Man Charged With Murder In Home Shooting Case

[45_auto]

True, but just because something is legal does make it moral.

JHS1, I'm pretty sure that you accidentilly left out the word "NOT" between "does" and "make" in your statement.

Assuming that you meant "just because something is legal does NOT make it moral", I totally agree with you.

Seems to me like Joe Horn was just looking for an excuse to blast someone. And he found it. ... It was sickening.

Law...or no Law....with the exception of moral lepers, most men know when they are committing murder.

The case never even made it to trial. You really believe that the Texas grand jury was a bunch of moral lepers?

In any case, when presented by the prosecution with the evidence, the grand jury did not indict.

I mean, THR is about the best place you can find for informed Gun Discussion yet look at how many people that post here insist on getting it wrong

Keep reading, keep an open mind, and there's still hope that you'll get it right one day!

 

[larryh1108]

Protecting a neighbor's property is dicey, at best.

Neighbor goes to the store and leaves his garage door open.
BIL of neighbor calls him and asks to borrow his chainsaw.
Neighbor tells him to just go into his garage to get it, it's open.
BIL goes to neighbor's garage and picks up the chainsaw and begins to walk away.
Concerned neighbor sees this "stranger" walk into the garage and leave with a chain saw.
Concerned neighbor shoots the BIL to protect his neighbor's property.

Far fetched?
Perhaps, but with trigger happy people acting like the neighborhood police, this can easily occur. So, would he be prosecuted? Should he be prosecuted if this was TX?

 

[JSH1]

No. A key detail was: It really wasn't about defense of property. It was self defense.

Frank: Yes, Horn said, he was in fear for his life and he had to shoot them. The fact remains that the other two witnesses are dead, shot in the back.

 

[pezo]

Scary thought occurred to me. I am a service contractor. Often times people will leave their attached outside garage doors open for me to come into and knock on the inside door. Often preferring to have workman go through the garage rather than the front door. It's not to uncommon I may have a wrong address. This guy is a murderer in my book. Or at least a criminally ignorant and dangerous person none the less. I shudder to think of it.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

10 pages on a similar case in Minnesota and we still get posts like #2.

We need to turn that old saying "There's nothing in here worth dying for" around - there's nothing in here worth killing for. Shoot to protect my family, only if I absolutely must. Shoot to protect my property, no, never.

Re #6, the ambush is an offensive tactic designed to attack an unsuspecting opponent. Defending a fixed position, such as a safe room in a house, is not an ambush. It may bear a superficial resemblance to one, but it's not the same thing at all; in ambush you want the other guy to take the bait and walk into the killing zone, in defense you want the other guy to stay away so you never have to engage him.

The difference between offense and defense is the difference between murder and self-defense. It's a question of intent.

This case, like the Minnesota case recently discussed ad nauseam, is murder, plain and simple.

Anyone who did not read this post should do so now re: ambush vs. defense.

The purpose of an ambush is to seek out, entrap, and destroy an enemy. A fixed defense's purpose is to prevent harm to the people and things behind the line of defense. They may bear superficial similarities, but are fundamentally different things.

It sure looks like Mr. Karma was attempting another burglar ambush.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by larryh1108: Protecting a neighbor's property is dicey, at best.

Neighbor goes to the store and leaves his garage door open.
BIL of neighbor calls him and asks to borrow his chainsaw.
Neighbor tells him to just go into his garage to get it, it's open.
BIL goes to neighbor's garage and picks up the chainsaw and begins to walk away.
Concerned neighbor sees this "stranger" walk into the garage and leave with a chain saw.
Concerned neighbor shoots the BIL to protect his neighbor's property.

Far fetched?
Perhaps, but with trigger happy people acting like the neighborhood police, this can easily occur. So, would he be prosecuted? Should he be prosecuted if this was TX?

In Texas, and in Texas only, deadly force might be justified, but only if...the crime occurred at night; there had been no other safe way to prevent the property from being taken, and the neighbor had asked the actor to protect the property. It might well take a very long time and a whole lot of money to get through it.

Anywhere else? No.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JSH1: Frank: Yes, Horn said, he was in fear for his life and he had to shoot them. The fact remains that the other two witnesses are dead, shot in the back.

There was a another witness--the responding LEO, who saw the shooting. His statements were pivotal.

 

[tarosean]

^^ Kleanbore nailed it...

"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' (get-away 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."

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...olice-say-Horn-shot-2-men-in-back-1532069.php

 

[antiquus]

If a LEO shot this kid dead over a pocketbook without a threat of physical force to himself or others - even if the kid was trying to get away - in most places he would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. In my county the most he could hope for would be to never wear a badge again, more likely he will be would be wearing stripes.

So what does a civilian expect, with even less protection than the LEO? Even when LE uses sting operations, there's a very careful look at the scenario and usually a prosecutor has to give it a blessing because he's the one that has to go to court and make it stick.

This idiot thought he could run his own private sting operation. He isn't doing the 2A community any favors, and we should be the first to denounce this kind of behavior.

 

[JSH1]

*Horn was in the safety of his own home.
*He told the dispatcher he was going to kill them
*He went outside and killed them.

That is murder.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Far fetched?
Perhaps, but with trigger happy people acting like the neighborhood police, this can easily occur. So, would he be prosecuted? Should he be prosecuted if this was TX?

Then please find us a case where it has.

I mean, there are 26 million of us in the state. If this situation could easily occur, surely it would have some time in the last 100 years or so.

*Horn was in the safety of his own home.
*He told the dispatcher he was going to kill them
*He went outside and killed them.

That is murder.

Is that your expert legal opinion based on a careful study of the facts of the case and an in depth knowledge of the Texas penal code, or bloviation?

Or to put more clearly, please refrain from attempting to profess a legal opinion when you clearly don't have a foundation to base it on.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

The case never even made it to trial. You really believe that the Texas grand jury was a bunch of moral lepers?

Under Texas Law, what Joe Horn did was probably legally justified. But it was wrong. It was murder.

A Jury should decide guilt or non-guilt based on the law, not on the morality of the circumstances. So, the Grand Jury probably made the right call. If they (the Jury) had made a decision not based on law, then they would have been no better than a lynch mob.

Likewise, had I been on Zimmerman's jury, I would have found him not-guilty of second-degree murder. But I could easily have found him guilty for something like "Negligent Homicide" or some other lesser charge that actually fit the circumstances.

In the end, guys like Zimmerman and Horn are murderous creeps who got lucky and slipped through the legal loopholes. I don't like it, but I accept it as the price for having a fair judicial system (or at least one that is as fair as possible) that respects the rights of the defendant.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Under Texas Law, what Joe Horn did was probably legally justified. But it was wrong. It was murder.

You know, this word has an actual meaning right? Murder is the illegal killing of a person. Since Horn had a legal justification for killing a person, his actions can not have been murder.

But I could easily have found him guilty for something like "Negligent Homicide" or some other lesser charge that actually fit the circumstances.

Then you would have been acting outside the constraints of the law. The justifiable use of lethal force in self defense applies to all homicide. If you believe that his use of self defense was justified on a murder charge, it also must be justified on all lesser homicides. That is, you either believe that he was justified in the use of lethal force to defend himself and can not move to convict him of any homicide offense or you believe he was not justified in the use of lethal force and he is guilty of Murder.

In the end, guys like Zimmerman and Horn are murderous creeps who got lucky and slipped through the legal loopholes.

Is that your personal code for when a person acts entirely within the scope of the law, but you personally disagree with their actions?

 

[Bill_Shelton]

Is that your personal code for when a person acts entirely within the scope of the law, but you personally disagree with their actions?

Yeah...that is my personal code. You got a problem with it?

 

[silicosys4]

Under Texas Law, what Joe Horn did was probably legally justified. But it was wrong. It was murder.

A Jury should decide guilt or non-guilt based on the law, not on the morality of the circumstances. So, the Grand Jury probably made the right call. If they (the Jury) had made a decision not based on law, then they would have been no better than a lynch mob.

Likewise, had I been on Zimmerman's jury, I would have found him not-guilty of second-degree murder. But I could easily have found him guilty for something like "Negligent Homicide" or some other lesser charge that actually fit the circumstances.

In the end, guys like Zimmerman and Horn are murderous creeps who got lucky and slipped through the legal loopholes. I don't like it, but I accept it as the price for having a fair judicial system (or at least one that is as fair as possible) that respects the rights of the defendant.

I do not have a problem with what Joe Horn did. He did not shoot someone coming down a stairwell while in hiding, or in his garage after luring them in. He went outside onto his own porch, was confronted by two men who then ignored his order to halt, ignored his gun, and charged him with a weapon.
What he did was unwise, but not criminal imo.

I do not feel it is appropriate to label someone a murderer who has specifically been cleared of the charge of murder by a court of law simply because you do not agree with the verdict. The legal term is "slander" and is something you can be taken to court over.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

I do not have a problem with what Joe Horn did. He did not shoot someone coming down a stairwell, or in his garage after luring them in. He went outside onto his own porch, was confronted by two men who then ignored his order to halt, ignored his gun, and charged him with a weapon.
What he did was unwise, but not criminal imo.

I do not feel it is appropriate to label someone a murderer who has specifically been cleared of the charge of murder by a court of law simply because you do not agree with the verdict. The legal term is "slander" and is something you can be taken to court over.

And somehow they get shot in the back despite their "charging"?

And...your warning about slander is laughable.

Again...the conversation once more devolves into "When can I shoot?"

 

[silicosys4]

Apparent you did not read the case files, which seems to be a common theme here....chime in with your opinion without having read the details.

Go back and read post #83, and the link supplied.
Or not.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you "think" happened. The best witness available...a police officer...confirmed his story

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

Yea, you are pretty safe in calling someone a murderer over the internet. It lends no weight to your arguments though.

 

[dmancornell]

I do not have a problem with what Joe Horn did. He did not shoot someone coming down a stairwell while in hiding, or in his garage after luring them in. He went outside onto his own porch, was confronted by two men who then ignored his order to halt, ignored his gun, and charged him with a weapon.
What he did was unwise, but not criminal imo.

No, Horn confronted those two men after announcing his intentions to the dispatcher, ordered the two men to stop while they were on someone else's property (making the order nothing more than a threat), then shot them in the side as they fled.

The detective seems to have a tenuous grasp on geometry:

"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."

One cannot be moving towards someone and angled away from him at the same time.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

Apparent you did not read the case files, which seems to be a common theme here....chime in with your opinion without having read the details.

I didn't miss the part where he shot both men in the back.

 

[silicosys4]

Mr. Horn was attacked and defended himself, and the court determined he did so with an appropriate amount of force.
I'm sorry your arguments carry no weight in a court of law concerning Mr. Horns actions. You are butting your head against an incident that didn't even go to trial because the conditions for self defense were clearly met.

 

[Sam1911]

And somehow they get shot in the back despite their "charging"?

We've gone over, quite a few times, how "shot in the back" doesn't necessarily indicate that someone was fleeing, or had broken off their attack. People twist and do all sorts of strange gyrations during physical altercations involving lethal force and the emotionally-ridden "shot in the back" theme does not adequately inform a complete understanding of the case.

"Shot it the back" sounds awfully damning, but it is grossly misleading and doesn't actually signify anything.

You may have a disagreement with the tactical -- or even moral -- choice to go outside and confront suspected thieves, but please don't fall into the trap of deciding someone else is a murderer based on your admittedly pretty sparse comprehension of the actual events of the case.

The witness, and the grand jury, decided that his actions were reasonable and lawful. Therefore, he is NOT a "murderer," period. If you can't accept that, and accept that there's more to the story than the limited info you've based your conclusions upon, at least please let the matter drop so we don't drag THIS conversation further into the weeds over whether your opinions hold water.

 

[silicosys4]

Again...the conversation once more devolves into "When can I shoot?"

No, it has not. You are simply making wild accusations having no ground to stand on, stating your opinion as fact, and arguing your position poorly.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ClickClickD'oh: Since Horn had a legal justification for killing a person, his actions can not have been murder.

It has not been established that Horn had a legal justification for what he did.

It has not even been established by a jury that reasonable doubt existed regarding criminal guilt.

A Grand Jury decided to return a "no bill". They were not empowered to decide the question of justification. Theirs was to decide whether sufficient evidence existed to support a successful prosecution.

Grand juries come and go. A new one can reconsider a no bill decision of a previous one.

Actually, Horn remains technically at risk of being found guilty until and unless he has been charged, tried and acquitted; a case is brought and dismissed with prejudice; he is pardoned; or he dies.

There is no statute of limitations for murder.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

Mr. Horn was attacked.

Yeah...in his Hysterical Monkey Brain.

I heard the audio of that 9/11 call. I heard the pathetic, self-righteous squealings of Joe Horn as he ignored any advice he recieved from the 9/11 dispatcher and worked himself into a pathetic frenzy.

Yeah...real American hero is this guy.

 

[silicosys4]

Yeah...in his Hysterical Monkey Brain.

I heard the audio of that 9/11 call. I heard the pathetic, self-righteous squealings of Joe Horn as he ignored any advice he recieved from the 9/11 dispatcher and worked himself into a pathetic frenzy.

Yeah...real American hero is this guy.

Your arguments have now dissolved into character attacks and ranting since it appears you cannot bring a reasonable argument to the table.

Your "feeeeeelings", as emphatic and malicious as they are, are irrelevant to the discussion.

This is very childish and undermines any strength of facts your arguments might have....if they have any at all.