Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings

Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
514
Likes
18
Location
Texas
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

June 30, 2008, 1:08PM
Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings
Panel issues no-bill after two weeks of testimony


By BRIAN ROGERS and RUTH RENDON
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle


A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two suspected burglars he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.

The decision to clear Horn of wrongdoing came two weeks after the grand jury began considering evidence in the case, including Horn's testimony last week.

Horn, a 62-year-old retiree, became the focus of an intense public debate after the Nov. 14 shootings. Many supporters praised him as a hero for using deadly force to protect property, while others dismissed him as a killer who should have heeded a 911 operator's instructions to stay in his house and wait for police.

Horn called authorities after hearing breaking glass and seeing two men climb through a window into his next-door neighbor's home in the 7400 block of Timberline.

The 911 operator urged Horn to remain inside, but he went outside with his 12-gauge shotgun and came face-to-face with Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38.

According to a transcript of Horn's 911 call, which he made about 2 p.m., the operator repeatedly urged Horn to stay in his house, but Horn said he did not believe it would be right to let the burglars get away.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn can be heard telling the operator. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

The operator replies: "Don't go outside."

Then the tape records Horn warning someone: "Move and you're dead!" Two quick shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then a third shot.

Pasadena police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said a few weeks after the shooting that a plainclothes detective had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He said the detective saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

It appeared that neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present, Corbett said.

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (getaway driver). He ducked at one point."

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.

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.

As the grand jury began hearing evidence in the case this month, Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said recently that Horn regrets his decision to confront the men.

"Was it a mistake from a legal standpoint? No. But a mistake in his life? Yes," Lambright said. "Because it's affected him terribly. And if he had it to do over again, he would stay inside.

"I don't think anybody can really appreciate the magnitude that something like this has on a person's personality."

Lambright said Horn didn't expect to be involved in a shooting, but rather expected to see the two men running or driving away.

"He thought he was gathering evidence for the police department," Lambright said.

The shooting brought hundreds of protesters to the Village Grove East subdivision where Horn lives with his daughter and her family. One protest included supporters of Houston activist Quanell X and motorcyclists countering his remarks. The protest which brought hundreds to the neighborhood led to the Pasadena City Council to approve a city ordinance banning protests in front of a residential home.

Aside from the shooting itself, the national debate revolved around the fact that Ortiz and Torres were illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres had been sent to prison for dealing cocaine and was deported in 1999.

[email protected]

[email protected]
 
Hmm. Not so sure I agree on this one. I hope I never find myself in this situation, first of all. Stuff can be replaced. Why risk one's life defending stuff? That's what insurance is for.

IMO Horn went looking for trouble and found it.
 
Hmm. Not so sure I agree on this one. I hope I never find myself in this situation, first of all. Stuff can be replaced. Why risk one's life defending stuff? That's what insurance is for.

IMO Horn went looking for trouble and found it.

OMFG we have just gone through page after page of liberal thought regarding Heller and what was the recurring theme? This "Stuff can be replaced. Why risk one's life defending stuff? That's what insurance is for." Are you sure you shouldn't be posting in the ny times, washington post or boston globe forums?
Ed
 
OMFG we have just gone through page after page of liberal thought regarding Heller and what was the recurring theme? This "Stuff can be replaced. Why risk one's life defending stuff? That's what insurance is for." Are you sure you shouldn't be posting in the ny times, washington post or boston globe forums?
Ed

For some people shooting or taking a life over replaceable items* is too much and their breaking point is only in actual defense of life.

No matter what and regardless of it having been property or life being defended. Some people will say it was a bad shot and others will say it was a good shot.

The important thing is that we have the legal and mental ability to make and understand that decision whether we agree with it or not.

I.E. not things that you depend on for livelihood or your iron lung for example.
 
Hmm. Not so sure I agree on this one. I hope I never find myself in this situation, first of all. Stuff can be replaced. Why risk one's life defending stuff? That's what insurance is for.

IMO Horn went looking for trouble and found it.

Did he go looking for trouble or was he looking out for his neighbor? Maybe the next house they break into has am 3 year old child they decide to take with them. As someone who has spent some time from home, I was fortunate to have neighbors who looked after my family and will always be grateful for there help. Just my thoughts.
 
Hmm. Not so sure I agree on this one. I hope I never find myself in this situation, first of all. Stuff can be replaced. Why risk one's life defending stuff? That's what insurance is for.

IMO Horn went looking for trouble and found it.

Why isn't property worth defending? Please don't give me the "every life is precious" BS of the left. The people who went looking for trouble were the people who committed the crime. They got trouble, just not the kind they were looking for.

If more states were like Texas in this way, then both property and personal crimes would be greatly reduced and there would be fewer shootings everywhere.
 
Why isn't property worth defending? Please don't give me the "every life is precious" BS of the left. The people who went looking for trouble were the people who committed the crime. They got trouble, just not the kind they were looking for.

If more states were like Texas in this way, then both property and personal crimes would be greatly reduced and there would be fewer shootings everywhere.

Agree 100%
 
Hmm. Not so sure I agree on this one. I hope I never find myself in this situation, first of all. Stuff can be replaced. Why risk one's life defending stuff? That's what insurance is for.

IMO Horn went looking for trouble and found it.

It doesn't matter if you agree. What he did is COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY legal according to the Texas Penal Code.

That this went to a Grand Jury is indicative of only a grandstanding DA looking to score political points with minorities.

That same Grand Jury bitch-slapped said DA is indicative that Texans are still the good ol boys libtards hate and derisively dismiss as bumpkins clinging to guns and religion.

IMO, Horn went looking to FIX trouble and did an exemplary job of it, leaving the police to be the clean-up crew.

God Bless Texas
 
I know many people are going to disagree with me on this, but I don't think Horn was in the right.

1) He escalated the situation significantly.
2) No one was at risk of life or limb before he interjected himself into the situation.
3) Police were already on scene (even if he didn't know it)
4) He shot TWO people in the back while they were running away

If they had decided to rob HIS house after finishing with the house prior, or if they had entered his property of their own accord before he provoked, then this would be a wholly different matter, but that isn't what happened.

This is pure and simple vigilante justice, and I cannot support it.

~Droid
 
I know many people are going to disagree with me on this, but I don't think Horn was in the right.

1) He escalated the situation significantly.
2) No one was at risk of life or limb before he interjected himself into the situation.
3) Police were already on scene (even if he didn't know it)
4) He shot TWO people in the back while they were running away

If they had decided to rob HIS house after finishing with the house prior, or if they had entered his property of their own accord before he provoked, then this would be a wholly different matter, but that isn't what happened.

This is pure and simple vigilante justice, and I cannot support it.

~Droid

Who cares what you support?

The people of Texas support it. Read the TX Penal Code. That is the only opinion that matters here.

The country used to work a hell of a lot better when criminals were shot dead on the spot like the vermin they are.

BTW, you don't have a clue what vigilante justice is. I'll tell you what it is not. It is not confronting two burglars in the act and killing them when they don't back down.
 
Who cares what you support?

The people of Texas support it. Read the TX Penal Code. That is the only opinion that matters here.

The country used to work a hell of a lot better when criminals were shot dead on the spot like the vermin they are.

BTW, you don't have a clue what vigilante justice is. I'll tell you what it is not. It is not confronting two burglars in the act and killing them when they don't back down.

+1
 
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.
 
This case isn't about whether he feared personal injury to himself. This was about the protection of property by use of deadly force which the state of Texas supports and apparently the jury too. I agree with the jury on this one, and it sends a clear message to criminals that you break into someones home, you're going to get shot and there isn't anything in the books that will save your sorry asses legally. Live by the sword....aw shit you guys know it.
 
I know many people are going to disagree with me on this, but I don't think Horn was in the right.

1) He escalated the situation significantly.
2) No one was at risk of life or limb before he interjected himself into the situation.
3) Police were already on scene (even if he didn't know it)
4) He shot TWO people in the back while they were running away

If they had decided to rob HIS house after finishing with the house prior, or if they had entered his property of their own accord before he provoked, then this would be a wholly different matter, but that isn't what happened.

This is pure and simple vigilante justice, and I cannot support it.

~Droid


All Horn did was step into the shoes of his neighbor. Are you saying that if someone came through your window trying to rob you, that you wouldn't shoot them?

Property is considered very differently in many of the southern states. Keep in mind, many people may not have much money, but they have a lot of real and/or personal property, which to them, is equivalent to money. So they get a bit annoyed when people are trying to take the only tangible things they have.

If you are going to commit a crime, then you should realize that you may be killed because of it. I think the jury got it right on this one based on the existing law in TX, and the proper message was sent to those in TX thinking of doing the same.
 
I do not question the legality of Joe Horn's actions. He followed the letter of Texas law and the grand jury rightfully no billed him.

To Jose and others, it does matter what we think and the argument over whether or not protecting property can include deadly force is a question that is open to philosophical debate. I find it very queer that in a forum which thrives on what-if's and maybe's and involves itself in a whole lot of philosophy, that when the philosophical issue is raised, people are somewhat vociferously put down.

An Objectivist would properly say that property rights are as important as any other rights, and should be defended by deadly force if necessary. There is a strong English Common Law tradition that upholds the rights of property owners and this certainly carried through in our own national experience. In the 18th Century and in the 19th Century owning property was often a criteron for voting eligibility, for example. Given this tradition it is very easy to see why so many hail Joe Horn as a hero.

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 L.
 
Last edited:
I do not question the legality of Joe Horn's actions. He followed the letter of Texas law and the grand jury rightfully no billed him.

edited for size

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 L.

+1 Mark. Well thought out, well expressed.
 
There is also a valuation issue here. For example, many people would say it is wrong to kill the burglar if they took my $400 Wii, but if they stole my collection of valuable diamonds (yeah right), then the value of human life starts to decrease as compared to the diamonds, thus permitting justification of deadly force.

Fundamentally, there is a lack of accountability in this nation. If you screw up, you should be accountable. If you commit a crime, you should have to pay for it. In some cases, you may have to pay for it with your life. I don't call that vigilante justice. I call that reaping what you sow.
 
Why isn't property worth defending? Please don't give me the "every life is precious" BS of the left. The people who went looking for trouble were the people who committed the crime. They got trouble, just not the kind they were looking for.

If more states were like Texas in this way, then both property and personal crimes would be greatly reduced and there would be fewer shootings everywhere.

Figured I'd get it from you lot. The justification would have been clear if the perps were breaking into Horn's house. But Horn willingly left his own property to confront burglars next door. Fine. A good neighbor. Then he decides to point a loaded firearm at the perps, who choose to flee (a natural response). He then shoots the perps in the back? Big man. Tough guy. Trigger happy.

Not to mention that the evidence from the 911 call could be construed to show premeditation. Horn is lucky he's from Texas.

"Every life is precious" sounds more like Catholic BS than that of the "left." 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?
 
Figured I'd get it from you lot. The justification would have been clear if the perps were breaking into Horn's house. But Horn willingly left his own property to confront burglars next door. Fine. A good neighbor. Then he decides to point a loaded firearm at the perps, who choose to flee (a natural response). He then shoots the perps in the back? Big man. Tough guy. Trigger happy.

Not to mention that the evidence from the 911 call could be construed to show premeditation. Horn is lucky he's from Texas.

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

I am not sure this is really an issue of law here as opposed to your own morals. The law clearly allowed Horn to do what he did. Some people's morals would not, whereas others would. Clearly, you are one of the others. Nothing wrong with that.

In any case, I have no sympathy for the criminals here.
 
Protecting your person, family, and property isn't just beneficial to you/them, it helps us all.

+1 as well.

That's a key point here that often gets lost in the "right or wrong" discussion. Our community (define that as you will) suffers when crimes go unanswered. It emboldens the criminals and, as Martlet said, it creates a sense of reasonable risk (WRT criminal behavior) in criminal minds, thus rendering, say, a smash and grab, or a home invasion more attractive.

Criminals may do dumb things but collectively speaking, they're no dumber than the average bloke. They look around themselves, weigh the risks (Texas=high risk, MA=low risk) arrive at a decision and likely commit the crime.

As far as a I am concerned, this is a case of "wrong can be right." Consider this. Was it right (in an absolute sense) for him to shoot 2 criminals in the back? Perhaps not. But now local criminals understand that the sword swings both ways. They understand (or should) that they may engender a response far in excess of what they expected. They understand that justice may come before any arrest and that, my friends, is the key issue. Right now the equation is Crime =No or little punishment. When we change it to Crime=No or little punishment, some punishment, or instant death, we make the world safer by injecting that element of uncertainty which prevents criminals from acting with certainty.

Frankly Darwin had theories about these people. I wonder if the interdiction of our legal system doesn't artificially mitigate the natural selection process. For instance, I personally, have made a decision not to shoot someone over property. If you come in my house (unarmed) and steal my television set I will calmly call the police (with gun in hand) and wait for them to arrive. I care little about my TV. Thus the criminal get's what he wants and I loose a TV. The criminal expected this outcome. Now, if the same criminal breaks into my house and, in the process of stealing my tv exposes a weapon, I intent to shoot him/her in the front, in the back, or whenever it's convenient to do so.

Bottom line, it may not have been the right thing to do in an individual sense but in the aggregate these events simply make us safer.

Or perhaps I'm an unreasonable and grouchy F@ck due to Poison Ivy.
 
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.

I've been fortunate that I've never had to draw down on anyone. I hope I never have to. It's not something I take lightly. If I draw I'm going all the way. Can't think of a better way to describe the enormity of it. Maybe I'm a lousy neighbor, but if I see someone breaking into your house, it's not worth putting my life or anyone else's in peril over things. Let the cops handle it. I'd rather be a lousy neighbor than a killer.
 
Back
Top Bottom