Killing of burglars spurs legal debate. TX
PASADENA, Texas - When he saw two men using a crowbar to enter his neighbor's house this month, Joe Horn did what many people would do: He called 911.
But when police had not shown up by the time the men were about to leave, the 61-year-old retiree did something most people probably would not: He put down the phone, stepped outside with his shotgun and killed them.
"I'm not going to let them get away with this," Horn told the 911 dispatcher, who responded: "Property's not worth killing someone over."
Seconds later, the sound of a gun being loaded was captured on the 911 tape, followed by the warning: "Move [and] you're dead" and then three bursts of gunfire. Miguel DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, died from their wounds. Both had histories of committing small-time crimes.
The recording of Horn's anger, frustration and willingness to take the law into his own hands has made him the focus of a national dispute. Critics condemn him as a vigilante bent on meting out murderous justice. Admirers praise him as a courageous hero whom any law abider would love to have next door.
"Why is he still a free man?" Linda E. Edwards wrote in a letter to The Houston Chronicle.
"Joe Horn gets a Texas 'attaboy' from me," countered John E. Meagher in the next letter on the page, adding: "Justice was served, law or not."
As the debate rages on talk radio and cable news shows, Horn remains free. However, according to his attorney, he is so overwrought with grief and overwhelmed by the glare of publicity that he has left his home in this blue-collar Houston suburb.
"Joe has never been anything but a gentle person. He's not the type of monster that they are making him out to be," attorney Tom Lambright said in an interview with Houston radio host Michael Berry.
Lambright did not return requests for comment.
Authorities are investigating what happened Nov. 14, but they plan to let a Harris County grand jury decide whether Horn, a former computer consultant, should be indicted for any crimes.
"This is not an individual who stepped outside and gunned down two pedestrians on the sidewalk," said Pasadena police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett. "In a situation where there is some uncertainty about which side of the law someone was on, the best thing to do is assemble all the information and present it to the grand jury."
Noting Texans' prevailing populist views on guns and self-defense - and the sharply mixed reaction to what Horn did - legal experts differ over whether a jury of his peers would ever indict him. They also differ on whether one should, given a Texas law known as the "castle doctrine" that permits citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes and cars.
Tommy LaFon, a Houston defense attorney and former prosecutor who has argued about 50 disputed shooting cases before grand juries, said Horn's lawyers may be able to claim that his actions were legal because he was acting as the de facto defender of his neighbor's property.
"If a jury believes he was standing in the shoes of the owner, that might affect their decision," LaFon said.
Critics of the way the case has been handled say the 911 tape is proof that Horn had determined to shoot the robbers before stepping outside with his gun.
Noting that Horn is white and the suspects were dark-skinned, Quanell X, a Houston activist, accused authorities of bias. Horn should be charged with murder, he said.
"Mr. Horn did not have to kill those people," Quanell X said during a protest. "Mr. Horn became judge, jury and executioner."
But when police had not shown up by the time the men were about to leave, the 61-year-old retiree did something most people probably would not: He put down the phone, stepped outside with his shotgun and killed them.
"I'm not going to let them get away with this," Horn told the 911 dispatcher, who responded: "Property's not worth killing someone over."
Seconds later, the sound of a gun being loaded was captured on the 911 tape, followed by the warning: "Move [and] you're dead" and then three bursts of gunfire. Miguel DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, died from their wounds. Both had histories of committing small-time crimes.
The recording of Horn's anger, frustration and willingness to take the law into his own hands has made him the focus of a national dispute. Critics condemn him as a vigilante bent on meting out murderous justice. Admirers praise him as a courageous hero whom any law abider would love to have next door.
"Why is he still a free man?" Linda E. Edwards wrote in a letter to The Houston Chronicle.
"Joe Horn gets a Texas 'attaboy' from me," countered John E. Meagher in the next letter on the page, adding: "Justice was served, law or not."
As the debate rages on talk radio and cable news shows, Horn remains free. However, according to his attorney, he is so overwrought with grief and overwhelmed by the glare of publicity that he has left his home in this blue-collar Houston suburb.
"Joe has never been anything but a gentle person. He's not the type of monster that they are making him out to be," attorney Tom Lambright said in an interview with Houston radio host Michael Berry.
Lambright did not return requests for comment.
Authorities are investigating what happened Nov. 14, but they plan to let a Harris County grand jury decide whether Horn, a former computer consultant, should be indicted for any crimes.
"This is not an individual who stepped outside and gunned down two pedestrians on the sidewalk," said Pasadena police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett. "In a situation where there is some uncertainty about which side of the law someone was on, the best thing to do is assemble all the information and present it to the grand jury."
Noting Texans' prevailing populist views on guns and self-defense - and the sharply mixed reaction to what Horn did - legal experts differ over whether a jury of his peers would ever indict him. They also differ on whether one should, given a Texas law known as the "castle doctrine" that permits citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes and cars.
Tommy LaFon, a Houston defense attorney and former prosecutor who has argued about 50 disputed shooting cases before grand juries, said Horn's lawyers may be able to claim that his actions were legal because he was acting as the de facto defender of his neighbor's property.
"If a jury believes he was standing in the shoes of the owner, that might affect their decision," LaFon said.
Critics of the way the case has been handled say the 911 tape is proof that Horn had determined to shoot the robbers before stepping outside with his gun.
Noting that Horn is white and the suspects were dark-skinned, Quanell X, a Houston activist, accused authorities of bias. Horn should be charged with murder, he said.
"Mr. Horn did not have to kill those people," Quanell X said during a protest. "Mr. Horn became judge, jury and executioner."
0
-
people who say using deadly force to protect property or person is wrong have already given up their rights...you have just made a public proclamation that you will sit by passively while criminals will be allowed to do what ever they wish...they DON"T CARE about your rights..... ohhh now call law enforcement to wipe up the mess...so many issues whether from my recent trespass & property damage issue to the missing girl from Eldorado seem to imply that LEO should be issued a mop as a tool...especially illegals who mostly operate under the radar...round trip, new name, muy bueno 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
What's just wrong....is GUNNING down an UNARMED person for taking property, and having that mindset even before carrying out the deed.
As I understand it the perps were armed with a crowbar, which is how they got in the house in the first place.
BTW: I noticed you waffled on your bet0 -
Out of curiousity, I played the 911 call for a retired Kentucky State Trooper I know.
He said under that scenerio, the shooting would be justified in Ky. He even showed me the statute that said so. [^]0 -
There is no correct answer to this question, no perfect all encompassing law to be written. It is a matter of facts, circumstances and personalities. Each case is different which is why we have a Grand Jury, then if needed a jury of our peers. While I personally wouldn't have pulled the trigger, if I'm on the jury, the dude walks. Getting killed as a thief is a hazard of the profession.
This whole episode and the conversation above further show how critical it is to only point the gun and shoot it at someone as a last resort and with much restraint.
This man will lose everything even if he wins.
Nobody "wins" at a killing.0 -
quote:Nobody "wins" at a killing.
Naturally..me being who I am...I must disagree with this statement.
Perhaps a better way to say it is;
In a feminized, weak, emotion-driven culture, nobody wins.
Except, of course, the criminal that often kills to prevent first-person identification..or just because it feels good to their sick perversions...rarely is there a terrible official outcry for his scalp...such as there is for Mr Horn.
Given a strong, dynamic, Virile culture...strong-minded people realize that there is always a certain percentage of people that cannot be salvaged under ANY system of punishment...and CERTAINLY not a rotten, corrupt system such as we have here in America.
You take a young person and slam him in jail for his crimes..there perhaps would be a chance to straighten him out. Not in America...where corrupt jail officials wink at the gang homosexual rapes committed EVERY DAY.. Totally destroying any chance for a life after jail.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Nobody "wins" at a killing.
Naturally..me being who I am...I must disagree with this statement.
I'll agree with it, but I do understand where you're coming from HB
Mr. Horn is now in hiding, likely somewhere with friends or family.
I don't believe he'll go to jail, but he's going to be hounded by the media, lawyers, ect...
Life, as he knew it, is now over....it'll be years, if ever, before things get back to normal
One can only hope his neighbors look out for him as he did for them.....0 -
quote:Perhaps a better way to say it is;
In a feminized, weak, emotion-driven culture, nobody wins.
I also agree with the statement..after clarifing it, as above.
The proper response, in a healthy culture, is a nice steak dinner and an award given after the speedy inquest resolution.."Justifiable killing of two ghouls..case closed".0 -
The neighbor taking things into his own hands reminds me of the story about the mouse trap.
MOUSE TRAP STORY
A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package.
What food might this contain? The mouse wondered - he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.
Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!
The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me." I cannot be bothered by it."
The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The pig sympathized, but said, I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray.
"Be assured you are in my prayers."
The mouse turned to the cow and said "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose."
So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone.
That very night a sound was heard throughout the house -- like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey.
The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught.
The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever.
Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient.
But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock.
To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig.
The farmer's wife did not get well; she died.
So many people came for her funeral; the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.
The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.
Like the mouse no one paid the neighbor any mind until he took action. Imagine the future ramifications if he hadn't shot these two creeps. So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn't concern you, remember -- when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk. We are all involved in this journey called life. We must keep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to encourage one another.
Good job Mr. Neighbor, and good shooting.
Trinity +++0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Nobody "wins" at a killing.
Naturally..me being who I am...I must disagree with this statement.
Perhaps a better way to say it is;
In a feminized, weak, emotion-driven culture, nobody wins.
Except, of course, the criminal that often kills to prevent first-person identification..or just because it feels good to their sick perversions...rarely is there a terrible official outcry for his scalp...such as there is for Mr Horn.
Given a strong, dynamic, Virile culture...strong-minded people realize that there is always a certain percentage of people that cannot be salvaged under ANY system of punishment...and CERTAINLY not a rotten, corrupt system such as we have here in America.
You take a young person and slam him in jail for his crimes..there perhaps would be a chance to straighten him out. Not in America...where corrupt jail officials wink at the gang homosexual rapes committed EVERY DAY.. Totally destroying any chance for a life after jail.
I hear you, but...
I have never killed another human being so maybe I'm way off, but I certainly have seen the aftermath up close and personal.
Even if a killing was justifiable, say like in a war, it still leaves scars on the justified "killer."
That is why I said nobody wins at a killing.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
In summary:
I thought I knew the facts of law here because I watch TV, but that's really neither here nor there. I was actually motivated to jump in on this by how I would've handled things.
I believe that such laws should be changed to get more in line with my personal beliefs. The will of the people be damned because I find this guy's actions personally offensive and we should have laws to make others act more like me.
Dang dano, that sounds alot like soccer mom thinking.[:D]0 -
As I've said on this forum before, I pray I never have to find out WHAT I would do in his shoes. I want to believe that I would have done what others have suggested and that is to demand they FREEZE and then if they moved, especially toward me, all bets are off. I agree with the one assessment of the situation that if shot in the chest, they likely weren't trying to run AWAY. Problem in all this is going to be the Michael Bloomberg, Brady Campaign, etc etc etc gun haters that are going to rant and rave until the prosecutor has no choice but to bring charges. We just gotta hope the NRA or someone with deep pockets comes to his aid and helps pay for his defense and like has also been suggested, after about 10 hung juries, they give it up.
I don't want to believe I would have metered out the ultimate punishment for these dudes but like I've always said about those who so strongly protest road blocks, unlawful searches and seizures, if you aren't breaking the law, other than a few minutes of your time, what difference does it make? If these dudes weren't there wrongfully, attempting to take away someone's property and/or rights, they wouldn't have ended up this way. I am way sick of so much hoorah being displayed over VICTIM's rights and the poor guy who tried to do "the right thing", which most true tree hugging liberals wouldn't recognize if it bit them in the butt get all the press and results for their horrendous loud mouth efforts to deny God fearing, red blooded, patriotic AMERICANS the basic rights they have always had.
Sorry, my rant today.......0 -
quote:Originally posted by dano
I don't care what state you live in, you don't kill an unarmed person(s) for stealing property, and not only was it NOT his property, it was his neighbors.
And....he clearly had a "take no prisoners" mindset, as is evidenced by what he said to the dispatcher on the phone.
What if one of the bad guys had been one of your sons? What if a child of yours was part of a burglarly gang? Would you want a victim taking shots at your child w/o repercussion?
Would your child not be burglarly gang if they were actually likely to be punished? Instead of getting away with their crimes half the time and the other half only getting BS punishments like 'don't do this again tommy the fine will be bigger next time'.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
72 comments