Joe Horn, a man who killed two men who broke into a neighbors house will not be charged despite an audio recording in which Horn disobeys a dispatcher and seems intent on killing the men. A Texas grand jury refused to indict him for the killings in November.
The Horn case has focused attention on so-called Make My Day Laws (or the Castle Doctrine). Horn expressly cited his right to shoot the men before going outside to encounter him. For a prior story, click here and here.
For the full article, click here
“Bob it’s spelled M-E-X-I-C-O not M-A-S-O-C-H-I-S-M. They won’t take it back now that they know what we’ve got. Come on!”
Mespo,
What are your thoughts on the Estate having standing to sue under the 5th?
Regardless of the suspects race, had they not been violating the law in the first place, we would not be commenting on this blog! Every tree hugging liberal wants to place blame on the person who did the right thing and not the people who did not wrong thing. Just this week in Texas, another house burglar was shot by the homeowner protecting himself and his pregnant wife and the burglar could possibly be paralyzed for the rest of his life. The wonderful thing about this situation, the homeowner will not be charged. Guess this criminal will be doing his crime from a wheelchair now! Now that is Texas Justice! From my stand point from being an African American and my wife is Hispanic, if I was put in either situation I would do that same no matter what race the criminals are. They should leave property belonging to law abiding tax paying Texans alone and get a real job. If they can’t get a job, GET OUT OF TEXAS!
God Bless Texas and Don’t Mess With Texas!
If Mr Horn gets a kick out of shooting dark-skinned unarmed fleeing people in the back he should join Blackwater in Iraq and get paid for his trouble.
I don’t know the facts, I wasn’t there.
What was reported was that both men were shot in the back while fleeing.
Horn’s first duty was to retreat, as the 911 dispatch officer requested
-not shoot to kill.
On that basis alone, I have to disagree.
@mespo, I would pay to see a jury acquit a person who killed children “playing around someone’s house” at night. I think the law is to defend “theft of property”. If it couldn’t be proven that the kids were stealing anything then the neighbor would be charged with murder. If the kids WERE stealing something or attempting to steal something, well any child growing up in that world would then think twice about stealing.
Do you think the two ADULT thieves in this case decided to just steal some random day? Or do you think they probably have been used to a life of crime from an early age?
People have been killing each other for much worse reasons since we first began to manipulate tools. Some of the oldest human finds show evidence of being killed by other humans. Do you think the road to peace is going to stop by disarming those poeple who WANT a safe society? Do you think a gun ban will take guns out of the hands of criminals? Absolutely not, all you do is you leave people without a means to defend themselves and strengthen criminals, who already possess weapons ILLEGALLY (and would continue to do so with a gun ban). All this does is strengthen the evil nature of man that has existed for all this time.
Obviously any decent person doesn’t want a society where people have to die, it would be great if the general public participated in the legal process, if fair and just laws were passed based on the will of the people, and if people refrained from committing criminal acts against one another, but woops, time to wake up from your daydream because there is a real world out there where most of the american populace has no idea how it’s government works and where people who wish to do harm to others only get strengthened in their aims to do so purely out of the ignorance and naivete’ of people like you.
While what Joe Horn did was unfortunate, he was justified. Maybe if everyone got all the facts they would change their minds. When Joe went outside, the burglers were in Joe’s yard not the neighbors. The were reported to be 10 and 13ft away from Joe and one of them had a crowbar. After Joe warned them, one guy ran towards his right and the other came towards Joe. It would seem that the close proximity of the burglers would not give one much of a chance to react and if one of them were coming at you, you would have no choice but defend yourself.
Used to be left-winger:
Ok ‘ll play “what if” with you. What if one hot summer night, your kid was playing with his buddies around this guys house, and Horn, armed with his new found right to “make criminals’ day”, decides to take them out for trespassing on his lawn claiming he thought they were a “street gang”? Still so sanctimonious about gun rights? Personally, I don’t think we need any more amateur Dirty Harry’s with guns taking the law into their own hands. Call me left-wing.
What if the next night these two broke into an old ladies house and killed her when she confronted them? What if it was your neighbor’s family that was wiped out children and all for a VCR sold to a pawn shop? Too often we call the Police and hear “Wait for the authorities to arrive”. Sorry, the police dept. is out running radar and trying to generate revenue for the city. Maybe if the police actually did their job and patrolled neighborhoods more it could discourage some of this. Boils down to…..
1) You can’t count on the Police force. They are too busy running radar.
2) You have no idea if the person commiting the crime is armed and going to visit your house next.
3) Crime has a down side ranging from death at the hands of a home owner, or death from hitting a street light after running from a cop. You take that chance when you decide to commit the crime.
4) Everyone is a victim in this country including the criminal that commits the crime.
You decide to commit a crime, the outcome is your responsibility. Don’t try to blame someone else for a situation gone bad.
Bob,Esq:
“I say we give Texas, and their goddamned ‘independent republic-flag flying at equal height as U.S. flag’, back to Mexico.”
***********
Bob it’s spelled M-E-X-I-C-O not M-A-S-O-C-H-I-S-M. They won’t take it back now that they know what we’ve got. Come on!
4hour, the suggestion of a double standard was actually regarding the jurors rather than the killer. They were looking at the actions of a white male homeowner as they affected two illegal immigrants. If you’re going to suggest there is no double standard for the justice system in Texas, I’d refer you to the death penalty statistics for the Lone Star State.
“our entire legal system is based on property, on ownership and protecting it. it’s what we took from the Brits, common law.”
Can you name the moral or legal code that permitted death as a penalty for theft? N.B. Poaching on “The King’s Land” isn’t a law we intended to preserve when we Declared our independence.
The only time death attached to the procurement of property was through “Wager of Battel” — i.e. a ‘Judicial Duel’ controlled by the King.
IOW, the penalty for theft was not death. If you wanted to challenge title to property and claim it as your own, you could lay your life on the line and, in a controlled environment, battle your opponent to the death.
Maybe it’s me, but I can’t think of a civilized society that ever gave citizens license to summarily execute thieves as they saw fit—which is what the Texas statute does.
“people have been killing to gain and protect property since the begining of time.”
Yes, we call that war.
“Citizens killing people to simply to protect property is…”
our entire legal system is based on property, on ownership and protecting it. it’s what we took from the Brits, common law.
people have been killing to gain and protect property since the begining of time.
what’s the deal with the brown skin argument? the burglars happened to be black. did you know that the people they robbed happened to be asian (vietnamese, i guess they’re kind of tan)? this doesn’t make sense in that if you’re a racist “red-neck” why would you protect a “slant-eyed” fellas property?
“bob, the deceased were in this country illegally.”
Relevance?
“Another person on the panel remarked “Jeff, you aren’t listening; the people of Texas said no crime has been committed by not indicting Mr. Horn”.”
This doesn’t make the statute constitutional; no more than jury nullification abolishes a criminal law.
The State of Texas has, ESSENTIALLY, made it legal to set up a blind
on the front porch, give your neighbor expensive garden gnomes to put as bait on his front lawn, and pick off would-be thieves as they try to make off with the gnomes.
Perfectly legal in Texas; completely unheard of in common law and worthy of a ‘deadly force in defense of others’ by any gun owner with a scintilla human decency.
Categorically speaking, if I was witnessing Joe Horn raising a shotgun to shoot escaping thieves through the glass on my Model 70, I’d be morally constrained to target his knee cap and drop him to the floor after the first shot at the very least–just as I wouldn’t even wait for the shot if he was aiming his gun at a cop caught unaware.
Citizens killing people simply to protect property is unacceptable; not only in America but the human race.
bob, the deceased were in this country illegally.
I loved the remark made at J. Toobin on CNN when he said it is apparently ok in Texas to break the law when defending one’s home.
Another person on the panel remarked “Jeff, you aren’t listening; the people of Texas said no crime has been committed by not indicting Mr. Horn”. Toobin looked shocked at that revelation.
Mr. toobin also remarked how dangerous it was to fire a shotgun in a residential area and that the jury should have taken this under advisement. Another person on the panel asked Toogin “Jeff, have you even ever fired a shotgun to know what you are talking about?”. jeff’s response was a weak “No, I haven’t”.
1L,
I wonder if the estates of the deceased would have standing to sue the State of Texas for violating the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; i.e. challenging the statute on the grounds that it legalizes summary executions by citizen witnesses of theft of property.
“Rule? I think you mean law.”
You’re right; I was thinking of the common law rules of murder and defense of self and property; not to mention a few “Good Christian” rules.
But let’s look at “Texas Law” in light of the man being on the phone with 911 and officers en route….
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41;
and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;
or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;
and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;
or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property
and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;
or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person’s land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor’s care.
Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
Bob,
Good point. I’m reminded of the line from My Cousin Vinny, “Hey Stan, you’re in Ala-$%*#@-Bama. You come from New York. You killed a good old boy. There is no way this is not going to trial.”
Only here, the inverse. “Hey Joe, you’re in Texas. You’re a good old boy. You killed two illegals brown skin. There is no way this is going to trial.”
Rule? I think you mean law.
Hey how about before you go off about how “deadly force may never be used solely to defend your property” you do a little research.
Texas law actually allows a person to use deadly force to protect property smart guy.
TEXAS STATE PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property…
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and…
In my opinion I believe Joe Horn was trying to do good [by protecting his nieghbors $4,000 worth of swag the thieves were trying to steal], but it is a shame that two men died.
What the hell happened to the rule that deadly force may never be used solely to defend your property (including using spring guns to protect your home)?
I suppose the Texas Grand Jury figured as long as the perp wasn’t black or retarded or both, they should let him walk.
I say we give Texas, and their goddamned ‘independent republic-flag flying at equal height as U.S. flag’, back to Mexico.
A somewhat shocking result, but pleasantly so indeed.