Horn now says he regrets having gone out on his porch. I think the whole situation was unfortunate- but the easiest way for it all to have been avoided would've been for the burglars not to rob some strangers house....

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying?

I would be supremely interested in what he was saying.

[Reverend Joe]

Nobody's arguing the robbery wasn't wrong.* What we're arguing was wrong was the whole shooting thing.

*Of course, I can't speak for all my liberal hippie friends here... i'm sure there's at least one nut out there who thinks the robbers should have gotten away with it because they were illegal immigrants. But no sane person is arguing that the robbery wasn't wrong.

Edit: seriously, Xiahou, you do know what a redneck vigilante is, right?

Okay, put it this way: if you were in a back alley in Harlem I know you wouldn't be, but for argument's sake, it's basically an equivalent situation for these guys) and a giant black guy came out of a door with a handgun and said, "Freeze, sucka!" don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

[CrossLOPER]

Okay, put it this way: if you were in a back alley in Harlem I know you wouldn't be, but for argument's sake, it's basically an equivalent situation for these guys) and a giant black guy came out of a door with a handgun and said, "Freeze, sucka!" don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

I lol'd.

[Marshal Murat]

don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

I would definitely think of panicking and running. He might like throwing lollipops in refrigerators and exclaiming his ability to do so. I don't know. But if someone told me to freeze in a commanding tone that implied ability to act with deadly force, I'd stop breathing to satisfy those requirements. A shotgun click would confirm my fears.

I think that he was within his rights to shoot the two offending criminals. I have no problem with someone like that living next door. If he eagerly pursued them with a shotgun, then I would question his legality, but if my neighbor's house was being broken into, I would call 9-1-1 first, then the cop who lives a couple houses down. The police are great, but I doubt they'll get back in time.

If someone was taking my television, VCR and all, I'd call emergency first, then try to get my stuff back. It's my stuff! While you all may speak platitudes about 'material things being immaterial' or something like that, I'd be hitching up with a baseball bat/golf club/vehicle and chasing after the thief. I care about my stuff, and it makes a conversation piece.

I don't like vigilantes on the most part, but if the authorities cannot or are unable to act I would take force into my own hands, be-darn the consequences.

[Reverend Joe]

Please, for the love of God, at least try to address what the other side is arguing about before beating up your "crime doesn't pay" straw man any more.

It doesn't matter of the criminals were in the wrong; of course they were. What matters is whether or not the shotgun-wielder was wrong, legally or (as per my argument) morally.

It doesn't matter who the men he shot were. His actions were in the wrong. One wrong never justifies another.

@Dave: that was painfully hysterical. I'm pissing my pants with laughter as we speak. You should be a comedian.

[LittleGrizzly]

Did anyone hear ?..... Lemur was right!!

what a guy....

from just a quick read through of the thread (short on time) i would call his actions wrong, i wouldn't say he would deserve much of a punishment, it seems similiar to the case with the farmer in Britian a few years back (david something or martin something... name escapes me....) shooting someone in the back as they run away is quite a harsh thing to do even if they have some of your property or your nieghbours property, i wouldn't shoot someone for a material possesion even if i am a poor person....

[Redleg]

It doesn't matter of the criminals were in the wrong; of course they were. What matters is whether or not the shotgun-wielder was wrong, legally or (as per my argument) morally.

As stated before by Lemur's post - the man was found to be technically within the law for his actions.

It doesn't matter who the men he shot were. His actions were in the wrong. One wrong never justifies another.

Again legally it has been determined that he his action was not wrong. Now what you are speaking of is not a legal issue, but one of ethics. I to find his action ethically wrong but the man was within the law according to the Grand Jury refusal to bring criminal charges against him.

[Devastatin Dave]

@Dave: that was painfully hysterical. I'm pissing my pants with laughter as we speak. You should be a comedian.

Pissing in your pants ain't looked to kindly 'round these parts...
Bang!!!

[FactionHeir]

Okay, put it this way: if you were in a back alley in Harlem I know you wouldn't be, but for argument's sake, it's basically an equivalent situation for these guys) and a giant black guy came out of a door with a handgun and said, "Freeze, sucka!" don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

Well, if you did no wrong, why not? Those guys were told to stop after they robbed a house and had loot in their hands.

[Reverend Joe]

It's not though. The emotional/moral arguments are separate from the legal one.

No, it's not... if laws are immoral, they are wrong. If this man was fully within his rights, then the laws need to be reformed.

[Spino]

So is a TV worth a human life? Gosh, I don't know. Undoubtedly the price of a pound of flesh has fluctuated wildly over the last few hundred years.

However what we don't know is...

1) The economic situation of the person whose house was broken into. Were they well off? Were they 'comfortable'? Were they in debt? Did they own the house lock, stock & barrel or did they have a mortgage? Were they barely able to make their mortgage payments or were they behind? Was the owner, a woman (per the 911 recording), insured against theft? If she was what if the items that were stolen were not covered by insurance or were undervalued by the assessors? What if she was barely making ends meet and this theft would have pushed her irrevocably into the red? Was she young or old? Employed or unemployed? Did she have a medical condition that required considerable personal expenditures to treat? Etc., etc., etc.

2) The value of the loot. What would these robbers have made off with had they been allowed to escape? A nice pile of cash taken from the mattress? Antiques? Jewelry and/or irreplacable family heirlooms?

3) The respective criminal records of the thieves. Were these first time thieves or experienced pros? How many lives did they violate prior to this incident? It turns out that both of these thieves were illegal immigrants from Columbia. Did they have a criminal record in Columbia? Did they have difficulty securing low skilled labor jobs with local contractors & businesses or did they simply refuse to pursue a life of hard work and opted for the risky but profitable career of burglary?

It's one thing to say no life is worth taking over a color TV but we rarely consider how the actions of thieves affect those whose rights and property they violate.

Obviously my position on this matter goes without saying. Personally I believe if you're dumb, desperate and contemptuous enough to rely on criminal acts to make ends meet then you deserve what miserable end the Fates spin for you.

[Xiahou]

So is a TV worth a human life? Gosh, I don't know. Undoubtedly the price of a pound of flesh has fluctuated wildly over the last few hundred years.

However what we don't know is...

I can shed some light on 2) and 3):

2)From what I've read, the value of the stolen "loot" was approximately $2000. That'd be a lot of money for me to lose, but it could be downright crippling for some.

3)At least one of the burglars had a criminal record and had been previously deported on drug charges.

Obviously my position on this matter goes without saying. Personally I believe if you're dumb, desperate and contemptuous enough to rely on criminal acts to make ends meet then you deserve what miserable end the Fates spin for you.

I think this is more or less where my opinion is settling. If, instead of being killed by a law-abiding suburban home owner, they had been killed during a drug deal gone bad- would we even be talking about this? Either way, crime is a dangerous career choice.

[Ser Clegane]

If, instead of being killed by a law-abiding suburban home owner, they had been killed during a drug deal gone bad- would we even be talking about this?

Probably not - but I guess the thought of your friendly elderly neighbour being somewhat trigger happy and apparently pretty eager to actively seek the confrontation and kill people for things has a more frightening touch for some of us as it is much closer to your "normal" life than drug dealers killing each other.

[GoreBag]

No, it's not... if laws are immoral, they are wrong. If this man was fully within his rights, then the laws need to be reformed.

Are your moral values the standard to which the law needs reforming?

It's a tough call. If I were to break into someone's house to steal stuff, I would expect to be threatened if I were caught, but I'm not sure if I'd threaten my neighbours' burglars. I have no faith in the police, however. To clarify, were they already on the scene by the time this old bastard blew the robbers away, or were they just on the phone with him?

[Tribesman]

To clarify, were they already on the scene by the time this old bastard blew the robbers away, or were they just on the phone with him?

Listen to the audio or read about the police eyewitness to the actual shooting and it might answer your question

[Sarmatian]

So he killed them some 5-10 seconds before the police appeared? He went out and shot them, after the dispatcher guy specifically told him several times not to do this? They would have been arrested anyway, the police was practically on the scene when it happened. The guy doesn't deserve any sympathy, he should be tried for what he did. And what kind of 61-year old computer technician have a shotgun in his house.

And that crap about neighbours helping each other out - that means you can borrow some coffee from your neighbour when your out of, or ask them to water the plants in front of your house when you're on holiday. It doesn't mean go on a killing spree with a shotgun in front of my house where my children might play. Especially since the guy was 61 years old. Not exactly in his primes. How was he so sure that his aim was good? Personally, I'd rather have stuff from my home stolen than have an elderly, trigger-happy computer technician with a shotgun on the loose in my neighbourhood...

[Lemur]

So he killed them some 5-10 seconds before the police appeared?

My guess is that one officer was already present when he shot the robbers. The officer was probably waiting for backup before he tried to apprehend the robbers

And what kind of 61-year old computer technician have a shotgun in his house.

A Texan.

[Sarmatian]

My guess is that one officer was already present when he shot the robbers. The officer was probably waiting for backup before he tried to apprehend the robbers

Yeah, after listening to it again, it seems so. So, not only that the guy killed two people, he also endangered the lives of other civilians and possibly policemen, too. And the fact that they were illegal immigrants makes no difference - he didn't know that when he shot. And even if he did, it's not his job to deal with immigrants. illegal or not. I can't believe that they didn't put him on trial. The info on the tape was enough to make it the shortest trial in the history of US.

"People vs Joe Horn, honourable judge X presiding"
"We'll start by listening to the tape"
(7 minutes and 34 seconds pass)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached the verdict?"
"Yes we have, the defendant is guilty of murder and negligence, of being a homicidal maniac and an idiot in general"

He should be sentenced to life in front of a firing squad, with his back turned to the firing squad of course.

Given that he killed both of them - chances are his aim was good enough with the shotgun.

Now I guess you dont think a computer technician can not be an individual who has a shotgun for hunting? My 65 year old father has several shotguns he uses for hunting different game birds, should I tell him that since he is over 60 he shouldn't have any weapons?

Such a postion is just laughable. Seems someone has a problem with anyone old. Being over 60 does not mean the individual is infirmed and has poor vision.

You don't say? I somehow think it's different shooting birds and small game in the hunting ground and shooting people in populated areas when there could be other people, police officers and even children, but that could be just me...

Just tell me, at what age are police officers usually taken of the streets in the US? Are they still on the streets when they are 61? Do police send 61 year old men to deal with situations like this one? I'd say no. Why do you think is that? And if I'm not mistaken, he fired 3 shots.

My father is 68 and if he was the type to go out for occasional hunting, I'd advise him not to. He's still sharp, but his reflexes, his eyesight, his hand-eye coordination etc... is far cry from what it was 20 years ago. And if it's not life or death situation, I'd prefer not to see men his age carrying and using lethal weapons "for fun". Gardening is just as useful as a hobby...

[Xiahou]

My guess is that one officer was already present when he shot the robbers. The officer was probably waiting for backup before he tried to apprehend the robbers

Can't find which story it was yet, but I was under the impression he had just arrived on the scene- ie: Horn was already out on his porch. Bet yet again, the specifics are scarce.

[Redleg]

Especially since the guy was 61 years old. Not exactly in his primes. How was he so sure that his aim was good? Personally, I'd rather have stuff from my home stolen than have an elderly, trigger-happy computer technician with a shotgun on the loose in my neighbourhood...

Given that he killed both of them - chances are his aim was good enough with the shotgun.

Now I guess you dont think a computer technician can not be an individual who has a shotgun for hunting? My 65 year old father has several shotguns he uses for hunting different game birds, should I tell him that since he is over 60 he shouldn't have any weapons?

Such a postion is just laughable. Seems someone has a problem with anyone old. Being over 60 does not mean the individual is infirmed and has poor vision.

[GoreBag]

Listen to the audio or read about the police eyewitness to the actual shooting and it might answer your question

Or you could just tell me in the same amount of time that it takes for you to try to be glib.

Not in an absolute sense, but America is supposed to be a democracy, and in a democracy one must make one's opinion heard. Since my moral standards stand completely against such a law, I must make my voice heard. If the marketplace of ideas states I am wrong, so be it; but it still does not strip me of my right to speak dissent, and dissent is (supposedly) the founding ideal of the United States of America.

That seems a bit circular, but fair enough.

[Reverend Joe]

As stated before by Lemur's post - the man was found to be technically within the law for his actions.

And as I was saying... sometimes the law is wrong, and needs to be reformed.

Are your moral values the standard to which the law needs reforming?

Not in an absolute sense, but America is supposed to be a democracy, and in a democracy one must make one's opinion heard. Since my moral standards stand completely against such a law, I must make my voice heard. If the marketplace of ideas states I am wrong, so be it; but it still does not strip me of my right to speak dissent, and dissent is (supposedly) the founding ideal of the United States of America.