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
*note: mespo, mine in response to G2 – ‘diapol’ is just out of his/her mind! Almost wish I had seen IT first!
Patty C 1, July 2, 2008 at 1:12 am
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.
*****
The problem with this case and with this law is that it requires an assessment of the gravity of individual situations and then a judgment call. That’s a BIG problem anywhere with guns cocked and loaded.
The 911 tape of Mr. Horn would suggest that he quite clearly knew what he wanted to do and what he had determined the law permitted him to do.
What we don’t know is what he told the Grand Jury.
727272,
1. i suppose we’ll never agree on this and although i enjoy debating with you i hate typing. what is so broad about authorizing deadly force to protect property? people in texas obviously do not think the way you do, as for the rest of the country that’s their own business and that’s why they have their own unique laws; but now you’re touching on states rights v. federal (too much typing). let’s just agree to say that by killing 2 burglars, in texas, joe horn did not break any law. as far as joe being morally wrong, you can judge him yourself on that matter.
2. ahhhhh the nazi argument, i don’t know why you stopped there. i concede there where many many many many immoral governments installed legally. most of which have been overthrown via violence but don’t you think this is a bit of a stretch? you think a man who killed 2 illegal immigrants for burglarizing his neighbor’s (a legal immigrant) home warrants a hitler/ mussolini/ stalin/ mao type of scenario?
3. rabbi/ atheist, are you asking me what i think? i’m saying it’s irrelavent because what they think is what they think. it’s a matter of opinion i guess is what i’m trying to say.
4. grand jury… sorry i guess i missed that whole sentence.
i guess we’ve gone full circle here. “texas’ typical attitude” from debating with you i can tell that you think and as a thinker i’m sure you know that bob does not represent the whole of texas.
4hournotice:
I know what the law in Texas says, we were debating its application to these facts and whether is should be so broadly construed so as to authorize deadly force in defense of property alone,or should be modified to be in accord with the rest of the Nation and the greater weight of legal thinking. There is thus a substantial argument on what the law should be from both a policy standpoint and a moral standpoint. We have argued it is bad policy (regardless of its morality) to let roving, untrained, armed, vigilante landowners shoot-up the neighborhood in defense of their pink flamingo yard ornament. It is also immoral to kill someone for taking your items. Bob,Esq gave a cogent synopsis of the age old moral prohibition against death for theft unless the owner’s life is IMMINENTLY threatened or if it involves the risk of severe bodily injury such as an armed robbery.
I also don’t understand your legal process argument. All Nazi actions against the Jews were the result of legal process duly passed. That makes them neither lawful, nor moral for that matter. You might recall that Communist Russia also had a constitution. Was that a lawful state? Was Section 7 of the Military Commission Act recently declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court lawful?
You also got the rabbi/atheist comment past me. My understanding is that you said the answers to the moral question about the necessity of killing a thief, would be different if asked of each. I just asked you why you think that?
The Grand Jury reference was to the article’s point that the homeowner was not indicted by the Grand Jury. I stated in my post that it was a decision by the Texas Supreme Court and I was in error. Lastly, Texas may have a difference stance on morality but it clearly has a different stance on the law as Bob, Esq has indicated throughout. My point was to needle them for their typical attitude i.e. Don’t Mess With Texas.
“God Bless Texas and Don’t Mess With Texas!”
Did you like the fancy Latin phrasing describing how Texas and God disagree?
Don’t mess with Texas?
Would that be the Lone Star state or the “Morning Star” state.
Either way, Texas can go shi+ in its collective hat.
Est enim ad vindicanda furta nimis atrox, nec tamen ad refraenanda sufficiens: quippe neque furtum simplex tam ingens facinus est, ut capite debeat plecti; neque ulla poena est tanta, ut ab latrociniis cohibeat eos, qui nullam aliam artem quaerendi victus habent.
[Death is too severe a punishment for theft, nor yet sufficient to restrain it; for neither is simple theft such a heinous offense, that it should be made capital, nor can there be any punishment so severe as to restrain those from robbing who have no other means of obtaining a livelihood.] (Mori Utopia. Edit. Glasg. 1750. pag. 21.)
Denique, cum lex Mosaica, quanquam inclemens et aspera, tamen pecunia furtum, haud morte, mulctavit; ne putemus Deum, in nova lege clementiae qua pater imperat filiis, majorem indusisse nobis invicem saeviendi licentiam. Haec sunt cur non licere putem: quam vero sit absurdum, atque etiam perniciosum reipublicae, furem atque homicidam ex aequo puniri, nemo est (opinor) qui nesciat.
[In short, since the Mosaic law, although rigorous and severe, only punished theft by a fine, not by death, we cannot think that God, in that new law of mercy by which as a father he governs his children, has granted us a greater liberty of harshness or severity towards each other. These are the reasons why I deem it unlawful. And there is no one, I think, but must be sensible how absurd it is, and even pernicious to the commonwealth, that a thief and a murderer should receive the same punishment.]
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-417.htm#fn33d
727272,
1. i think your coming at me with the wrong angle:
“You are undoubted correct on the law since the good justices of the Texas Supreme Court have now told us so. The question we are debating is not morality, but what the law should be on the issue of defense of property.”
there is no issue on what the law “should be” on the defense of property. it clearly states in the texas penal code that you can defend a 3rd parties property. the reason why a lot of people debate it is the morality issue, which once again i submit that there is no definite answer.
2. NY tax, sorry if i wasn’t clear what i was trying to point out so ineffectively is that laws a put into effect by a process. it doesn’t matter if it’s theft or taxation, there is certain LEGAL process that each state legislature/ city council must go through to make laws law. in the same manner if people don’t like the lay there is a LEGAL process in changing the law as well. bottom line is everyone must follow the law whether you like it or not. to answer your question, yes, if you can convince enough people to think the way you think you can change anything.
3. rabii/ atheist – was just to highlight what doesn’t make sense. like “i’m voting for obama because he’s gay,” he’s not gay but then why am i voting for him? we are arguing about morality and not legality which is fine but it’s unfair to mix the two. to each his own.
4. your quip about the grand jury i didn’t get that. it went through the texas judicial system, a grand jury is a part of that, so what? point being is that if you want to say that it’s not okay to kill someone over property that’s fine, and that’s your opinion.
it’s funny you mentioned the “bigger is better – texas” but at the yet at the same time you seem to look down on them because they have a different stance on morality (not law), morality.
4burnnotcie:
“You are undoubted correct on the law since the good justices of the Texas Supreme Court have now told us so.” Oops. make that the Grand Jurors and of course, the Texas legislature. Serves me right for reading it two days ago and commenting now.
4hournotice:
You are undoubted correct on the law since the good justices of the Texas Supreme Court have now told us so. The question we are debating is not morality, but what the law should be on the issue of defense of property. The reason for the passion is obvious given the facts. You are correct that the extraneous issues become involved like conservative versus liberal philosophies, but jurisprudence has always had that tension since liberals and conservatives are the ones making (and debating)the law.
I think your example of the New York taxing issue is inapposite. The NY tax issue involves a crime that is mal prohibita not mal in se. Financial requirements dictate taxing policy usually; mal in se crimes involves our notions of the normative organization of society and conduct we will accept or not accept. The tax code could change with the next meeting of the legislature. Do you think the prohibition against murder will ever change? I agree that the Texas comments are over the top, but they do add some flavor to the discussion by pin-pricking our “things are better and bigger in Texas” crowd.
Finally your comment that “morality – were the killings unnecessary, maybe. I can’t argue this because you’ll get one answer from a rabii and a different one from an atheist,” is curious since why would an atheist have a different view of murder than a rabbi? Einstein surely was not religious, but I’ m not aware that he advocated kmurder. I suspect Bertrand Russell didn’t either.
a lot of passionate views on this matter but let’s set the passion and the liberal/ conservative bs aside for a second.
what is this post about? is it about the legality of joe horn’s actions or is it about the morality of joe horn’s actions? if it’s the former, there is NO argument – joe horn was perfectly within the laws that are set forth in the state of texas.
i don’t like the fact that you have to pay state income tax in new york city (along with city and county, not to mention federal) but i’m not going around screaming that we should kick out new york from the union at the same time i’m going to pay the taxes. each state has its own laws and we should obey them.
morality – were the killings unneccessary, maybe. i can’t argue this because you’ll get one answer from a rabii and a different one from an atheist. there is no definite answer but the law is the law. if this law is so outrageous, move to texas and vote the law down.
Aren’t these laws allowing people to kill other people to protect property confined to protecting one’s OWN property? Otherwise, it would seem, they allow for vigilant individuals or groups to wander around armed and dangerous killing whomever they see going something of which they disapprove. Did I miss something?
scott:
My, my such great detail for your victim’s death and funeral. How’s that shock therapy coming along? As for your statement “its that simple.” that is exactly what I thought you would say. For you, life is very simple and the rest of us get to clean up the messes of guys who are black and white thinkers like you.
Jill:
Can I come too for a vacation from stupidity? They are rational at least.
Deathisapartoflife:
Ok let’s say the kids were 18 years old and they were stealing your favorite pink flamingo yard ornament as a fraternity prank. Death penalty administered by you still ok? Spare me the old we’ve done it for years argument. It didn’t work for slavery or bigamy or a host of other crimes.
ONE:
Read (if you can) the US Constitution. It doesn’t say citizens have rights, it says “persons.” Grown up or take a civics class, oh great warrior.
Scott,
You wouldn’t really kill Rush would you?
“I guess your family will have to dig through family portraits to find a sweet photo of you before you became a low life – drug addicted criminal to place next to your casket.”
alexis,
I am moving to Germany!
If you are in this country illegally then you have no9 rights!!! ONLY legal citizens have rights in this great country. And when someone illegally comes to this country and steals then it becomes war.
And for all you trigger-happy goat roping rednecks
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-417.htm#fn33d
The law gives us the right to carry and use deadly force in protecting property and human life..Its that simple.
1. I am German
2. I am a friend of the USA and love the country
3. I find it disgusting that a Grand Jury lets this man get away with a double murder. I would maybe think different if Mr. Horn had acted in panic – but the 911 recording makes it very clear that all he wanted to do is kill these two poor guys.
4. It makes no difference if the two guys were in the US illegally. The worth of a human life is not defined by the right papers or a passport
5. Mr. Horn damaged the image of Texas in the world. Me, who has been there a couple of times and knows that most Texans are not of this type but warm hearted people, does understand the difference, but you shouldn’t accept that kind of wisdom from peopel all over the world who have never been in the US. For YEARS Mr. Horn’s example and especially that he could get away with it, will fuel every discussion about America when it’s about the american gun culture which is considered perverse all over Europe.
6. The decision of the Grand Jury is against every normal human’s idea of justice and humanity. It was simply a lynching.
Red, brown, yellow or green Illegal Alien or ET Alien, you break into my house to take my stuff that I worked hard for I am going to shoot you with a gun that I either worked hard for or one that has been handed down over many generations……and it will be to kill you not injure.. I hope your family doesent want an open casket, because my shotgun is loaded with buckshot and I aim for the head. I guess your family will have to dig through family portraits to find a sweet photo of you before you became a low life – drug addicted criminal to place next to your casket.
Protip: If you must commit a crime, do it in a liberal state.