Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings

[KilgoreTrout]

Geez Gary, you have a knack for misinterpretation.

No argument from me on the legality of what Horn did. As you correctly point out, his peers refused to file charges.

What I'm suggesting is that within the context of this case as described in the media reports, Horn was absolutely morally in the wrong to shoot two fleeing suspects IN THE BACK, particularly (as scrivener points out) because he was secure in his own dwelling away from imminent threat, his neighbors' lives were not in danger, LEO's were summoned and were on scene, and the 911 dispatcher warned him repeatedly not to get involved.

Whether a woman or a man runs around town topless has no bearing. That's social mores, customs, or conventions, not right and wrong. It's wrong to shoot unarmed people in the back.

I guess I am mistaken to think that it is absolutely wrong to shoot unarmed people in the back. Too bad. I thought we were upright citizens here.

Looking at it another way, Horn chose to go on the offensive here. He loaded up his shotgun and decided to launch a counterattack. I guess I view my responsibility as a lawful owner of firearms as primarly defensive. If the perps were on Horn's property I can see it from your perspective a little better. Heck, I'd be amped up and scared as hell if I found two goons in my backyard. I'd have no problem using a firearm to protect myself or my family if the goons were on my property and were posing a real threat, but I wouldn't go chasing after them guns a-blazing while they tried to flee. For one thing, I can't be sure of my background if I'm chasing after someone.

I know it's not as simple as offense versus defense. But the sequence of events (assuming the audio was not spliced together leaving salient points out) makes it clear in my mind that Horn, ignoring pleas to the contrary, took the offensive, left the security of his home, and found trouble. I think he went too far. I think he was wrong.

It also occurs to me that my own sarcasm is in response to the arrogance I perceive in your posts.

 

[Garys]

Geez Gary, you have a knack for misinterpretation.

No argument from me on the legality of what Horn did. As you correctly point out, his peers refused to file charges.

Your argument was that moral law is more consistent than civil law. Which you've said a couple of times. It's not because as I've pointed out "moral" means different things in different places. Which means it's no more consistent that civil law.

I guess I am mistaken to think that it is absolutely wrong to shoot unarmed people in the back. Too bad. I thought we were upright citizens here.

We are. We also disagree on issues without impugning those with whom we disagree.

 

[Scrivener]

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.

As the burglary was NOT on his property, the logical inference is that the burglars ran across the neighbor's land onto Horn's in their attempt to flee someone who came with the express purpose of hunting them down. From your own link:

The grand jury heard two weeks of testimony from witnesses, including Horn. They likely also heard his breathless 911 call, during which the increasingly frustrated retiree ignored a dispatcher's pleas to stay inside and out of harm's way. The Nov. 14 call ended with the sound of Horn racking a shell into his 12-gauge shotgun's chamber followed by three[/B ]gunshots that killed Colombians Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38.

Each man was shot in the back. They had taken about $2,000 in the burglary.

For those who missed it, "Hero" Horn was interviewed on one of the morning news shows yesterday. He is now quite chastened by the consequences of his unilateral intervention in what would otherwise have been a minor matter.

 

[Jose]

Will you people quit flogging this using Mass laws or what you think Texas law should be?

He has the right to use deadly force to prevent property crime not only on his property, but on that of third parties.

He has no duty to retreat.

Period. End of story.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

Gary,

I now see your point about morality in general. Can't disagree with it. I wasn't being precise enough.

Whatever the term is that applies, my gut tells me it is wrong to shoot someone in the back. If that's my moral sense, my empathic sense, or something else, I feel a stong obligation not to shoot people in the back. In my edit to the earlier post, I also have a strong feeling that my rights as a gun owner extend primarily to defense of my person and my family but not necessarity to my property. The law may say otherwise, but my own consciousness makes the thought of using firearms for offensive conflict repugnant.

I'm no philosopher, so I don't have access to the correct terminology. The above is what I'm trying to convey.

 

[Garys]

Gary,

I now see your point about morality in general. Can't disagree with it. I wasn't being precise enough.

Whatever the term is that applies, my gut tells me it is wrong to shoot someone in the back. If that's my moral sense, my empathic sense, or something else, I feel a stong obligation not to shoot people in the back. In my edit to the earlier post, I also have a strong feeling that my rights as a gun owner extend primarily to defense of my person and my family but not necessarity to my property. The law may say otherwise, but my own consciousness makes the thought of using firearms for offensive conflict repugnant.

All of that is up to you to decide. It's up to the legal system to decide if there was a criminal act.

So, if someone was standing over a family member beating them with a club, would you not shoot them in the back? Would you ask them to turn around or would you run around so you were facing them?

Apparently Horn felt that these criminals posed a threat to him. The case was presented to a Grand Jury who felt that he did nothing illegal. They did what they were supposed to do and left it at that.

Gary

 

[squirt]

The fact that people are crying about Horn's stand-up job is indicative of WHY we have such rampant home invasions and other crimes against individuals. The potential rewards outweigh the risks. As a result, joe citizen suffers.

The stuff in my house is mine. I work for it. The formula for not getting yourself shot by me is extremely simple. Don't steal or destroy my stuff. Don't threaten me or my family. There really isn't much else that will get you shot. If you don't follow that simple formula, I'm not the a**h***, you are. Typically, it's not the first time you've strayed from the path of righteousness. If someone else had shot you, you wouldn't be bothering me now. My world would have been that much safer.

Protecting your person, family, and property isn't just beneficial to you/them, it helps us all.

Could not have said it better. EVERYONE makes excuses for the criminals until they are the ones being victimized by those same criminals..

GOOD RIDDENS TO BAD RUBBISH

 

[jcr]

my gut tells me it is wrong to shoot someone in the back

How about this diversion, from the "knife to a gunfight" genre?

Probably some who judge Horn to have been wrong, do agree that an attacker with a knife is a serious threat, and quoting Teuler(sp?) Drills will say that defending with a gun even when the attacker may be 15ft away is justified. The thinking is that he must be stopped before he can get close enough to do serious harm.

So, from the knife attacker's view, he has to find a way to get close enough to the gun defender if he wishes to succede.

And there you have it. The knife attacker needs to walk with his back exposed to the gun defender. The gun guy can't shoot him. Knife guy spins at last moment and cuts the gun guy up.

[no, that's not what happened in Horn's case. I'm just pointing out that categorical comments about wounds in the back are not proof on the face of it.]

 

[Droidicus]

Will you people quit flogging this using Mass laws or what you think Texas law should be?

He has the right to use deadly force to prevent property crime not only on his property, but on that of third parties.

He has no duty to retreat.

Period. End of story.

I don't see anyone saying he violated the laws of Texas. However, it is possible to take a legal action that is morally wrong. The quote "What's right isn't always legal, and what's legal isn't always right" sums it up nicely. I personally believe that Horn will burn in hell for murdering two people (if Hell actually exists). But he won't go to jail, that much we agree on.

It is alright for adults to disagree...

~Droid

 

[pdm]

I personally believe that Horn will burn in hell for murdering two people (if Hell actually exists). But he won't go to jail, that much we agree on.

It is alright for adults to disagree...

~Droid

Only if you consider it murder!

 

[Martlet]

I personally believe that Horn will burn in hell for murdering two people (if Hell actually exists).

 

[Raoul Duke]

It is alright for adults to disagree...

~Droid

Disclaimer Warning
I should warn you that I subordinate maturity to passion with alarming regularity; particularly in the face of overt displays of faith not involving Evil Knievel or the personal recollection of war stories.

 

[massnee]

I personally believe that Horn will burn in hell for murdering two people (if Hell actually exists).
~Droid

what happened to this thread??????

This guy killed two bad guys...and you guys are complaining?????

Massachusetts has seriously affected some of you...

You should not be able to muster any sympathy for these criminals. The dark side has worn you down.

 

[Droidicus]

what happened to this thread??????

This guy killed two bad guys...and you guys are complaining?????

Massachusetts has seriously affected some of you...

You should not be able to muster any sympathy for these criminals. The dark side has worn you down.

Well, in addition to living in Mass I am also a pacifist, and have been since I was quite young. There are far more then just the stereotypes involved in shooting

That being said, I understand someone defending themselves, a loved one, or an innocent bystander from a criminal intending them harm. The facts in this case are decidedly different though.

~Droid

 

[massnee]

"a pacifist"?

You are a pacifist gun owner? I appreciate your honesty. I am not a pacifist but I appreciate your willingness to publicly admit that...I do not run in to many pacifists.

 

[Jose]

That being said, I understand someone defending themselves, a loved one, or an innocent bystander from a criminal intending them harm. The facts in this case are decidedly different though.

~Droid

It also happened in a decidedly different place populated by decidedly different people and under decidedly different laws.

The criminal justice system has broken down and it is time more people took Joe's lead.

 

[2000GM]

My first course of action, were I Joe's neighbors, would have been to buy him 2 bright shiny new shotgun shells.

 

[Jose]

I'm just struggling with the moral side of it. Did he really have to shoot them? No, he didn't, but he did. So, was it right to shoot them? That's what I have to figure out.

The fact that some have to wonder about this is indicative of how far we have fallen off course.

In past times there would be zero handwringing about what this man did.

 

[2000GM]

I would wager Horn is going to have this question in his mind on some level for the rest of his life.

However we cannot lessen the onus on criminals that when they participate in crimes like these, invading/stealing the property that another decent person works for and earns, that they are assuming the risk of running into harm.

This world was a much better place back when just about any neighbor would have done what Joe did....not the shooting in particular, but to stand up and confront scumbags invading and stealing from a neighbor's house.

 

[Scrivener]

However we cannot lessen the onus on criminals that when they participate in crimes like these, invading/stealing the property that another decent person works for and earns, that they are assuming the risk of running into harm.

This world was a much better place back when just about any neighbor would have done what Joe did....not the shooting in particular, but to stand up and confront scumbags invading and stealing from a neighbor's house.

Roger that.

 

[drew]

I have to agree with Scrivener and Droid and Kilgore on this one. The man put himself into harms way and esculated the situation. It looks as if he wanted his J.Wayne merrit Badge. He should have stayed put. Officer on scene, could have been shot could have shot horn, burgs could of had guns etc etc.... So now that we're fed up with every thing why dont we just start shooting bad drivers and so on. We worked hard for our cars and hot coffee and so on?

 

[Jose]

So now that we're fed up with every thing why dont we just start shooting bad drivers and so on. We worked hard for our cars and hot coffee and so on?

So you can't differentiate between an invasion of your neighbor's home and someone who is rude to you on the road?

Do you realize that you have just gone down the exact path antis take every time?

Yesterday some dickhead in a corner threw a plastic bottle as I drove by. I slowed down and he raised his arms as if to say "want some of this?". Instead of turning around and either running him over or gunning him down I just ignored the POS and went my merry way. Had he tried forcing his way into my home or vehicle (or if I lived in Texas, my neighbor's too) things would have ended much worse for him.

Please tell me you can discriminate between both types of situations........

 

[clinotus]

So in the long term considering the rules of the law with regard to open carry, castle doctrine, and what is legally a 'good shot' and so forth were Horn's actions responsible now that the verdict has come down and his life will be in danger 24 hours a day by the criminal element that does not adhere to the law? Was it worth it?

 

[clinotus]

...Yesterday some dickhead in a corner threw a plastic bottle as I drove by. I slowed down and he raised his arms as if to say "want some of this?".

You escalated the situation by slowing down and glaring at him. Dont remove yourself from the situational comparison.

 

[Jose]

You escalated the situation by slowing down and glaring at him. Dont remove yourself from the situational comparison.

Yes, I did. Dickheads like him need to be reminded that their hooliganism is not going to go unchallenged.

Had I not been armed I might have just obliged him with an ass kicking.

You condone what you tolerate.

 

[Jose]

So in the long term considering the rules of the law with regard to open carry, castle doctrine, and what is legally a 'good shot' and so forth were Horn's actions responsible now that the verdict has come down and his life will be in danger 24 hours a day by the criminal element that does not adhere to the law? Was it worth it?

I guess a lot of people like to talk big about how something must be done about crime, then now that someone DOES something about it we get all this handwringing.

And how do you know that Horn will be in danger for the rest of his life? He's not the only one to be publicized after a righteous shooting. Google will turn up hundreds, if not thousands, of cases where someone's actions are publicized after defending himself. That he will be forever in danger is speculation.

So let's turn this around and let me ask YOU this:

1) Do you have and/or carry a firearm for self defense at home or out in the streets?

2) If you do, are you willing to use deadly force when legally appropriate and justified?

3) Are you willing to live with the consequences?

Remember, any hesitation at the moment of truth thinking about what your life will be like after you pull the trigger could very well cost you your life.

 

[clinotus]

You completely dodged the question and are attempting to turn it back on me to answer. Its not about what I would do, I am asking if people think it was worth the risk.

FYI Horns life has been threatened, the PD even released a few of the threats on tape. So its is specific to this case in that regard, but generally people who do 'good shoots' are subject to retaliation.

 

[Jose]

You completely dodged the question and are attempting to turn it back on me to answer. Its not about what I would do, I am asking if people think it was worth the risk.

FYI Horns life has been threatened, the PD even released a few of the threats on tape. So its is specific to this case in that regard, but generally people who do 'good shoots' are subject to retaliation.

I'll answer you. If my life or that of one of my loved is is threatened, then yes, I will stop the threat and deal with the aftermath later.

I cannot, and will not risk death or severe injury to me or (even worse) my wife or daughter by letting fear of future actions paralyze me.

I have said this before and I will say it again. I have noticed that several people here continually worry about what the legal system or others will do to them if they ever use a firearm to defend themselves. If that is the case, then lock up your guns 100% of the time and never use one as a defensive weapon. Do not carry one, ever, if that is your mindset.

ETA: Now you get to answer mine.

 

[clinotus]

I'll answer you. ...

ETA: Now you get to answer mine.

Fair enough.

1) Do you have and/or carry a firearm for self defense at home or out in the streets?

2) If you do, are you willing to use deadly force when legally appropriate and justified?

3) Are you willing to live with the consequences?

1) I have firearms for target, sporting and hunting and realize that with the exception of a .22, they may all be used for self defense in the home. When in the streets I carry daily -like a Mastercard; I dont leave home without it.

2) The definitions of legally appropriate may not matter at the moment that I am forced to use a firearm. I'm saying that I would of course utilize my grey matter prior to deadly force, but in the end of the situation my family and I are going home that day/evening and I cant say such for the aggressor.
Stupid games -> Stupid prizes.

3) Yes, bearing a firearm, just like driving a car demand 1) great responsibility and 2) the knowledge of liability, not just in a legal sense, of their use and misuse.

 

[Mass-diver]

Wish I had neighbors like him. I can't belive anyone has a problem with shooting burglers. There is not much worse than theives, they all deserve to be hanged IMO.

Horn told these guys to freeze, instead they ran at him, turning away at the last minute - as a result they were shot in the back. Was he to wait until they swung back around and attacked him?