Man Charged With Murder In Home Shooting Case

[ClickClickD'oh]

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

Only in that it has no legal weight in the State of Texas and is therefore completely and totally irrelevant in a discussion about legal matters in the State of Texas.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

A Grand Jury decided to return a "no bill". They were not empowered to decide the question of justification.

You are of course technically correct, which is in the end the best sort of being correct.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

Only in that it has no legal weight in the State of Texas and is therefore completely and totally irrelevant in a discussion about legal matters in the State of Texas.

Hey...I'm against shoot someone if ya' don't have to....and Joe didn't have to shoot anyone that day.

 

[silicosys4]

Joe didn't have to shoot anyone that day.

And that is your opinion. It is certainly worth noting that it was not shared by the Texas justice system, an entity that was privy to the details of the case and bases their judgement more on fact than.....opinion.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's keep this civil and on topic.

Regarding Horn, the only other surviving eye-witness gave a statement that Horn had reason to believe that he was threatened.

Because of Horn's comments about the law in the 911 call, many people have assumed and stated that the case revolved around Texas law pertaining to the defense of tangible, moveable property at night. It has been responsibly reported, however, that Horn's attorney planned to present a defense on the basis of defense of person, and that one of the prerequisites for a defense of property justification, evidence of a request from the neighbor to defend the property (the requirement for which Horn was apparently completely unaware), was lacking.

The witness's statement was critical to the result. Had the case been sent to trial, that statement and Horn's testimony would have formed the basis for his defense. Had he been tried and acquitted, we could say that the system had found his action justified. But that did not happen, and the question remains open. Of course, the outcome might not have been to Horn's liking.

We understand that Horn believes that he ended up much worse off after having undertaken actions that, according to the 911 call, were based on a flawed interpretation of the law.

It could have been worse, however. His having left his house with a gun could have defeated his self defense claim in trial court. Or he might have been overcome and killed or injured.

The Montana case bears little similarity to that case.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I don't know how the Horn case was brought up, again. It doesn't really add much value to this discussion. There were a few ridiculous comments though. Joe Horn is a free man for a reason. Call him what you like, but he's not a "murderer".

 

[Frank Ettin]

And this thread was not about Joe Horn. His case has been discussed before and is old news.

Let's stay on topic.

 

[larryh1108]

I do think we can have a civil discussion on when it's "right" to use deadly force in a home burglary. Given, Texas has their own, separate law for property protection and should be discussed in a different conversation. However, the discussion of home burglary would still apply. We also know that every state has their own interpretation but I feel that the use of deadly force for fear of one's life would hold up in any state.

So, the discussion seems to be around if someone is in your home and you are present, whether you were there all along or walked in, can you use deadly force for that reason alone?

IMO, once you determine that the person is there for reason of theft or vandalism and is not there "on accident" then you have every right to fear for your life even if there is no weapon present or visible.

You don't know who this person is. You don't know if they have a hidden weapon, you don't know if there are more outside standing watch. You don't know if they will suddenly grab something close by and use it as a weapon. You don't know their hand-to-hand skills in overcoming you or disarming you. If you think it's like in the movies where someone freezes because you yell "freeze" then you are gullible.

If there is a stranger in my home who is not a neighbor stumbling around asking where the toilet is or someone you know, you have the right to shoot them then and there unless they turn to leave upon seeing you.

I'm sure there are many noble people here who want to rehabilitate the criminal versus shooting them where they stand. You don't know who you are dealing with and what they are capable of. If they have two strikes against them, this could put them away for a long time. They may have killed someone 20 minutes before and now feel they have nothing more to lose. They may be caught by surprise and snap. Read up on the recent triple murder in CT if you don't think this can happen. You don't know and I will not feel sorry for any home invader who is shot while applying his craft. 14, 15 and 16 year old gang banger (any race, they all have gangs) wannabes are the scariest. The older members school them on how they'll go to kiddie court and get off in a few years with a badge of honor. I'd fear a 16 year old over someone with grey hair every day.

Keep in mind this isn't the same as baiting someone into a trap. That is murder, not self defense.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't see where the issue of "ambushing" comes into play. There are no charges with it. Markus Kaarma simply used lethal force outside of a situation where lethal force was not legal. There was no forcible entry and no known threat to justify lethal force.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

I don't see where the issue of "ambushing" comes into play. There are no charges with it. Markus Kaarma simply used lethal force outside of a situation where lethal force was not legal. There was no forcible entry and no known threat to justify lethal force.

The prosecution will probably use the fact that Karma Baited and Ambushed the kid in order to prove Pre-Meditated Murder.

 

[BigBL87]

I do think we can have a civil discussion on when it's "right" to use deadly force in a home burglary. Given, Texas has their own, separate law for property protection and should be discussed in a different conversation. However, the discussion of home burglary would still apply. We also know that every state has their own interpretation but I feel that the use of deadly force for fear of one's life would hold up in any state.

So, the discussion seems to be around if someone is in your home and you are present, whether you were there all along or walked in, can you use deadly force for that reason alone?

IMO, once you determine that the person is there for reason of theft or vandalism and is not there "on accident" then you have every right to fear for your life even if there is no weapon present or visible.

You don't know who this person is. You don't know if they have a hidden weapon, you don't know if there are more outside standing watch. You don't know if they will suddenly grab something close by and use it as a weapon. You don't know their hand-to-hand skills in overcoming you or disarming you. If you think it's like in the movies where someone freezes because you yell "freeze" then you are gullible.

If there is a stranger in my home who is not a neighbor stumbling around asking where the toilet is or someone you know, you have the right to shoot them then and there unless they turn to leave upon seeing you.

I'm sure there are many noble people here who want to rehabilitate the criminal versus shooting them where they stand. You don't know who you are dealing with and what they are capable of. If they have two strikes against them, this could put them away for a long time. They may have killed someone 20 minutes before and now feel they have nothing more to lose. They may be caught by surprise and snap. Read up on the recent triple murder in CT if you don't think this can happen. You don't know and I will not feel sorry for any home invader who is shot while applying his craft. 14, 15 and 16 year old gang banger (any race, they all have gangs) wannabes are the scariest. The older members school them on how they'll go to kiddie court and get off in a few years with a badge of honor. I'd fear a 16 year old over someone with grey hair every day.

Keep in mind this isn't the same as baiting someone into a trap. That is murder, not self defense.

I work in a juvenile detention home, and what you said is dead on and I'm not even in an urban area. I've seen a 17 year old kid who committed armed robbery get 18 months... and complain it was excessive.

Working in corrections was a catalyst to firearm ownership for me personally.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Larryh1108: If there is a stranger in my home who is not a neighbor stumbling around asking where the toilet is or someone you know, you have the right to shoot them then and there unless they turn to leave upon seeing you.

Do you really think so? Even without your having a basis for reasonably believing that he would otherwise attempt to commit arson or a violent crime? Even though he is already inside, and your use of deadly force would not serve to prevent the person from forcibly entering your home? In Connecticut?

Yo need to amplify that, or rethink it.

 

[larryh1108]

Even though he is already inside, and your use of deadly force would not serve to prevent the person from forcibly entering your home?

That's the point. He is already in the home. That fact right there is enough to cause fear of life for the reasons mentioned above. He is not there to make the bed. His intentions are not to do good. Adding a human being to his equation changes everything and you have no idea what his contingency plan is nor are you obligated to have him play his hand.

Even without your having a basis for reasonably believing that he would otherwise attempt to commit arson or a violent crime?

Seriously, what more does he need to do to convince you he is there to commit a felony that could possibly put your life in danger? His mere presence is enough to convince me that I have to protect myself or my family from harm. At that point his intentions aren't my concern. My concern is to stop him in his tracks, period.

your use of deadly force would not serve to prevent the person from forcibly entering your home?

Nope, it would prevent him from taking the next step, knowing there are people in the house with him. If he turns to flee, he saves his life. He can surrender but I don't see that playing out very well. Any other move will cause him to regret picking that house.

I really don't know what some people expect a homeowner to do once he recognizes a real threat is in his house. Once he sees you he has 3 options.... turn and flee, raise his hands and surrender or try to overcome the person in his way. His surrender could be a ploy to get you to lose your focus. You'd have to keep a good distance between you and the criminal to trust a surrender. He can turn to leave any time he wishes. He will not get shot in the back as he flees. However, if he takes too long to decide, he may not like the reply.

 

[Kleanbore]

Seriously, what more does he need to do to convince you he is there to commit a felony that could possibly put your life in danger? His mere presence is enough to convince me that I have to protect myself or my family from harm. At that point his intentions aren't my concern. My concern is to stop him in his tracks, period.

Larry, the laws in some jurisdictions might support your contention. My post was based on Connecticut law. Does case law provide for the presumption on which you are basing your ideas?

But this is off topic--it has nothing to do with the shooting of a man who entered an open garage in Montana for reasons that have yet to be established.

Do some research about your own jurisdiction, and either open a new thread or communicate by PM.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The prosecution will probably use the fact that Karma Baited and Ambushed the kid in order to prove Pre-Meditated Murder.

Sure, but baiting and ambushing isn't illegal per se. Cops use the technique frequently. The difference is, the cops don't shoot you outright when you take the bait.

LOTS of folks have used ambush tactics for self defense. It can be very effective. They hear a break-in, hide in the house, and wait. If the intruder gets close, they defend themselves.

Ambushing, in and of itself, is not a bad thing or illegal, but this was implied by the OP.

 

[Sam1911]

I think an important distinction is to be made between "ambushing" to get/let someone into your kill zone so you can shoot them, on the one hand, and barricading yourself for cover and concealment to try to PREVENT someone getting so close to you that you HAVE to kill them.

Yes we talk up the idea of pinch points and good cover, but that's to decrease the chance you'll have to use lethal force. Not to give you THE CHANCE to.

 

[MedWheeler]

Bill Shelton, keep in mind that juries are given specific instructions regarding how the law applies to their case before they go into deliberations. Any deviation from the limits of the law in their vote, especially if it results in a conviction, makes for an easy overturn of such a conviction. Emotion and personal interpretations of the law, while common with some judges, are not appropriate among juries for that reason.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Double Naught Spy: Sure, but baiting and ambushing isn't illegal per se.

Are you suggesting that evidence of the homeowner's having done so would not be relevant as an indication of sate of mind and as an argument against immediate necessity for the lawful use of force?

LOTS of folks have used ambush tactics for self defense. It can be very effective. They hear a break-in, hide in the house, and wait. If the intruder gets close, they defend themselves.

Sam addressed that one. Lawful defenders do not ambush people, indoors our out.

The term "ambush" applies to a strategy of attacking.

 

[JRWhit]

This seems pretty clean cut. To arbitrarily hand out a punishment of death for burglary is excessive and not supported by law. The only justifiable means of lethal force is to prevent forcible felony. There is no justification for lethal force in this case and however harsh it may sound, this man is a murderer.
If a person is subject to repeated break ins must take measures to protect their property by means of fortification and of witness. If an intruder is caught inside a home they may be forcibly removed if able. You can try to hold them at gun point but if they get up and leave, you must let them go.
If you believe otherwise then take note of the descending arguments here as it may well reflect your jury.
What was done here was revenge. Motive, intent, premeditation, all the stuff we see on CSI right

 

[GBExpat]

Another twisted homeowner who thinks it OK to arrange to surprise a burglar for the purpose of killing him. How very sad.

 

[buck460XVR]

You cannot set a trap, bait it, kill someone and then call it self defense.

^^^ exactly.

How anyone could try, even in the most remotely of ways, to justify what the shooter did in this thread is clearly a sign that there really are folks out there that should not have guns. This had nuttin' to do with protecting property, the shooter intentionally put his property at risk in order to bait someone...anyone, so he could shoot them. The conversations he had before the shooting clearly show us that. The monitors he placed over the bait clearly showed the two kids that entered his garage. That in itself was enough to have the kids arrested and taken off the street. The shooter was safe in the protection of his living room and had no reason to confront the kids as the only thing for them to steal was the bait planted. Add to this, the fact the kids tried to flee and the shooter shot two separate volleys of two shots each from his gun is clear evidence that the shooter was not in fear for his life, but using revenge as a motivation to kill someone.....anyone. Trying to justify this shooting, is doing exactly what antis continuously warn about when it comes to using firearms for SD/HD. While we have the right to protect ourselves, we are not the police, nor the judge, nor the jury, nor the executioner.

 

[58limited]

^^^ This.

 

[Kleanbore]

What More Is There To Be Said?

I think we have concluded without any substantive dissent that, based on the news reports, the shooter in this case acted very wrongly. One would expect the wheels of justice to deal with him, but that does not always happen.

I suggest that we refrain from both repetitive and off-topic comments, and limit ourselves to posting reports of new developments as they unfold.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Are you suggesting that evidence of the homeowner's having done so would not be relevant as an indication of sate of mind and as an argument against immediate necessity for the lawful use of force?

No, I am suggesting that it wasn't the ambushing that made the use of lethal force illegal and that is the charge with which the homeowner is faced. The issue at hand really isn't that the burglar was ambushed, but that the homeowner used lethal force in a situation where lethal force was not legal to be used.

Sure, it will get used as part of state of mind. Everything the guy did will get used. No doubt the prosecution will scrutinize everything from the make and model of the shotgun and ammo to the shoes the guy was wearing at the time of the shooting. It will ALL come into play.

Had the homeowner heard a noise in his open garage and just started blasting away as he did, he would be in the same trouble if he killed the intruder. He would have illegally used lethal force.

Not by a long shot. You are staying in a position from which you can defend yourself, should it become necessary.

Which certainly can be in the form of ambushing. So it isn't ambushing that is the critical problem per se.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

here's a court document with a police report: http://www.krtv.com/files/kaarmshooting.pdf

Seems like Kaarma went so far as to block the kids exit from the garage and then claimed he was in fear he would be hurt if the kid exited the garage. Then...he blasted the kid.

We got us a Real American Hero here.