Joe Horn No Billed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thumper

Thumper

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,909
Location
Richmond, Texas
www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

Texas' Deadly Force laws leave room to protect a third person's property. This was a pretty extreme test of that defense, but the Grand Jury held with Mr. Horn in spite of influence from Quanell X and others.

The statute is fairly clear.

§ 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Many here simply overlook the word "or."

What do you think?
 
Good Job Thumper, I just logged on to report the story myself, and saw you beat me to it. It is Another Great Day in Texas, and hopefully for the rest of the country as well.


Are you going to post this in general as well?
 
Glad to see that worked out.

Plenty of lessons to be learned here.

Mainly that running your mouth to either the press or the 9-1-1 operator can only hurt your position. If it's a good shoot that should be able to stand on it's own.

In this case it did stand on it's own but the perception was pretty bad in the public arena.
 
Given the evidence
Click to expand...

What we saw of the evidence was what was ladled out by the mainstream media.

What the grand jury saw was pretty well kept under wraps.

Hopefully we'll learn more in the coming days about what went on that afternoon. I'm sure that there will be lessons in it for all of us.

Not least for those among us who are wont to take a crowbar to a Texas dwelling in hopes of gain.
 
Hopefully we'll learn more in the coming days about what went on that afternoon.
Click to expand...

From reading around this afternoon it seems that the officer send to the scene pretty much witnessed the entire thing.
 
Maybe it is Harris County but it is still Texas.

I was 75% sure he would walk.

Time to look out for the inevitable protests.

Then again, this is Texas...it won't be like LA
 
Memo to self: keep hands to self and own property when visiting Texas.
Click to expand...

Thou shall not steal.

Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife.

Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods.

Yup, good advice anywhere.
 
While I personally would have handled things differently than Joe did, the grand jury had no other options than to no bill him.

God bless Texas!
 
§ 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.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I have this straight:

In Texas,
--If protecting your OWN property, it must be AFTER DARK and to prevent THEFT, to justify the use of deadly force.
--But if you're protecting SOMEONE ELSE'S property, you can do that at any time of the day or night, and to prevent either THEFT or VANDALISM, with deadly force?

:confused: :scrutiny:

....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.
Click to expand...

1. If the cops are THERE but are just gonna sit in there car and let the burglars get away, then heck, something has to be done by good citizens.
2. On the worried about being mistook for the getaway car and ducking, pretty funny - I say that's exactly how it should be. The government and its agents should fear the citizen with a gun (at times), even the good honest citizens.
 
he he...
That's why you make really good friends with the neighbors and teach them to shoot. :evil:

"Lord I apologize..."
 
So let me see if I have this straight:

In Texas,
--If protecting your OWN property, it must be AFTER DARK and to prevent THEFT, to justify the use of deadly force.
--But if you're protecting SOMEONE ELSE'S property, you can do that at any time of the day or night, and to prevent either THEFT or VANDALISM, with deadly force?
Click to expand...

No...there's an "or" between Burglary and Theft During the Nightime in 9.42 also. Those "or's" will get you every time. Two separate defenses.

My opinion only.
 
The no bill did not surprise me. I spoke with an assistant ADA in Harris County and his view (his opinion only) was that Horn was outside the intent of the law, but he did not believe that he would be True Billed either, given the track record of the suspects.
 
"Was it a mistake from a legal standpoint? No. But a mistake in his life? Yes," Lambright (Horn's attorney) 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."

I have no real problem with those of us cheering the deaths of the two bozos in the story, but if there's a single lesson to be taken from the whole thing, I think the above quote is it. It's one thing to to toss out a bit of internet bravado, but I'll bet most of us would feel just like Horn, were we to find ourselves in his shoes.
 
Did you notice how small the write up was for finding him innocent as compaired to the write up done as he was first charged.

We were probably lucky there was even a news item on his release.
 
Last edited:
Did the dispatcher ever tell Mr. Horn there was a LEO on the scene? If not, why not? Surely the officer would have radioed his arrival at the scene. If Mr. Horn had been so advised he may not have felt the need to intervene.

NOTE: I am not criticizing Mr. Horn, just asking a question.
 
As I understand it, Joe Horn and the thieves were in Joe's yard when the shooting happened. Either that article or another mentioned that as the thieves moved to run away they actually moved toward Joe Horn and he shot. IMO, defense of property was not necessarily the key to the case. If I had my gun on an intruder and he moved toward me, I would probably shoot also.

The officer on the scene was a plain clothes officer who had just arrived. He said he hesitated to leave his car for fear Joe would mistake him for a 3rd thief.
 
Here is the section. It is further down in the article.
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.
Click to expand...
Shot in the back. He is lucky he is where he is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Deadly Force in Texas
Replies
11
Views
800
Bartholomew Roberts
B
R
  • Locked
Texas law
Replies
14
Views
653
Flintknapper
Flintknapper
B
  • Locked
Texas Law - Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Property
Replies
3
Views
944
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
T
  • Locked
Another Joe Horn thread, specific Penal Code content only please.
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Guillermo
G
M
  • Locked
Defending your property?
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
mattd
M
Back
Top