I Told Ya So: Texas Man Cleared for Killing Burglars

[Reverend Joe]

Well, let's see.
1. They were in the process of stealing when he noticed them and called 911.
2. He only went outside when they ran with the goods and crossed his property
3. He told them to stop but they didn't.
4. He shot, but we don't know if the intended to kill with those shots.
5. You expect a 61 year old man to keep up with two young men and manage to beat them with a baseball bat?

How the hell come didn't the neighbor do something? And why did he bother to go outside to begin with? They weren't his goods and he was only putting himself in danger. They were his neighbor's responsibility, not his. And by shooting he was putting people in danger, regardless of if he intended to kill.

And for that matter, what if he had missed them both and hit someone's kid? What if he had hit someone's kid in the process of firing a warning shot?

Oh, and for the record, my 62 year old father could easily catch up to any two burglars and beat the living out of them with a bat. He even has a giant Louisville slugger to do the trick.

[FactionHeir]

Actually after listening to the tape just now, he saw them break in, take stuff and then come out again. He waited about 6:40 minutes on the line telling the dispatcher about the burglary before going out to warn/shoot them because they entered his frontlawn.

His neighbors weren't in at the time of the burglary btw and there are no other people nearby mentioned.

[Tribesman]

You can listen to what appears to be an unedited version here.

And it appears Horn was a bloody idiot intent on nothing but killing .
He isn't going to go outside because to do so will be too dangerous then he goes outside .

Wasn't he lucky the police outside didn't shoot him .

[Reverend Joe]

Still wasn't his business, even if they were on his lawn. It wasn't his house being robbed. And the rest of my points stand.

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.

[Ser Clegane]

He waited about 6:40 minutes on the line telling the dispatcher about the burglary before going out to warn/shoot them because they entered his frontlawn.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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...

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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....

[Tribesman]

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...

How fast are your reactions ?
That tape seems pretty much stop bang
If it was a police officer who said stop and shot straight away would you be screaming police murder ?
Come to think of it doesn't this count as an extrajudicial killing, you know getting rid of criminals without all the legal crap of trials and such .
Isn't that one of the measures the State department uses to measure how screwed up other countries are .

[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.

[JR-]

Joe Horn: "I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?"

Dispatcher: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Joe Horn: "Hurry up, man, catch these guys, will you? Because I ain't gonna let them go. I'm gonna kill him."

Dispatcher: "OK, stay in the house."

Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"

Dispatcher: "That's alright."

Joe Horn: (Shouts to suspects) "Move, you're dead."

Three gunshots can be heard on the tape. Both suspects were shot in the back and were pronounced dead at the scene.[/indent]

oooh, that's a shame.

[Lemur]

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

what a guy....

Finally, someone puts this thread back on track. Thank you good sir -- thank you.

[CrossLOPER]

Lemur WAS right. You guys have to focus some of your attention on that.

[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?