Joe Horn - Sounds like simple self-defense

That is how I saw it more or less. Most people I have seen who disagree with the Grand Jury are either caught up with what he said to the 911 operator or they are caught up with the fact that the guys were shot in the back. Most of the latter just can't picture the situation. They assume he shot them as they were running directly away which wasn't the case as I understand it.

I think he should have stayed inside. Going out there wasn't the smartest move in the world (by his own admission).

That said, I do think he was justified. Two less criminals in the world, yeah?


-T.

Those who don't want to be shot should stay outta other people's possessions, and NOT break into other people's homes. Simple solution.

I wasn't there, and I don't live in Texas - so what I say is just blather! I have read as much as was readily available about what happened, but that, also doesn't carry any weight, because too much "reporting" is sloppy, biased, ignorant of fact or the subject. So, with that disclaimer out of the way - I just feel that Mr. Horn was a concerned neighbor who took his "charge" to watch the neighbors home, while they were away, clearly to heart. He did do the "911 bit", as is appropriate. He also saw the perps were about to disappear over the horizon, and no LEO in sight (when seconds count, ...). At this point, it starts to get murky, as the (questionable) reporting really isn't all that specific. Seems his intent was to stop a felony in progress (not "suspected" as reported) and on showing himself to the perps, they ran towards him, and onto his property (not necessarily relevant about the property line). At this point, who knows? I haven't seen nor read of an autopsy report of gunshot wound placement on either subject, but that info may be out there. Going by the Grand Jury "no Bill", there could well be, and probably is, further information to back up the jury's pronouncement. Hopefully, we will get a clearer description of what actually took place. Now for the balance of the states that don't have it yet, to get a Texas-style Castle Doctrine.
sailortoo

This sounds to me like an open-and-shut case of self defense.

Click to expand...

Nope. SD and Castle Doctrine need not apply here.

Texas law carves out the right of an individual to use deadly force when protecting another one's property provided that they don't have a good reason to presume that the owner of said property would object.

An individual actually has more rights when it comes to defending the neighbor's property than they do their own.

I think my neighbors are just like joe and I am very happy about it. I would hope that I would stand up to protect my neighbors as well as joe did. My neighbors are good US citizens and deserve to be protected from illegals like Joe killed.

jj

Not at all.
It was definately not simple self defense.

Horn actualy made a 911 call and was on the phone with police prior to the shooting.
He made many comments about it not being right, that they were going to get away with it etc.
He said he was going to shoot them, he even said he was going to kill them prior to going out.

Under Texas law everything he did was legal, but it was not simple self defense.

It was defense of others property, and use of force to prevent escape of someone that just did an offense listed. Someone that would have likely escaped and not been caught.


Here is the 911 tape, obviously the counter on it shows the poster's bias, but the tape is complete and unaltered:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

At 6:07 in the video he says "im'ma kill 'em". Translated to 'I am going to kill them'.

What he did was questionably legal in Texas.

Only in Texas! The other 49 states of the U.S. would have resulted in definate serious charges.

They were shot in the back with a shotgun. Both died.


In Texas for example there is this law:

§ 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 to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Click to expand...

So in Texas someone who just commited a felony burglary could legaly be shot in the back if the shooter believed they were going to get away and the property could not be recovered.

The argument could be made by a prosecutor that since he said he was going to kill them, clearly was upset and wanted to punish them, and fullfilled that promise, that preventing the property from never being recovered was not the prime motivation for the shooting.
That the primary reason for the shooting was to kill them as punishment, just like he said he was going to on the phone.


However Joe Horn also mentioned thier bag of loot, and clearly showed he was very upset they were about to get away with his neighbor's property (the neighbor he says he does not really know on the 911 call), that clearly makes the shooting justified under the cited Texas law.

Mr. Horn is lucky even by Texas standards in this use of force.

OK, having listened to the 911 call, I can see that "self defense" is a huge oversimplification of the situation.

Click to expand...

Yes he clearly shot two men in the back posing no danger to him because he did not want them to get away.
They were also only fleeing a felony property crime where no victims were present.

This would have been murder in 49 states.

Rather, they came to him and charged at him. In that moment it changed from "I'm going to get them" to self-defense.

Click to expand...

Yes if that was what actualy happened, and yes maybe with one of them.

Yet they were shot in the back, 3 shots were fired, and they struck and killed two seperate targets.
According to him one was even running down the street afterwards.
You hear the third shot several seconds after the first two.

There is the added detail of one of them running towards, and then changing and running away before being shot.
That only accounts for one of them in a defensive context, and even that one was angled away from and running away when shot.

Really if you piece it all together it seems fairly clear it was not self defense. However that does not make it illegal under Texas law.

That said these were both very bad guys, they both were illegals (from Columbia) involved in organized crime, had been convicted and deported previously and had illegaly returned.
It was only a matter of time before they happened on someone that was home, maybe someone unable to defend themselves.

That would not justify murder though, and it would have been murder at least for one of them in 49 other states if not both.


I would say retaliation is a very real possibility faced by Mr. Horn. They were Columbians involved in organized crime. They were both previously convicted. One of them had ID from three seperate nations. He was involved in dealing cocaine.

Put it all together and these could be some very bad dudes with some interesting friends that he shot in the back.

There is also the danger posed by other criminals and many minorities that have turned this into some sort of racial thing.
Who knows what kind of wackjob could feel justified getting revenge on Horn.




(side note, Columbia has the highest murder and kidnapping rate in the world.)

He was in TEXAS so what would maybe, might, would've, should've, could've etc happend in the other 49 States is irrelevant.

Fact is, he was no-billed by a TEXAS grand jury.

Fact is a TEXAS police officer saw the whole shooting and Joe was never arrested.

My Guess is, that shooting #1 was defensive in nature.

My Guess is, the second shooting is in defense of property.

Fact: Each and every shot was evaluated by the police, then the DA, then the Grand Jury.

Fact: No arrest

Fact: No charges

Fact: No indictments

Don't Mess With Texas!

Zoogster, a local plain clothes law enforcement officer witnessed the shooting and it was his quote that I saw that said the guys ran toward him at an angle and triggered him to shoot in self defense. That is the evidence I was using to based my opinions on.

His original intent was protection of property, but events changed that to him defending himself.

(I thought I had seen quotes from the officer who witnessed it, but I can't find them. I assume if he saw him blowing away guys running down the street then the grand jury would have indicted.)

Was it self-defense? Not exactly. Was it justified/justifiable? Yes it certainly looks to be. Was it against the law? Obviously not.

Joe Horn has the right to be in his front yard. Joe horn has the right to defend himself with deadly force if necessary.

The dead criminal was also dumb. You don't bring a tire iron or crow bar to a gun fight you intend to initiate. Darwin was right about some things.

Woody

It was defense of others property, and use of force to prevent escape of someone that just did an offense listed. Someone that would have likely escaped and not been caught.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it likely became self defense after he stepped outside.

A police officer on the scene witnessed the whole thing.

Once Mr Horn came outside and yelled at the intruders next door (he never left his own property) they advanced TOWARDS him into his yard.

Why would 2 guys come TOWARDS a man holding a shotgun and yelling, for hugs?

I think it turned to self defense at that point regardless of how it started.

The media made a huge deal out of the guys being shot "in the back" but that just means they were hit somewhere in the back 180 degree plane.

It's more likely they were maneuvering for position than running.

But, the Grand Jury testimony is all sealed so we'll never know for sure.

Shot in the Back

This sounds to me like an open-and-shut case of self defense. Does anyone who is an expert in these matters disagree?

Click to expand...

If they rushed him, then why were they both shot in the back?

Shot in the back is never self-defense.

Shot in the back is the key item of evidence; the definitive, all important item. There is no self-defense here. In 49 states, this is murder. In Texas, this is proper legal "defense of the property of another". I'm not making any normative judgments whatsoever here - just stating the facts.

The case is 180 degrees opposite of an "open and shut case of self-defense." And that's withOUT even taking into account that he actively went out to confront them - he sought out the confrontation - a fact which is key to establishing lack of self-defense.

SHOT in the BACK is all you need to know to make the self-defense evaluation. If the people are running away from you, how can they be a threat to you? Do they have a midget riding backwards on their shoulders shooting at you as they run away or what?

P.S. If you want to make normative judgments, then I personally do like the Texas law and think that it's appropriate, based on my norms and values. But let's not confuse this with a self-defense case.

Nope. SD and Castle Doctrine need not apply here.

Texas law carves out the right of an individual to use deadly force when protecting another one's property provided that they don't have a good reason to presume that the owner of said property would object.

An individual actually has more rights when it comes to defending the neighbor's property than they do their own.

Click to expand...

Well, you almost had it...right up until the last line.

We have precisely the same protections when it comes to defending neighbor's property as we do our own.