- This topic has 61 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
quote Ryan:This will go about as far as the CKM thread.As far as length (in number of posts) or in what it accomplishes?
I give this one a 2 – 1 shot at going the distance on posts with a high probability of futility.
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
“As far as length (in number of posts) or in what it accomplishes?”
Both.
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
in texas they have a law that say’s you can shoot people if they come on your land after dark, it’s a law that protect’s land owners from livestock rustlers, so if they went on his land, according to the law he could shoot them, according to the law in indiana(my state) they have to have the means to harm you, so if i said i’ll kill you that’s not enough, but if i was holding a knife and said i’ll kill you, that’s a different story, law’s are different state to state
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
Small update from the LA Times:
PASADENA, Texas ó When he saw two men pry into his neighborís house with a crowbar earlier this month, Joe Horn did what many people would do: He called 911.
But when police had not shown up by the time the suspects were about to leave, the 61-year-old retiree did something most people probably would not: He put down the phone, stepped outside with his shotgun and killed them.
ìIím not going to let them get away with this,î Horn told the 911 dispatcher, who responded: ìPropertyís not worth killing someone over.î
Seconds later, the sound of a gun being loaded was captured on the 911 tape, followed by the warning: ìMove (and) youíre deadî and then three bursts of gunfire. Miguel DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, died from their wounds. Both had small-time criminal histories.
Recording captures actions
The recording of Hornís anger, frustration and eagerness to take the law into his own hands has made him the focus of a national controversy. Critics condemn him as a vigilante bent on meting out murderous justice. Admirers praise him as a courageous hero whom any law abider would love to have next door.
ìWhy is he still a free man?î Linda Edwards wrote in a letter to The Houston Chronicle.
ìJoe Horn gets a Texas ëattaboyí from me,î countered John Meagher in the next letter on the page, adding: ìJustice was served, law or not.î
As the debate rages on talk radio and cable news shows, Horn remains free. However, according to his attorney, he is so overwrought with grief and overwhelmed by the media glare that heís left his home in this blue-collar Houston suburb.
ìJoe has never been anything but a gentle person. Heís not the type of monster that they are making him out to be,î attorney Tom Lambright said in an interview with Houston radio host Michael Berry, who was playing a spoof of Bob Marleyís ìI Shot the Sheriffî called ìI Shot the Burglar.î
Grand jury to decide
Authorities are still investigating what happened Nov. 14, but they plan to let a Harris County grand jury decide whether Horn, a former computer consultant, should be charged with any crimes.
ìThis is not an individual who stepped outside and gunned down two pedestrians on the sidewalk,î said Pasadena police Capt. A.H. ìBudî Corbett. ìIn a situation where there is some uncertainty about which side of the law someone was on, the best thing to do is assemble all the information and present it to the grand jury.î
Noting Texansí prevailing populist views on guns and self-defense ó and the sharply mixed reaction to what Horn did ó legal experts differ over whether a jury of his peers would ever indict him.
They also differ on whether one should, given a Texas law known as the ìcastle doctrineî that permits citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes and cars.
In the shoes of the owner
Tommy LaFon, a Houston defense attorney and former prosecutor who has argued about 50 disputed shooting cases before grand juries, said Hornís lawyers may be able to claim that his actions were legal because he was acting as the de facto defender of his neighborís property.
ìHeís not drunk at a bar somewhere, heís a guy who intercedes in a situation next door,î LaFon said. ìIf a jury believes he was standing in the shoes of the owner, that might affect their decision.î
Police caution that although the 911 recording makes for provocative discussion, it fails to answer many questions they must try to answer. Was Horn still on his property when he fired or had he ventured into the neighborís yard? Were the suspects coming at him? Did he feel threatened?
Critics of the way the case has been handled disagree, saying the 911 tape is proof that Horn was predetermined to shoot the robbers before stepping outside with his gun.
Noting that Horn is white and the suspects were dark-skinned, Quanell X, Houstonís outspoken community activist, accused authorities of bias. Horn clearly should be charged with murder, he said.
ìMr. Horn did not have to kill those people,î Quanell X said during a protest on the leafy street where the retiree fired his shots. ìMr. Horn became judge, jury and executioner.î
Seems to follow the thread pretty closely on how this is shaping up.
Pete
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
Hmmm, if in addition to “I’m going to kill them” he also said “I’m not going to let them get away with this.” and then the operator says: “Property’s not worth killing someone over.”, but he goes anyway apparently pulls the shotgun on them, then fires soon after that, it does seem to show premeditation. As though he decided to go out there and kill them as punishment for breaking into the house.
We’ll see how it’ll turn out.
_________________
GiantkillerRe: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
Yeah it sort of muddies the waters even further. I am just upset Al Sharpton and the ACLU aren’t there yet. It’s not a true controversy until they show up. 🙂
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
The 911 operator’s declaration that property isn’t worth shooting someone doesn’t trump Texas law. If I know someone is in my house and believe they are out to harm me, I’m legally within my rights to go grab a weapon and defend myself without being charged with “premeditated” murder. In texas, Mr Horn announced his intentions to the operator… which doesn’t seem to conflict with texas law. Rather than say “I’m going to kill them”, he would have been much better off saying “I’m going to protect my neighbor’s property”. Interesting topic.
It’s easy to see why it’s such a debate there for police.
quote :SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTYß 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (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.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ß 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ß 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.ß 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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 [COLOR=”Red”]to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury[/COLOR].Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ß 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ß 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.ß 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. 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.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ß 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ß 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.If Mr Horn reasonably believes the criminals are going to get away, as the police haven’t arrived yet, it seems to Texas law he’s within his right to step in to protect the neighbors property and keep the criminals from escaping. And if he further thinks they are going to hurt him, again, Texas law allows for use of deadly force.
If I’m reading it wrong, maybe someone in law enforcement can add their interpretation. Personally, I think police in Texas know they are on a political powder keg if they just let this guy go. Otherwise they wouldn’t have hesitated in charging him. Best to let the grand jury decide, takes the heat of the elected officials.
My .02
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
Hmmm, looks like the laws may work for him. Although one could argue that there were other alternatives, as the police was on their way.
Anyway, would be interesting to hear the whole tape, with the actual voice. From the excerpts so far, I’m a bit skeptical as to whether the guy was really scared for his life. He says “You wanna make a bet? I’m going to kill them!” As if their deaths is already a forgone conclusionin his mind and as if he perceives what the operator says as some kind of dare.
Also, if he says “I’m not going to let them get away with this.” that would indicate that they were about to leave and instead of being glad about this (as a truly scared person would be), he doesn’t like it, instead he wants to go out there and stop them from leaving.
So, I see some intent to kill here, but we’ll see what the law says.
_________________
GiantkillerRe: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
Thank god I live in the Great State of Texas….were we keep the Criminals at bay!!!
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
quote russell:in texas they have a law that say’s you can shoot people if they come on your land after dark, it’s a law that protect’s land owners from livestock rustlers, so if they went on his land, according to the law he could shoot them, according to the law in indiana(my state) they have to have the means to harm you, so if i said i’ll kill you that’s not enough, but if i was holding a knife and said i’ll kill you, that’s a different story, law’s are different state to stateIt’s funny because those are only tools to kill more efficiently or equalize a fight, people can kill people with or without tools. Without the tools though, it’s more likely the person with initiative or the more experienced, faster, stronger, bigger person will win. Although I suppose people will just have to take a few hits first, and hope none of them are to the throat.
It would really suck if experience, speed, strength or size qualified as “means”.
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
You also might be interested that as of September 1st, Texas adopted the Castle Doctrine, which did amend some parts of the penal code in regards to the use of deadly force. Just a little more info.
Honestly, I am interested in seeing how this plays out, as I live in Arlington, TX
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
SECTION 5.
(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
quote SkaldGrimnir:You also might be interested that as of September 1st, Texas adopted the Castle Doctrine, which did amend some parts of the penal code in regards to the use of deadly force. Just a little more info.Honestly, I am interested in seeing how this plays out, as I live in Arlington, TX
Indeed it is interesting. These are amendments to 9.31 and 9.32…. Were any amendments made to 9.41, 9.42, 9.43 which I posted?
I still think the prosecution is going to be facing a pretty big hurdle, even with the amendments. From your post, here’s where I see the meat and potatoes of the defense:
quote :SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
In the case where Mr Horn is in his yard, or in the yard of his neighbor (acting in defense of that property as per 9.43) a case of aggravated robbery or robbery could constitute justified use of force.
According to the amended 9.31, robbery or aggravated robbery seems to warrant defending one’s self with any means necessary. Factor in the defense of third party property, I really don’t see how they can even build a case. Even with the admission of his intent to the 911 operator, it seems to amount to his declaration that he’s going to adhere to the law.
Nobody would have questioned anything of this story if Mr Horn simply walked into his yard to investigate some noises or maybe scare off some ppl he knew were trying to gain entry to his neighbors house and acted in self defense when they came at him. So ultimately, is it illegal to say you’re going to do something which is legal if you don’t say it first?
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
Correct.
I am unaware of any changes the Castle Doctrine made to the other statutes. In fact, the Castle Doctrine was meant to enhance situations in which deadly force may be used, not limit them. It added vehicles as property important enough to kill over. A mans house is his Castle, and his vehicle is an extension of his house.
Honestly, I think the man may have chosen his words badly, but I understand where he came from. While I would be more concerned in protecting myself and my wife, I can see why he acted as he did – and I do not fault him for it.
There have been a lot of cases where simple burglaries turned out to be more. There have been cases where burglars have been seen, and have turned on a witness. I can understand the fear, and I can understand an intent to make sure that one is not hurt. I tend to believe the opinion that perhaps Mr Horn was felt the dispatcher telling him not to go out or he might get hurt was a trigger that made him believe he had no choice in what he did. Of course, I could be wrong.
It is for the jury to decide, and I admit I do not, at this time, have all the facts and evidence.
Re: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
Hmmm, according to the sections of the law it may hinge on whether he can prove that there really was no other way than to use deadly force to stop the thieves. According to the tape, apparently he yelled “Don’t move!” and a split second later he fires. Now, assuming that the thieves did not see him until he yelled, did he let enough time pass to give them a chance to simply give up when they saw the shotgun? Or did he fire right away, perceiving (or pretending to perceive) their likely startled reaction at hearing the sound of his voice as enough of a threat to fire? After he shot the first one, did the second one really continue to lunge at him (as he claimed both of them did)? I suppose they will look at the tape and also collect whatever evidence there was at the house to try and determine whether there was intend to kill BEFORE he went out there. The statements of “Wanna bet? I’m going to kill them.” and “I’m not going to let them get away with this.” could work against him in that case.
_________________
GiantkillerRe: Update on the Houston man who shot his neighbor’s thieves
I don’t believe the Castle Doctrine is the same in every state.
They change it to suit what they want to accomplish. The Castle Doctrine is very broad across the U.S. and hopefully for this guy they didn’t butcher too much of it.
Texas is pretty good about allowing people to shoot each other when they don’t agree on things. thumbsup
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
