Joe Horn's 911

[Gunnerpalace]

"It might be perfectly legal to dismember a burglar with a chainsaw. Does that mean you should do it?"

I don't know how to respond to that but I will try, Dismembering is a crime, in Castle Doctrine states (like Texas) shooting a Burglar coming at you is not.

You can sure bet if someone breaks onto my house I will get my shotgun call 911 and then stop them (using the force continuum as always), I know I will get "You could make it worse" Well, Who is to say they don't come to and kick down my bedroom door?

 

[Ron James]

You had better check your legal facts, Castle doctrine or whatever, Texas or wherever. He can get a award for crime fighting form the Governor,and he can still be sued in a civil action for wrongful death. If a sharp lawyer can prove to 50 percent of the jury that the death would not have occured if he had followed advice and waited another minute for the police. Any one can be sued , a civilian , police, even Santa Clause for running over Grandma with his reindeer, wrongful death and or excessive force. Castle Doctrine only provides legal protection not civil protection. Two very different areas of the law.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yawn....

You had better check your legal facts,

Sure, not a problem.

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.

Senate Bill 378 made several changes to Texas law as part of this "Castle Doctrine". It went into effect September 1.
By the way it passed the Senate here unanimously, so there's not going to be anyone changing their mind over this one incident.

So as I said, if he's no billed then he's immune from civil liability as well.

Wake me up if something interesting happens......

 

[onemsumba]

The sad fact is that there are too few people like Mr. Horn. Most people these days stand around and do nothing when confronted with a crime. They are afraid to get involved, afraid to do anything.

anyway, I wish Horn was my neighbor and I wish more people were like him. When the general public is too afraid to do anything it only emboldens criminals. But when we all look out for each other it makes the world a much better and safer place.


Horn's final judgement will be from God. "Thou shall not kill" is pretty clear and doesn't seem to be open for Interpretation. When it comes down to it he killed to guys for a bag of stuff.

Did they derserve to die? Don't know, it turns out they were pretty bad guys... but that's not a reason to justify killing them.

------------------

 

[TexasRifleman]

"Thou shall not kill" is pretty clear and doesn't seem to be open for Interpretation. When it comes down to it he killed to guys for a bag of stuff.

Well it also depends on which version of the Bible you are quoting I suppose.

Mine says "Jesus said, Thou Shalt Do No Murder......"... hell of a difference from thou shalt not kill.

 

[Sistema1927]

Mine says "Jesus said, Thou Shalt Do No Murder......"

Wow! Are you sure that is what it says?

Maybe what you saw was: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. - Matthew 5:21-22 (ESV)

Note that while the Mosaic prohibition was against murder, Jesus states that anger and contempt make one guilty of the sixth commandment.

My two bits on this whole matter? What is legal is not always moral. I think that Mr. Horn stepped way over the line.

 

[Ron James]

Big sigh, I know Texas is in a another country other than the U.S. but please check with a lawyer. You are not immune form a wrongful death suit. and under the laws of the land you cannot be immune, not even the President or Hilliary or even Texans. The High Court has said you can even sue the Federal government, even if the action is in the ream of their lawful duties if it is wrongful ( except for the Feds it is the agency that is sued not the individual )

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

They both had priors and
Mr Horn can't use that since he didn't know it before the incident.
Just FYI
----

Mr. Horn can't but his legal defense can use that to establish their character. While it did not inform Mr. Horn's decision, it will clearly show that the two are career criminals and as such posed a threat to community and safety.


I listened to the tape and only heard 2 shots. I thought I heard "rack, goes outside, Shot, rack, Shot, rack."

Some people are saying 3. Quannell X also says they were shot in the back.

Is there a definitive source on this for the number of shots and the locations?

Also, Horn didn't resist arrest. The cops told him to get down and he, maybe unwisely, tried to justify himself while still standing, but then complied with the officers.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

3:18 to 3:30 "i'm gonna shoot, i'm gonna shoot" is gonna haunt him

and getting worked up at 5:30 after the cop told him there was acop on the way

6:10 "i'm gonna kill em" before he went out also bad
6:58 "your dead!"
and he says the one guy is down in the other yard how'd he get in the other yard if he shot em in his yard.
i'm gonna have a hard time believing they charged a guy with a shot gun with a crow bar.
cops were there within 20-30 seconds of him shooting.
i feel for him and really wanted to believe in him. after hearing the tape i can't. reminds me of some posterws here talking themselves into trouble. his life is never gonna be the same and it surely ain't worth it

 

[marksman13]

Sistema, in both of my Old Testament classes the proffessors, both PHD's in History have said that the original Hebrew translation uses the Hebrew word for murder. Makes sense as God commanded the Israelite army to destroy entire cities, but this is neither here nor there.

I think Mr Horn is fully justified. I could only hope that my neighbors would defend my family and property to that extent. We have lived in fear of criminals for far too long in this country. It is sad that criminals have more rights than property owners. Good for Mr Horn. Sometimes in order to destroy a monster you have to become one yourself. How would we have reacted if the news report had said that an armed 62 year old man had been bludgeoned to death by two illegal immigrants? Food for thought, huh?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Wow! Are you sure that is what it says?

Maybe what you saw was: "

No I am pretty sure I can read the English language, thanks though.
I am a Christian. Perhaps you are Jewish and that is where the confusion comes from. Christians believe that things Jesus said outweigh the "old laws".

This is way off topic here but since you asked, I quote from the King James version Matthew 19:16-20 which takes precedence over the Old Testament, again from the perspective of a Christian: The words printed in red "matter more" I guess you'd say.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

interesting

"Sometimes in order to destroy a monster you have to become one yourself. How would we have reacted if the news report had said that an armed 62 year old man had been bludgeoned to death by two illegal immigrants? Food for thought, huh?"

the old ends justifies the means bit eh?

how about" sharp eyed 62 year old mans instrumental in convicting 2 burglars by calling 911"
not as titillating but a better end result for all involved.
horns got a chance cause its texas but don't be too sure he stepped on his own pecker big time with what he said

saying your gonna kill em before you go outside is dumb and for his sake i hope the forensics is real clear cut

 

[TexasRifleman]

You are not immune form a wrongful death suit.

You seem endlessly fascinated by this. Not sure what else to say except that I disagree that what you describe will EVER happen. The 2 deceased gentlemen here were in this country illegally, they were under investigation for various crimes including identity theft, they were killed during the commission of a crime and the shooter is protected by law from criminal charges (assuming the Grand Jury no bills him as I've said all along).

If after all that you really think someone is going to come forth with a lawsuit, with standing, and win, then we'll just have to disagree.

It ain't gonna happen.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

Most biblical scholars believe the correct translation to be "thou shall do no murder," rather than 'kill.'

There is a book about it out call "The Torah and Self-Defense" and there are also articles and excerpts in an issue of America's First Freedom that talk about the same thing.

Murder = Bad
Killing = Not always.

All murders are killings but not all killings are murders, one would say, if we were feeling Socratic.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

sharp eyed 62 year old mans instrumental in convicting 2 burglars by calling 911"

Or how about:

Another house vandalized despite neighbors call to police.

or

Officer hit in head with crowbar during arrest attempt.

et al.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Quannell X also says they were shot in the back.

Elvis said they were shot in the front and given the 2 I think I'm more inclined to believe Elvis.

 

[TexasRifleman]

nd he says the one guy is down in the other yard how'd he get in the other yard if he shot em in his yard.

You guys are having a field day misquoting this stuff aren't you?

From the 911 transcript:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!

Like I said earlier, you can disagree with what happened here all day long, that's fine. But you can't make up facts, or twist things around, or take partial quotes out of context to fit your arguments.

If you are going to use the things he says on the 911 tape to hang him, you have to use the things he says on the 911 tape to defend him as well.

When taken as a whole the tape says they came into his yard, towards him. You can't have it both ways, you either believe what's on the tape or you don't. You can't pick the parts you like and ignore the rest. Leave that to the media.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

there any news reports that show where the bodies ended up? or autopsy/forensics?
i don't wanna hang the old man i hoipe hes fine but hes lucky its texas and i'm not sure even that'll save him. be a damn shame but hes not outa the woods by a long shot

 

[TexasRifleman]

here any news reports that show where the bodies ended up? or autopsy/forensics?

All that's been reported is that the Harris County DA will present this all to the Grand Jury within the next couple of weeks.

Several of the news reports say that the guys advanced towards Horn. Quannell X is the only one I've heard quoted that said otherwise.

As of today, 12/6, Mr Horn has still not been charged with anything.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Mr. James and Mr. Rifleman are actually both correct. Mr. James says that he will get raked over the coals in a civil trial. Mr. Rifleman says that he is immune due to the specific wording of the Castle Doctrine.

IIRC, Mr. Horn may still end up going to civil trial (snowball's chance), but he won't be FOUND GUILTY. If Mr. Horn has a barely literate, somewhat competent trial lawyer, it will point out that he is immune from prosecution, and the trial will be tossed. That is, assuming, what we know about the story up until know is correct and accurate.

And as to whether or not he should have shot in protection of "mere property"... I live in SC, so I can't. However, what are you supposed to do when you see some punks stealing in broad daylight what you have worked your whole life to earn (or you neighbor's have earned, in this case) and then call the cops and hope that your stuff gets returned to you? (Probably won't)

Especially when you have the means to stop it? To Hell with a thief.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Well, personally I sincerely hope that Mr. Horn gets no billed, because I believe he did what was right. My problem is that I don't believe that what he did was legal.

TexasRifleman, you quoted the section of the statute that talks about using force and deadly force in defense of third party property, but you neatly overlooked the fact that the section you cited refers back to the preceding two sections that discuss using force and deadly force to defend your own property. And in those two sections it is clearly stated that one may use deadly force to protect property *AT NIGHT.* This incident took place in mid-afternoon, so the section of statute you cited doesn't actually help him at all.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that he will NOT be no billed, but that a sympathetic jury will acquit him at trial.

 

[TexasRifleman]

TexasRifleman, you quoted the section of the statute ......

And in those two sections it is clearly stated that one may use deadly force to protect property *AT NIGHT.

You guys are wearing me out with the misquotes tonight.

No that's not what it says. Read it again......

(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

Read Section B there REALLY REALLY close. This case fits that statute 100 percent which is why I think he will be no billed.
This is not about feelings, this is about the law. That's Texas 9.42 if you want to go look it up.

It says theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

Arson, burglary, robbery and aggravated robbery have no such time limits or restrictions on them.

This was burglary of a residence, not requiring darkness to be covered under the statute. It also says deadly force can be used to stop someone fleeing that has just committed the stated crimes from escaping with the property.

Again, you can't make things up as you go along or twist the laws to fit your argument.

Given the laws of Texas you are gonna have a really hard time finding where a crime has been committed here.

30.02 Burglary (a) A person commits an offense if,
without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion
of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a
felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony,
theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or
attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other
than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a
habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation
with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed
or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As in (some people's reading of) the 2nd Amendment, once again the commas are crucial. I have read subsection (B) closely, and although I see where you are coming from I respectfully disagree with the way you are reading it. I believe the "at night" applies to the entire section.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the grand jury says.

 

[TexasRifleman]

As in (some people's reading of) the 2nd Amendment, once again the commas are crucial. I have read subsection (B) closely, and although I see where you are coming from I respectfully disagree with the way you are reading it. I believe the "at night" applies to the entire sect

You can disagree with me if you'd like, but if you'll search prior cases you'll see that I'm not just playing comma games.

The case history on it is pretty long. This isn't exactly something new here. That law has been around many many years.

A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;

Do you really believe that in my house I don't have the legal right to use deadly force to stop an arson during the daytime?

You can't really believe that can you?

If the modifier "during the nighttime" applies to them all then why is it in there twice?

 

[RPCVYemen]

So as I said, if he's no billed then he's immune from civil liability as well.

Would that cover any civil action at a federal level? Is there such a thing as a civil action at a Federal level?

I thought I remembered a federal lawsuit involving a homicide that was based on a violation of the civil rights of the deceased.

The most that Texas can do is prevent litigation in the state courts, I think.

Mike