Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars

[JellyTheory]

Some of you may remember hearing the audio tape of a 911 call from a home owner in Pasadena/Houston, Texas. The man ended up shooting the two burglars, that had broken in to his neighbor's house, in self-defense.

Below is the outcome of that case:


-Chris

------------------------------
HOUSTON - A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.

Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.

The suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/burglary_shooting;_ylt=Ar2z.sQGZZsuI2R3uwlAJyoDW7o F
------------------------------

[NSR500]

Texas Justice!

Don't Mess with Texas!

[ojisan]

Go Texas! :cowboy:

[postal]

Take that SF! and SF DA! and mayor!

Any Texans want to move to frisco to help straighten that place out?

[NSR500]

Take that SF! and SF DA! and mayor!

Any Texans want to move to frisco to help straighten that place out?

Well... I'm here 1/2 time, but you could not pay me to live in San Francisco. :cool2:

[USN CHIEF]

That is some great news.

[bigdave1121]

Yeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwww

[tgriffin]

Go Texas go!

[drewg13]

Great news. We need to think of a way to recruit some Texas DAs, grand jury, etc. to California. But with the cost of living here in CA I doubt that would ever happen. I think I need to start thinking about moving to Texas. :)

[ByTheNumbers]

I remember when the original story came out, but I must be missing something--he says they threatened him...so how did they both get shot in the back?

[hawk1]

I remember when the original story came out, but I must be missing something--he says they threatened him...so how did they both get shot in the back?

I'm willing to bet when he swung the shotgun up in their direction after their threat they tried to move. Sweet thing about shotguns, you rarely miss...:)

[Rogerbutthead]

Hope he did not have to pay too much for the legal representation.

Tough sheet that they were shot in the back.

Should have been shot in the groin and bled out.

[AR u Ready]

And like a good neighborrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, Joe Horn is therrrrrre. YEAHHH!

[Shawn L]

Gotta love Texas:cowboy:

[robitrocks]

God Bless Texas. :cowboy:

[futureExpat]

Go texas!!!!!!!!!!

jurors do have the power! Good to see they made the right call!

[liberty08]

Hope this case sends a message to would be burglars.:)

[ZapThyCat]

I still remember that video of the vanload of ex-cons-turned-activists that came into the neighborhood to protest, and there were hundreds of people drowning them out. They eventually fled with their tails between their legs.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I remember the audio tape and it sounds to me like he was lucky. Or the jury decided to take the law into their own hands. Oh well.

[ZapThyCat]

Or the jury decided to take the law into their own hands. Oh well.

Jury taking the law into their own hands? That makes no sense. They ARE the law. The whole point of a system where you are tried by your peers is that they define your actions as proper or improper. They are the ultimate last stand that the people can make against an out-of-control government when it comes to power grabbing and unjust laws. If you can't get the people to convict, then a law is made pointless. Too many juries nowdays are instructed that they are to define if the defendant broke the law or not, instead of what the framers of had intended, that they define whether that person was justified in doing what he did. There are laws on the books that define a person as a terrorist if they put the wrong pills in the pill bottle. Does an elderly person deserve to get locked up for that? Let the jury decide. There are very bad people out there. We got Al Capone on tax evasion, and put him away for many years.

A jury doesn't "take the law into their own hands". Have you seen the movie "Walking Tall"? Based on a true story. The town had been taken over by thugs and drug dealers. The defendant (The Rock) decided that he was going to take his town back. The thugs brought him up on charges. He got up and said he was going to run for sheriff if they acquitted him, and take the town back for the people. The Jury acquitted him. He broke the law, but he was acting properly.

The Jury doesn't take the law into their own hands. They are part of the law. They defined Horns actions as actions that were justified, whether they were against the law or not. A trial by a jury of our peers is the greatest right we have left. It's the ultimate means of power that the people have.

I'll take that over a military tribunal any day.

[jazman]

Not that I care about the 2 punks that got dead, but it was clear from the 911 tape this guy wanted to shoot someone. They were stealing a stereo from his neighbors house (killing offense?) and not a threat to him. The 911 operator told him to just stay in his house and cops were on the way; he ran out of his house and shot the punks in the back. I think he got lucky with the jury frankly.

[Rule .308]

You got to love Texas, home of the "he needed some killin" law.

[ZapThyCat]

it was clear from the 911 tape this guy wanted to shoot someone

Well, he saw them coming out of the neighbors house. They were then on his property. I highly doubt that an old man wants to shoot someone. More than likely he didn't want them to get away. They chose to gamble that he wouldn't shoot. They lost.

I think he'd prefer not to kill them. But they ran instead.

[giarcpnw]

Moved here 8 years ago after a short stint in Seattle. I wouldn't live in Houston again if you paid me. NOT why you would think though, more based on growing up there in the 80s in a crappy suburb and being an actor as a profession. BUT....... the one thing i MISS most about Texas are the gun laws. They just have it right for some reason. Easy for a law abiding citizen to get a CCW and the Castle Doctrine when dealing with armed or threatening attacks on your property. I can't remember if this guy actually premeditatevly (sp?) said he was going to shoot the two guys before he went outside but i swear they fired back at him before he shot or they were at least armed. In any case, the jury did this man justice.

Why do these laws make so much sense to me/us but not the rest of the country? They don't have mass shootings in Texas. Outside of the hoods and the gang areas, gun violence is down. If you break into some one's house and you get shot, it's your fault. Period. Why would you ever question the homeowner if he felt threatened? Of course he did, some one broke into his house? Just common sense if you ask me.

And i say this as blue blooded liberal.... Seriously. I'm even voting for Obama.
And yes, i know, i know...... I love my guns, trust me. But i have to weigh the whole picture and another Repub is NOT what this country needs. Especially that dinosaur McCain. INMHO of course.

Flame on. And Remember the Alamo!


C

[jazman]

I listened to the 911 call a bunch at the time. They were not on his property but in front of it and I don't think (or remember) that they were armed. He told the 911 op a number of times he was going to shoot them. Again, they were punks and I may have shot them too, I'm just saying he did not NEED to in any way. If he stays in the house the cop who had pulled up probably catches them, worst case they steal some stuff from his neighbor, either way he doesn't have all these months of hassle with the law and possible guilt about killing 2 other humans.

[ricknadine1111]

That is BS, the two dead actually rushed at him when he confronted them and when he swung up the shotgun and racked it they had just started turning around to run and thats when the weapon went off. It happened so fast that it just seemed like He shot them in the back but he was infact just defending himself and the dead well they are just dead south american gang bangers. No use feeling guilty about saving your own butt.

[-hanko]

I listened to the 911 call a bunch at the time. They were not on his property but in front of it and I don't think (or remember) that they were armed. He told the 911 op a number of times he was going to shoot them. Again, they were punks and I may have shot them too, I'm just saying he did not NEED to in any way. If he stays in the house the cop who had pulled up probably catches them, worst case they steal some stuff from his neighbor, either way he doesn't have all these months of hassle with the law and possible guilt about killing 2 other humans.
I don't think guilt plays into the deal...I'd agree he probably wasn't in direct danger as he held the gun. TX law does allow the use of deadly force to protect you and (apparently) your neighbor's property. Criminals are aware of the law;)

The difference is ethical v. legal. I lived in TX for 20 years; I can't remember a shooting like this being billed guilty by the grand jury and there's usually one or two a year.

-hanko

[jazman]

That is BS, the two dead actually rushed at him when he confronted them and when he swung up the shotgun and racked it they had just started turning around to run and thats when the weapon went off. It happened so fast that it just seemed like He shot them in the back but he was infact just defending himself and the dead well they are just dead south american gang bangers. No use feeling guilty about saving your own butt.

No BS. What did you think he was going to say? He shot one in the neighbor's yard and one in front of his yard. I doubt they ran at him backwards, he shot them in the back. He racked the shotgun before he left the house, listen to the tape. He told the 911 op he was going to shoot them.

[elSquid]

No BS. What did you think he was going to say? He shot one in the neighbor's yard and one in front of his yard. I doubt they ran at him backwards, he shot them in the back. He racked the shotgun before he left the house, listen to the tape. He told the 911 op he was going to shoot them.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5864151.html

A plainclothes police officer saw the event. Bad guys went into Horn's yard, Horn told them to freeze. One of the perps then ran towards Horn.

Neither Horn nor the bad guys realized the officer was there.

-- Michael

[compulsivegunbuyer]

If you don't want to get shot, don't break into peoples houses. Seems pretty simple to me.

[gunsmith]

well, I hope they learned their lesson and quit robbing houses.

[jazman]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5864151.html

A plainclothes police officer saw the event. Bad guys went into Horn's yard, Horn told them to freeze. One of the perps then ran towards Horn.

Neither Horn nor the bad guys realized the officer was there.

-- Michael

Again, I care less about the punks. The cop that saw it reported them getting shot in the back, and neither died in Horn's yard. I'm not defending anyone, just saying he didn't need to kill them over some $2K worth of stuff. If anyone LISTENS to the 911 call you will know he was looking to shoot them, it's very clear. Didn't mean to get into any disagreements over it and won't argue it any more. Just stating my thoughts.

[pcesar]

I agree, these guys should not have been burglarizing anyones house. Appears that the Texan man was taking the law into his own hands. Alot that who say he did right, are the ones that would say that a cop did wrong if he had done the same thing. I wonder how far he was from them when he shot them in the back? I don't have all the details but shooting two people in the back does not sound too good.

[elSquid]

Again, I care less about the punks. The cop that saw it reported them getting shot in the back, and neither died in Horn's yard. I'm not defending anyone, just saying he didn't need to kill them over some $2K worth of stuff. If anyone LISTENS to the 911 call you will know he was looking to shoot them, it's very clear. Didn't mean to get into any disagreements over it and won't argue it any more. Just stating my thoughts.

I understand the point you are making, and I think it's a valid one.

The situation was marginal, which is why it received national attention. If both of the bad guys went for guns when Horn told them to freeze, chances are it would have been at most a 5 minute story on the local TV news.

However, that said, the grand jury took 2 weeks to carefully go through the details of the event, so you have to respect their decision.

-- Michael

[olegk]

Listen carefully what his attorney said about shooting criminals in Texas.

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1395 (click for video on the middle of the page)

She said it is legal to shoot fleeing criminal. I love that!!!!

I see some posts suggest to sit like rat in the hole and wait for police while criminals stealing his neighbors property. Guys.. The current state of our society with gang bangers, thugs everywhere and they feel unrestricted partially result of ignorance of "regular Joe" I mean us gun owners.
The court makes clear statement "Try to steal - get shot". Good for Texas!!!

[spsellars]

She said it is legal to shoot fleeing criminal. I love that!!!!

Yup, Texas Penal Code § 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43 cover it.

I agree with the Grand Jury's finding, people here can argue the "morality" of it until their blue in the face, but the fact is he acted completely within the law. (So people using the word "vigilante" should probably look up its definition.)

[Two Shots]

Will these dirt bags family try to sue for wrongful death even after he was found innocent?

[spsellars]

Will these dirt bags family try to sue for wrongful death even after he was found innocent?

I'm sure Quanell X will fund a civil case against Mr. Horn... And hopefully he gets laughed out of town again for it.

[M. Sage]

Will these dirt bags family try to sue for wrongful death even after he was found innocent?

They can't in Texas. Texas has Castle Doctrine. Shoot someone in self defense and get cleared, civil suits are DOA. :cool:

We need that here...

[windrunner50]

:30::patriot:

[battleship]

All this rant over these two thugs being shot in the back for the sake of stealing some electronics, and how excessive that seems, clearly they were bold enough to brake into some ones house not knowing if the owner was home or away, and with that mind set, who knows what these two lowlife, chum buckets, might of been caperble of doing if the owner was home, they could probably be down to murdering some one over a t.v. murder in the first degree or manslaughter still murder, and all for some ones hard earned property with a street value of what $50 tops or for drugs or whoreing around. I dont care less if the neighbor was just down to trying out his shot gun, the fact is he did as all a big favor, we dont know the true crimminal past of these to toss pots, im sure this is not there first time and it would most definatly not of been there last if they had of gotten away with the goods. And its a friggin fact that the more crime they do the bolder they get and this can lead to violence in a crimminal act, if it had not already, some of you guys sound like obamarrs buddys, with answers like he should of stayed in doors they didnt deserve that type of response, thankgod this old man sent a messege, a messege which is seeminly lost in todays societys code of morals and effics. one of these guys was originaly deported only to return, and committ more crime in our back yard. people like this who think they can get away with anarchy dont need to live and breath the air that we do, i applaud the old man, trigger happy or not, and it seems Texas a state that most you yanks love to bash all the time, still has its nutz intact. Some of you people and i mean society in genneral not just calgunners, have to think beyond the box - beyond that one event or episode to what could only get worse, if we have an approach that we should just stand by and let it happen. this only makes it worse for someone else down the road, another innocent victim, it could be you. P.S. ive been to Texas a bunch of times they are nice folks.

[spsellars]

They can't in Texas. Texas has Castle Doctrine. Shoot someone in self defense and get cleared, civil suits are DOA. :cool

I know he mentioned Castle Doctrine in his 911 call, but I thought his lawyers stayed away from the Castle Doctrine defense? (Plus my understanding of Texas Castle Doctrine is that it only applies in your own home, car, or workplace.) All the whiners kept going on about some "antiquated" law they used as a defense, and the Castle Doctrine laws are relatively new in Texas, right?

[ByTheNumbers]

All the whiners kept going on about some "antiquated" law they used as a defense, and the Castle Doctrine laws are relatively new in Texas, right?
They're referring to the Texas laws regarding the use of force to stop someone stealing your property or someone else's property. I don't have a good link right now, but from what I read the other day, apparently the origin of the principle (but perhaps not the actual current statute on the books) is from the mid-1800's.

Say Joe Horn had come outside just a bit later and these guys had already jumped in a car and started driving away. I believe that this law would've justified him to run out and start blasting away at the guys, not from a self-defense perspective, but to keep them from getting away with their loot.

[gcvt]

Take that SF! and SF DA! and mayor!

Any Texans want to move to frisco to help straighten that place out?

I already did but I don't seem to be making much progress :(

[ricknadine1111]

They were going at it last night on CNN, great big arguments from the state of Texas over this.

[puppypower]

Joe Horn shot them when they came into his yard

[myglock]

They don't f**k around in Texas. So it's in a persons best interest not to f**k with Texas. California could probably learn a thing or two from them. I like the way they roll. (But the cock roaches I've heard are the size of a small dog!) I'd have a short fuse too just from the heat alone! They are still strongly united and strictly enforce their very strict laws. Personally, I wouldn't wanna live there just want there gun laws! :gene:

[wksun88]

good, they deserved to die. Maybe now, burglars around his neighborhood will think twice about messing around.

[tenpercentfirearms]

So let me get this straight. An undercover officer saw the whole thing from his unmarked car that was in front of the house, but no one knew the car was there? Sounds to me like someone was trying to back Horn up. Call it the Blue Shield for a guy the cops like.

Maybe not. Either way, put me on the "he is lucky he isn't in jail" side. I won't cry over the two dead guys, but I am also not joyful with their death. Burglary is not a reason to kill a person and I wonder about some of you who think it should be.

[Vin496]

So let me get this straight. An undercover officer saw the whole thing from his unmarked car that was in front of the house, but no one knew the car was there? Sounds to me like someone was trying to back Horn up. Call it the Blue Shield for a guy the cops like.

Maybe not. Either way, put me on the "he is lucky he isn't in jail" side. I won't cry over the two dead guys, but I am also not joyful with their death. Burglary is not a reason to kill a person and I wonder about some of you who think it should be.

+1

I started a thread about this type of subject when I 1st joined, but as a Texan, I couldn't justify shooting someone in the back for stealing a stereo.

While this guy broke no laws, he really went out of his way to get in that situation. I don't understand the praise he seems to be getting here, but I'm not itching to shoot someone.

[rayd7]

In Kalifornia Horn would be in prison right now .

[-hanko]

Either way, put me on the "he is lucky he isn't in jail" side. I won't cry over the two dead guys, but I am also not joyful with their death. Burglary is not a reason to kill a person and I wonder about some of you who think it should be.
What he did is not an offense in TX.


+1

I started a thread about this type of subject when I 1st joined, but as a Texan, I couldn't justify shooting someone in the back for stealing a stereo.

While this guy broke no laws, he really went out of his way to get in that situation. I don't understand the praise he seems to be getting here, but I'm not itching to shoot someone.
Definitely +1.

-hanko

ex-TX;)

[tenpercentfirearms]

What he did is not an offense in TX.

Are you sure about that? Shooting two guys in the back for stealing a stereo from your neighbor's house is legal in Texas? I doubt that.

The only reason he isn't in jail is because of the undercover officer who watched it all go down. The officer that no one saw, but seemed to know the guys ran back towards the guy even though they were both shot in the back and were found away from the property.

Of course because it was a couple of illegal alien burglars, that story sounds great to everyone right? :rolleyes:

Again, this guy is lucky he didn't go to jail for this one. I would say it has little to do with Texas law and a lot to do with that jury.

If someone would care to explain exactly which laws in California would have put this guy straight to jail but Texas law stopped him, I would like to see it. Don't forget to quote code sections and give links if you can.

Most people don't seem to realize California actually has a pretty good justifiable homicide code, especially if someone breaks into your house. It seems to me they just think Texas is better. I would argue that specific Texas jury was better. I would argue my jury here in Kern County might do the same thing. I would argue that your jury in Los Angeles County or San Francisco would have found you guilty.

[M. Sage]

I know he mentioned Castle Doctrine in his 911 call, but I thought his lawyers stayed away from the Castle Doctrine defense? (Plus my understanding of Texas Castle Doctrine is that it only applies in your own home, car, or workplace.) All the whiners kept going on about some "antiquated" law they used as a defense, and the Castle Doctrine laws are relatively new in Texas, right?

2/3 of Castle applies to anywhere you have a legal right to be (one facet is that you're presumed to be in danger if someone illegally enters your residence). It's also known as "stand your ground". The antis call it "shoot first" whenever a Castle bill is being moved through a legislature.

Castle applies a presumed danger to situations where someone illegally enters your home and you're in it at the same time (CA has this). Castle also removes the requirement to attempt to retreat from danger (apparently, this is why the antis call it "shoot first"), no matter where you are (CA also has this, when I lived in MI, we didn't and you were expected to actually leave your own home if possible to avoid confronting an intruder). The third part, the part the CA lacks :rolleyes: , is an immunity to civil lawsuits stemming from justified use of force.

[Vin496]

Are you sure about that? Shooting two guys in the back for stealing a stereo from your neighbor's house is legal in Texas? I doubt that.

The only reason he isn't in jail is because of the undercover officer who watched it all go down. The officer that no one saw, but seemed to know the guys ran back towards the guy even though they were both shot in the back and were found away from the property.

Of course because it was a couple of illegal alien burglars, that story sounds great to everyone right? :rolleyes:

Again, this guy is lucky he didn't go to jail for this one. I would say it has little to do with Texas law and a lot to do with that jury.

If someone would care to explain exactly which laws in California would have put this guy straight to jail but Texas law stopped him, I would like to see it. Don't forget to quote code sections and give links if you can.

Most people don't seem to realize California actually has a pretty good justifiable homicide code, especially if someone breaks into your house. It seems to me they just think Texas is better. I would argue that specific Texas jury was better. I would argue my jury here in Kern County might do the same thing. I would argue that your jury in Los Angeles County or San Francisco would have found you guilty.


I grew up in Texas and there was always a story that floated around, of a guy who got home to see some guy running from inside his house with some of his things, reached into his truck pulled out his scoped rifle and shot one of the guys in the back down the street. We were always taught you could use deadly force to protect property.

Again something I personally could not justify, but not against the law.


Chapter 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code explains when people can use force to protect their property (as opposed to persons). Chapter 9.41 explains that:

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor

D. Use of Deadly Force to Protect Property

Chapter 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code explains when deadly force is justified to protect one’s property. Chapter 9.42 explains that:

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.

E. Use of Force to Protect the Property of Others

Chapter 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code explains when a person is justified in using force to protect the property of another person. Chapter 9.43 explains that:

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.

[ojisan]

I have done 5 Jury Duties, 2 cases felonies (Homicide; Attempted Murder / Armed Robbery), 2 times I was Foreman. I just missed jury # 6 'cause the BG plea bargained at the last minute. I'm in Los Angeles County. I am a 2x violent crime victim, multiple theft victim, and a gun owner.I never dodge Jury Duty, even if it costs me. Quite a few more good folks still live in Los Angeles and serve on Juries here. ; )

Thanx vin496 detailed post. : )) I was typing this (I type slow):

TX is legal to defend property (with restrictions).CA you cannot shoot to defend property. Castle or not, this means that BGs in CA can walk into your home, take your TV, VCR cash & jewelry and walk out. If they do not shoot, stab or beat you first there is not a darn thing you can do about it. Don't even think about going outside in the middle of the night to stop some BGs from stealing your car. Reasonable force, reasonable man, etc blah blah blah. This CA Native sez "Aaaargh!"
Go Texas! :cowboy:

[bohoki]

dd we find out if they were burgling

the "possible" is bugging me did they find any stolen property on them?

[Max-the-Silent]

I know this won't be popular, but here goes.

Joe Horn may have been no-billed by the GJ, and the shootees were IA's, but I can't think of a better documented case of misuse of lethal force than this deal.

In the call, Horn states that he's going to shoot the men.

The dispatcher tells him to hold tight, and not to exit his home.

Horn exits the house, uses lethal force, kills both of the men he stated that he was going to shoot before there even could have possibly been any force threat against him.

This guy wanted to kill somebody. He thought state law gave him sanction to do so, and I guess the end result bears out that he was correct.

State law or no, killing somebody ought not to be done in anything other than self defense or military service, not property theft cases.

[Vin496]

I know this won't be popular, but here goes.

Joe Horn may have been no-billed by the GJ, and the shootees were IA's, but I can't think of a better documented case of misuse of lethal force than this deal.

In the call, Horn states that he's going to shoot the men.

The dispatcher tells him to hold tight, and not to exit his home.

Horn exits the house, uses lethal force, kills both of the men he stated that he was going to shoot before there even could have possibly been any force threat against him.

This guy wanted to kill somebody. He thought state law gave him sanction to do so, and I guess the end result bears out that he was correct.

State law or no, killing somebody ought not to be done in anything other than self defense or military service, not property theft cases.

+1

If you read my post, I'm with you.

I think this guys went way out his way to "defend" property, not even his own, what he did was not illegal under Texas law, but it still is deplorable.

[M. Sage]

Castle or not, this means that BGs in CA can walk into your home, take your TV, VCR cash & jewelry and walk out. If they do not shoot, stab or beat you first there is not a darn thing you can do about it. Don't even think about going outside in the middle of the night to stop some BGs from stealing your car. Reasonable force, reasonable man, etc blah blah blah. This CA Native sez "Aaaargh!"
Go Texas! :cowboy:

There must be a realistic threat present, and you have to feel threatened, yes, but you don't have to wait for the BG to launch a successful attack first. CA state law does actually say you have a presumed reasonable fear for your life if someone illegally enters your residence and you're in it. Penal code 198.5.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

The above means that it would be a prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had no reason to fear the tweeker in the living room of your rather obviously occupied home at 3 AM.

You can go to your car to effect a citizen's arrest if someone is breaking into your car. Bringing a gun for that is fine and legal. If the BG flees, you can't use force. If a BG attacks you for trying to stop them, you can use reasonable force. Obviously you can't just shoot someone for trying to steal your car or stuff in it.

[ojisan]

I appreciate the info and the time you took. Thank you!
However, if something happens, don't talk to the cops, get a lawyer first.
Anything you say can and will be used against you by over zealous prosecutors for reasons often not even related to you at all.
Jury Nullification is a solution if needed. That's one reason I serve.
Been there, done that ;)
Agreed, this shooting should not have happened at all. Bad example.