Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings

[dwarven1]

Now as to the sacredness of human life, the problem becomes more complex. I agree with a statement that is attributed to Clint Smith: "Some people just need killing." I don't think that Clint was referring to someone who steals your television set, but more than likely someone of the likes of Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy. Whether the two bozo-brains who were killed by Mr. Horn fall into that category, is I feel, a question that is open to debate morally, even though not legally.

Mr. Horn's actions smacks of vigilantism, and would be considered as such in Massachusetts and most probably Ohio although not as previously stated in Texas.

We are becoming a very angry nation in my opinion. I see this anger manifested in so many different ways and it comes out in all shades of the political spectrum. Whether it is a kid that gets a criminal record for drawing a picture of himself shooting his teacher, and the liberal teacher feeling a sense of powerlessness has the kid arrested, or a decent upright citizen like Mr. Horn who finally had enough and blasted away a couple of illegal scumbags, it all seems to come from a common source: anger that things are falling apart, and frustration over a failing system that all the king's horses and all the king's men just can't seem to put together again.

There will be more Joe Horns down in Texas...if this type of action deters criminals from committing criminal acts, then he will be validated, if not then the fundamental question as to the moral acceptability of killing someone over property will continue to be debated.

Mark, while I agree with you on the quote "Some people just need killin'", I disagree with you on who. I believe that I read that criminals will escalate their violence/seriousness of their crimes as they progress in their careers. I can't provide a cite for that, though. Anyway, every time a criminal gets away with a crime, he experiences validation that his action is OK and safe. If a few more burglars get killed by the Joe Horns of this country, I think you'll see the burglary rate drop as they learn that burglary is NOT safe.

A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his or her own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient.

By that definition, Mr Horn was NOT a vigilante, but rather a concerned neighbor who was responding faster than the police. I'd call him a GOOD neighbor, too. Shame that he's been put through so much crap over this, too.

As to us becoming an angry nation... Oh, man, do I ever have to agree with you there. From crowded highways to idiot politicians concerned more with lining their own pockets than actually doing the JOB that they were elected to do, we have a huge list things to be angry about! Frankly, I expect to see more evidence of this as time goes on - I will NOT be surprised to see a politician body count as it seems that there's a huge disconnect between our elected representatives and those who elect them. People mostly want to be law-abiding and follow the process that we've set up, I think, but they see how ineffectual that can be.

Look at what the Mayor and COP in DC are saying! They're trying everything they can think of to avoid having to do what the SCOTUS ordered them to do!! They're trying their best to circumvent that order. You think that people aren't getting angry over that? It's this "Mommy knows best" attitude that our pols have... and it's going to bite them in the ass.

The same goes for crime - the police say on the one hand that we shouldn't take the law into our own hands, and then arrive late. Or point out that they DON'T have a duty to actually protect any particular person. (I'm not bashing the cop on the beat... this is more aimed at COPs like Davis, Fenty, et all.) Again... this dichotomy is building up anger, not goodwill. Look at what happened in New Orleans - cops actually disarming people so that they couldn't protect themselves. Or, in the case of that town in Kansas, actually looting homes they're supposed to protect. But they're the only ones "profeshnul" enough to go into the devastated area and make sure it's "safe".

You're right... we're mad as hell. I just wonder what is going to be the breaking point where "we're not going to take it any more".

 

[TimJ]

I'm relatively sure he did back in November. That aside, I'm not surprised that the Grand Jury No Billed Horn. Texas is much different than MA when it comes to self defense.

Gary

That's for sure. Even gun owners here think Horn was wrong.

 

[Garys]

"Every life is precious" sounds more like Catholic BS than that of the "left."

Not when it comes to the death penalty. Which all good liberals oppose.

I'm a Libertarian myself. Plain and simple, the punishment here doesn't fit the crime. Does stealing things deserve death? Perhaps you would prefer Sharia law instead of our consitutional law?

Seems to me like the Grand Jury, not a mob, determined that Mr. Horn followed the laws of the State of Texas. As did the DA and Grand Jury. Let's see. Mr. Horn took an action he thought was justified under law. The police and DA investigated as required by law. The DA, as permitted by law, presented the case to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury, assembled under the law, considered the evidence as submitted and took a vote. The result of the vote was that the Grand Jury returned a No Bill decision and Mr. Horn is now no longer under threat of prosecution by the law. No one tried to justify their actions as coming from the divine will God, which would Sharia.

Mr. Horn didn't engage in punishment, he engaged in a legal act of self defense. So sayeth the Grand Jury, convened under the applicable laws of Texas.

If someone is missing the point here, it's not me. Just because YOU don't like the decision here, doesn't mean it wasn't a legal and valid one.

 

[Garys]

I agree, baystate, that it's a moral issue. My point about Sharia is that the legality of Horn's act is arbitrary based on where he happened to be living. As others have said, his action could be interpreted quite differently had it occurred elsewhere.

That has nothing to do with Sharia, which it appears you don't know much about. What that has to do with is that each of the 50 (note that Obama) states in the US are sovereign entities that have a lot of latitude in what laws they pass. If Mr. Horn was in MA, the law would be different. If he was in FL, the law would be different, but probably closer to what Texas has. If he was in New York, the law would be closer to what we have, but not identical.

The Grand Jury didn't consider the moral issue, as they should not have. If they had, then they would have been closer to the Sharia example that you so frequently and incorrectly cite.

 

[Garys]

That's for sure. Even gun owners here think Horn was wrong.

Some, but it appears not most.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

Gee Professor, I'm glad you can perceive the subtle difference between legality and morality, which it appears you don't know much about. You seem to want to disagree that legality is arbitrary but then you go ahead and say this:

"What that has to do with is that each of the 50 (note that Obama) states in the US are sovereign entities that have a lot of latitude in what laws they pass. If Mr. Horn was in MA, the law would be different. If he was in FL, the law would be different, but probably closer to what Texas has. If he was in New York, the law would be closer to what we have, but not identical."

Which is precisely my point. Morality is absolute. Legality is arbitrary.


Sure, the GJ dismissed charges. That DOES NOT mean what Horn did was right. It just means that his peers decided not to pursue charges. I reiteriate: Horn was looking for trouble and he found it. Good for him that he didn't stand trial. He was still not morally justified in shooting suspects in the back as they attempted to flee.

 

[Garys]

Gee Professor, I'm glad you can perceive the subtle difference between legality and morality, which it appears you don't know much about...

Which is precisely my point. Morality is absolute. Legality is arbitrary

I try, but some students are dullards. Morality is NOT any more absolute than the law. What is considered moral here, is considered immoral in other places. In this country it's normal for women to drive, wear pretty much what they want, hold jobs, and associate freely with anyone they want. In Saudi Arabia none of that holds true. In fact they have the Muttawa to enforce the moral laws of the Kingdom. So much for the absoluteness of morality. I'd much rather have a framework of laws which have been agreed upon by the populace than a "morality" forced upon me because a religious leader says so.

The Grand Jury no bill means that Horn's actions did not appear to violate the laws of Texas. "Right" or "Wrong" don't enter into their decision.

What you appear to be advocating is "moral law" based on someone's interpretation of what is right or wrong. Which is pretty much what Sharia is, only with Sharia religious opinion has the force of law. Which is what this country isn't supposed to be about.

 

[Martlet]

I'm a little torn on it, to be honest.

On one hand, if more burglars got shot during the act, maybe it wouldn't happen so much.

But is taking a life really worth protecting property? I mean, life can be replaced; life cannot.

.

What's your address?

 

[jar]

I think Horn made a risky decision. He certainly escalated the situation and put himself at risk by going outside. However, he didn't kill the burglars in defense of property. As stated by the plainclothes police officer who witnessed it, he fired when one of the men came at him after being ordered to stop.

I haven't made up my mind on the morality of using deadly force to defend property, but I think Marko makes a great point.

Crime exists because we don’t chase after the guy who took the old lady’s handbag, and stomp him flat in the parking lot. It exists because we don’t treat it like the violation it is, which is the stealing of a slice of our lives. Sure, a stolen purse is just “personal effects”, but what about the money we worked hard to put into that purse? What about the Social Security check, or the keys to the car that will cost us months of our productive lives to replace? When you’re stealing “mere stuff” from a person, aren’t you stealing the time from them it takes to replace that stuff? Isn’t taking a wallet with $100 in it on the same moral level as holding a gun to their head and requiring them to dig a ditch or mow the lawn for the amount of time it took the victim to earn those $100? If a portion of your life isn’t worth defending, then your life isn’t, either, and then you’re effectively defending slavery as “not worth fighting or killing over”, because someone who steals your stuff enslaves you for the duration of the time it took you to earn that stuff.

 

[Garys]

I haven't made up my mind on the morality of using deadly force to defend property, but I think Marko makes a great point.

Which is why they used to hang horse thieves and cattle rustlers.

 

[Martlet]

I think Horn made a risky decision. He certainly escalated the situation and put himself at risk by going outside. However, he didn't kill the burglars in defense of property. As stated by the plainclothes police officer who witnessed it, he fired when one of the men came at him after being ordered to stop.

I haven't made up my mind on the morality of using deadly force to defend property, but I think Marko makes a great point.

Even more than that, they're stealing your faith. They're stealing your sense of freedom. They're stealing your security. Many of us spend quite a bit of money each year trying to counter this; alarms, locks, defense tools, etc. Why? Because criminals have taken away our sense of safety. Ask a family who has had someone rob their home while they were away. How do you feel knowing someone was in YOUR house, invading your privacy, and stealing your things. I'd imagine that's something that stays with you for awhile and alters how you live your life.

That's one reason I'm the guy who won't sit there and call 911. If you're in trouble, I'll help you. If you're violating another person's rights, I'll do my best to stop you.

 

[Scrivener]

I think Horn made a risky decision. He certainly escalated the situation and put himself at risk by going outside. However, he didn't kill the burglars in defense of property. As stated by the plainclothes police officer who witnessed it, he fired when one of the men came at him after being ordered to stop.

Really? Care to explain how BOTH were shot in the BACK?

 

[Edzo]

Horn was looking for trouble and he found it. Good for him that he didn't stand trial. He was still not morally justified in shooting suspects in the back as they attempted to flee.

He wasn't looking for trouble; the criminals came onto his property. I'm not about to judge a guy because the two criminals on his property were shot in the back.

That's exactly why Texas has laws like this. So honest people aren't so paralyzed by fear of possible prosecution that they cower and let criminals run wild.

 

[06LemansC6]

Even more than that, they're stealing your faith. They're stealing your sense of freedom. They're stealing your security. Many of us spend quite a bit of money each year trying to counter this; alarms, locks, defense tools, etc. Why? Because criminals have taken away our sense of safety. Ask a family who has had someone rob their home while they were away. How do you feel knowing someone was in YOUR house, invading your privacy, and stealing your things. I'd imagine that's something that stays with you for awhile and alters how you live your life.

That's one reason I'm the guy who won't sit there and call 911. If you're in trouble, I'll help you. If you're violating another person's rights, I'll do my best to stop you.

I have to say I agree with most of what Martlet posts.

My car in a mall parking lot = Just stuff, insurance will take care of it.

My home = My castle. I will protect it by any means available.

Long before I even became a gun owner I had said that if someone breaks into my home only one of us will go back out the door alive. This is yet another reason I live in NH. New Hampshire law allows citizens to use deadly force against intruders in their own homes, regardless of whether the intruder has used or threatened to use deadly force.

 

[Scrivener]

He wasn't looking for trouble; the criminals came onto his property. I'm not about to judge a guy because the two criminals on his property were shot in the back.

Bull.

As those of us who have even minimal knowledge of the event - which class you are clearly not part of - are well aware, NOTHING occurred on Horn's land, still less in his home.

Your hero was secure in his own home; the neighbors were NOT in the house being burgled, the police had already been notified and responded and the 911 operator repeatedly told him not to get involved.

Notwithstanding all that, your hero went charging into the situation with a shotgun and shot two people in the back.

Hardly a stellar performance.....

 

[Garys]

Really? Care to explain how BOTH were shot in the BACK?

Or were they?

Wallace could not confirm whether the men were shot in the back, saying the autopsy report only indicated they were shot in the torso.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4474649

I'd venture to guess that the Grand Jury had better information about the case than you or ABC News. Just a guess, though.

 

[Scrivener]

I'd venture to guess that the Grand Jury had better information about the case than you or ABC News. Just a guess, though.

Guess again:

Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back
By Ryan Korsgard

POSTED: 5:40 pm CST December 7, 2007
UPDATED: 6:19 pm CST December 7, 2007

[NEWSVINE: Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back] [DELICIOUS: Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back] [DIGG: Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back] [FACEBOOK: Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back] [REDDIT: Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back] [RSS] [PRINT: Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back] [EMAIL: Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back]

HOUSTON -- An autopsy showed two burglary suspects were shot in the back allegedly by a Pasadena neighbor who witnessed their crime, KPRC Local 2 reported Friday. The suspects were also in this country illegally, according to authorities.

What part of "shot in back" did you miss?

 

[Garys]

Guess again:



What part of "shot in back" did you miss?

The part where the spokesman refused to confirm the shot location. What part of "no bill" and "witnessed by police detective" did you miss?

 

[Scrivener]

The part where the spokesman refused to confirm the shot location. What part of "no bill" and "witnessed by police detective" did you miss?

1. A "no bill" has nothing to do with whether the victims were shot in the back or not.

2. Where are you getting this "witnessed by police detective" saying they were NOT shot in the back?

Not here:

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

 

[Garys]

1. A "no bill" has nothing to do with whether the victims were shot in the back or not.

But the no bill does tell us that where ever in their bodies they were shot, the shooting was justified.

2. Where are you getting this "witnessed by police detective" saying they were NOT shot in the back?

I didn't say that, and you know it. I said that the police officer witnessed the shooting. And he testified before the Grand Jury. What he said I don't know, but apparently it played into their decision in some manner. I'd think at the least that if the detective saw something that he thought was criminal activity on Mr. Horn's part he would have effected an arrest.

Also, did your sleuthing uncover that the suspects were on Horn's property when they were shot? They were.

 

[Scrivener]

But the no bill does tell us that where ever in their bodies they were shot, the shooting was justified.

Not necessarily "justified," but certainly authorized under Texas law.

I didn't say that, and you know it. I said that the police officer witnessed the shooting. And he testified before the Grand Jury.

The subject at hand was Horn shooting two men in the back. You attempted to dispute that with, among other assertions, your invoking the detective. The inference is that he saw the shooting which, as you now admit, he did not:

What he said I don't know, but apparently it played into their decision in some manner.

Also, did your sleuthing uncover that the suspects were on Horn's property when they were shot? They were.

Really? Got a cite?

Because everything I've seen makes it quite clear that they were NOT on his land; rather, he left his own house to interject himself in a matter in which:

1. The police told him NOT to;

2. The police were already present; and which

3. His presence escalated what would have otherwise been a minor arrest.

Great job - I can see why you're all hot for this guy........

 

[Blitz1]

Not necessarily "justified," but certainly authorized under Texas law.




The subject at hand was Horn shooting two men in the back. You attempted to dispute that with, among other assertions, your invoking the detective. The inference is that he saw the shooting which, as you now admit, he did not:





Really? Got a cite?

Because everything I've seen makes it quite clear that they were NOT on his land; rather, he left his own house to interject himself in a matter in which:

1. The police told him NOT to;

2. The police were already present; and which

3. His presence escalated what would have otherwise been a minor arrest.

Great job - I can see why you're all hot for this guy........

 

[Garys]

Not necessarily "justified," but certainly authorized under Texas law.

A distinction with no real difference, especially in this case.

The subject at hand was Horn shooting two men in the back. You attempted to dispute that with, among other assertions, your invoking the detective. The inference is that he saw the shooting which, as you now admit, he did not:

What you inferred was not necessarily what I implied.

Really? Got a cite?

Because everything I've seen makes it quite clear that they were NOT on his land; rather, he left his own house to interject himself in a matter in which:

Do you own research, the information is out there for those not too lazy to find it. If I can find, chances are that you can. Or not.

1. The police told him NOT to;

Are you sure the dispatcher was a police officer? Or was it a civilian? Is there is difference under law?

2. The police were already present; and which

Although it appears that neither Horn nor the burglars knew that.

Police believe that neither Horn nor the burglars knew an officer was present.

It's in one of the articles you cited to me.

3. His presence escalated what would have otherwise been a minor arrest.

Great job - I can see why you're all hot for this guy........

Since you were an eye witness, I'm sure you know that.

BTW, you're losing a couple of miles off the top end of your sarcasm fast ball.

 

[38specialD]

I heard that his license was restricted to target and hunting!!!Screwvir you take the cake!!!!

 

[jar]

Really? Care to explain how BOTH were shot in the BACK?

From the OP:

Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house, both shot in the back.

The detective says that the suspect ran toward Horn. I can't say where things fell reaction time wise between when the suspect charged and when he turned away. At a recent match I competed in, there was a CoF where one string had the shooter start pointed in at the target and shoot on the buzzer. The fastest reaction time on my squad was .24. This is in a competition situation where there's no thinking involved. I can turn around in less than a quarter second. When you add in the fact that Horn was under stress and had to think on is feet, the suspect could have easily turned between when Horn felt in grave danger and when the shot broke.

Also, the article says they died "a short distance from Horn's house". That implies they were on his property, but doesn't state definitively either way. I'd love to see a definitive statement either way. Got one?

I point out that I do agree with you that Horn injected himself into a situation where no life was in danger and ended up killing two men. Obviously if this took place in MA, even a skilled attorney such as yourself could probably not keep him out of jail. However, his actions were legal under Texas law, notwithstanding whether or not they were a good idea.

 

[Half Cocked]

Because everything I've seen makes it quite clear that they were NOT on his land; rather, he left his own house to interject himself in a matter in which:

1. The police told him NOT to;

2. The police were already present; and which

3. His presence escalated what would have otherwise been a minor arrest.

Great job - I can see why you're all hot for this guy........

Agreed..this guy was certainly no hero and is extremely lucky that he got the right grand jury.

 

[Droidicus]

Not necessarily "justified," but certainly authorized under Texas law.

...

Because everything I've seen makes it quite clear that they were NOT on his land; rather, he left his own house to interject himself in a matter in which:

1. The police told him NOT to;

2. The police were already present; and which

3. His presence escalated what would have otherwise been a minor arrest.

Great job - I can see why you're all hot for this guy........

Thanks for doing all that typing above so I didn't have to. I agree with you 100% Scriv.

~Droid

 

[Martlet]

Thanks for doing all that typing above so I didn't have to. I agree with you 100% Scriv.

~Droid

I agree with Scriv's FACTS of the case (though #2 isn't relevant as neither party knew the police were present). I just disagree with his opposition to the situation.

Horn absolutely escalated the situation by introducing a firearm. That's one of the joys of having a firearm for HOME DEFENSE. If CRIMINALS are breaking into my home, I can escalate the heck out of that situation with my 870 or Sig 220.

The criminals made a choice to violate his neighbor's castle. They got caught in the act. They were confronted. They chose to run. I likely wouldn't have shot them. I don't have a problem with them being shot. Horn didn't create the situation. They did. It was their choice. Now we have two less criminals putting us at risk and burning our tax dollars.

What if Horn had stayed inside? Maybe they'd have been caught. Either way, they'd be back on the street in a short period of time, likely violating another citizen's rights.

 

[jcr]

Apparently not critical to the case at hand in TX, but should this be discussed as a "citizen's arrest" of a felon?

Breaking & Entering in the daytime might not be a felony, but theft of >$1000 would seem to qualify. The thieves had a deadly weapon in the tire iron.

Though the dispatcher (this forum has sugested it was police, but dispatchers are not necessearily police) didn't want him to go outside (ostensibly because Horn himself would get hurt), but is it wrong to do a citizens arrest? He tried to get police to respond by making the call, but what was it, 6 to 9 minutes, and they hadn't shown up.

If in a citizens arrest for a felony, the order is given to halt, and the suspect doesn't (moreso, one of them starts towards the arrestor), and the arrestor was on his own property, whether the suspects had crossed his propertly line seems not to matter much.

 

[Edzo]

Bull.

As those of us who have even minimal knowledge of the event - which class you are clearly not part of - are well aware, NOTHING occurred on Horn's land, still less in his home.

This article in the Houston Chronicle repeatedly states that the shooting was on Horn's property:

A Harris County grand jury on Monday ended the rancorous seven-month debate over Pasadena resident Joe Horn's decision to gun down two illegal immigrant burglars in his front yard, concluding the act was a justifiable use of deadly force and not murder.

He said the castle doctrine simply didn't apply because, although the burglars were running across Horn's lawn, Horn's home wasn't under siege — his neighbor's home was.

Pasadena police have said a detective in plainclothes had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call, and saw the two men before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

The burglary was on his neighbor's property, but the shooting occured on his. He knew they were committing a crime and they came onto his property, so he had no duty to retreat. If they hadn't come onto his property, it would be a different story.