Oh oh; "questionable" shooting in Pasadena, TX....

[Elza]

Double Naught Spy: Basically, crooks know there are risks. They think they can beat the odds and more often than not, they do.

I would pretty much agree with this. Stiff prison sentences (including the death penalty) does nothing to deter crime. It does keep them off of the streets longer (or permanently as the case may be).

I also agree that most of them do beat the odds. This is why some things are worth fighting for if I’m in a position to do so. They get away with it and I never see my property again. And as posted earlier I am disinclined to relinquish certain items.

 

[Dallas239]

Mr. Thumper thumped:
Appeals to Authority aside, I think if you pressed Bart, he'd say this guy ends up walking.

I'm trying hard to find precedent here and I'm having a hard time, even though some folks that should know are assuring me that it's there. Findlaw is letting me down.

It doesn't matter either way.

I'm simply arguing about the letter of the law. 9.42 and 9.43 strike me as remakably plain spoken for statutes. Interpretation is one thing, but there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I believe the penal codes mean exactly what they say.

Would you settle for a really, really old case?

"One who is in lawful possession of property has the right, as against a trespasser to arm himself for his protection, and go to where the trespass is being committed and request such person to leave; and if the trespasser refuses to go, he can insist upon his going and use all reasonable means to compel him to leave, using no more force than is reasonably necessary. And if under such circumstances he is himself attacked he can meet force with force." Vann v. State, 64 S.W. 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1900)

Granted this case is 107 years old, but it is pretty much on point. As I said before, if the guy can convincingly argue that he went outside to threaten them (his statements to the contrary notwithstanding) and they turned on him, I think he gets off. Even with his statements, I think he has a better shot at this argument than straight defense of property, although I think he might win on that, too.

ETA: I'm not condoning his actions, and I probably would have made a different choice. But I am glad that I live in a state where the laws permitting the use of force are broader than my own personal standard, because the alternative would suck.

 

[Jeff White]

Dallas239 said;

These facts are documented in one of Gary Kleck's books along with several other similar events in other cities. It's always risky to draw general conclusions from our own experience.

It's even riskier to take your world view from a researcher with an agenda, just because his research supports your preconceived notions. There is plenty of more recent research that supports the idea that firearms laws are at best neutral on the crime rate. The New York Subway incident. Anecdotal. Criminals look at the risk of getting shot about the same way you and I look at the risk of being killed in a traffic accident. It's in the back of our minds, but it doesn't stop us from driving.

Crime trended down in recent years because the number of males between 14 and 28 declined. It's trending up now, because the number of males between 14 and 28 has increased again. This increase was predicted by criminologists years in advance. If we follow the logic we put (on the pro gun side) out in our own propaganda, crime should still be trending downward, after all there are only two states without some form of concealed carry and firearms ownership is up. But so is the crime rate.

There is a benefit to the individual from firearms ownership, it gives him/her the tool to attempt to successfully defend him/herself. But you are stretching the truth past the breaking point when you try to say there is any benefit to society derived from gun ownership.

Jeff

 

[mek42]

Ok, I have read the whole thread and listened to the 911 tape once.

If this case goes to a jury and the jury gets to hear the 911 tape the poor guy is likely going to be convicted.

Having said that, when I listened to the tape, I heard the guy say "Stop!" in a rather alarmed tone of voice before shooting.

Given what others have posted about current Texas law, it seems to me that this case is clearly in the gray area between what is obviously within the law and vigilantism.

 

[Dallas239]

Jeff White:
It's even riskier to take your world view from a researcher with an agenda, just because his research supports your preconceived notions.

Aren't you the "just the facts" guy? I provided facts. You can either dispute them or not, but pointing out that I read thm in a book with an agenda does not bring the facts themselves into question. You can look in the book yourself and see Kleck's sources. Besides which, it is quite cynical (or maybe uninformed) to refer to Professor Kleck as a researcher with an agenda. A former "true-beliver" in gun control, Kleck was persuaded to "our" side by research and facts.

Crime trended down in recent years because the number of males between 14 and 28 declined. It's trending up now, because the number of males between 14 and 28 has increased again. This increase was predicted by criminologists years in advance. If we follow the logic we put (on the pro gun side) out in our own propaganda, crime should still be trending downward, after all there are only two states without some form of concealed carry and firearms ownership is up. But so is the crime rate.

And who every said that firearm ownership was the only input to crime rates? No one, you're arguing with a strawman. When I studied criminology a decade ago, it was somewhat accepted that the strongest predictor of crime rates was size of birth cohort. But this has abslutely zero relevance to the question of whether firearm ownership has an impact on crime rates (like many other things, such as population below the poverty line, do) or not. It's even less relevant to the question of whether actual publicised defensive shootings (the topic of this thread) have a temporary local effect on crime rates.

There is a benefit to the individual from firearms ownership, it gives him/her the tool to attempt to successfully defend him/herself. But you are stretching the truth past the breaking point when you try to say there is any benefit to society derived from gun ownership.

I assume you can back up your conclusion with facts?

 

[Browning]

Article about Pasadena Texas shooting in NY Sun

In the NY Sun yesterday.

http://www.nysun.com/article/66946?page_no=1

I don't know why people are all up in arms about this guy shooting these two burglars (even other gun owners), there was a time in this country where a thief was a thief and thieves got shot when people caught them.

Those guys took a thief's chances and they lost. Even if he wasn't being threatened right then (I'm not saying that this is what happened as there's no evidence that he shot them just for stealing his neighbors belongings, I'm just playing Devils Advocate) that's what used to happen to people who were criminals. Some people are making WAY too big a deal out of this IMO.

Apparently the people in this thread think that it's okay for people to break into peoples homes.

http://rackjite.com/archives/908-Local-Pasadena,-Texas-Hero-Joe-Horn-Kills-2-Unarmed-Hispanics.html

They're trying to say that he's some kind of "racist" just because the two guys were Hispanic.

 

[Phyphor]

Sucks to be them.

While I don't think it was bright of him to announce his intentions over the phone, those two fools were the ones doing the thieving....and they didn't surrender immediately when approached by someone with a weapon (and obviously intent on using it.)

 

[MechAg94]

I have not read this entire thread. Have any details at all come out other than the 911 call? Do we know if the guys were shot in the chest or in the back? Do we know if they came at him or tried to run?

To me, the 911 tape is not enough to tell anyone what really happened.

 

[Browning]

MechAg94 : Do we know if the guys were shot in the chest or in the back?

Do we know if they came at him or tried to run?

From this article one burglar was shot in the front and one was shot in the side, it doesn't say which one (right or left side).

It will be up to a Texas grand jury to decide whether a man who fatally shot two men he thought were robbing his neighbor's home acted within the state's self-defense laws.

The man, who is in his 70s, shot the two suspected burglars Wednesday afternoon in a quiet subdivision of the Houston suburb of Pasadena. He confronted the men as they were leaving through a gate leading to the front yard of his neighbor's home.

No identities have been released.

Police say that just before the shootings, the man called 911 to say he heard glass breaking and saw two men entering the home through a window.

911: "Pasadena 911. What is your emergency?"

Caller: "Burglars breaking into a house next door."

A police spokesman says the man told the dispatcher that he was going to get his gun and stop the break-in.

Caller: "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"

911: "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

The dispatcher repeatedly urged the man to stay calm and stay in his own home, reports CBS News correspondent Hari Sreenivasan.

911: "I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

Caller: "I understand that, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself."

A Texas law strengthening a citizen's right to self-defense, the so-called "castle doctrine," went into effect on Sept. 1. It gives Texans a stronger legal right to use deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.

The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.

Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.

He shot one suspect in the chest and the other in the side.

Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said a legal expert.

If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role."

 

[mekender]

the guy is mis quoted there, he said "move, your dead!"

and he plainly stated that they came toward him into his yard... all this during the commission of a felony...

 

[yesit'sloaded]

After careful review of the tape here is what I think happened when he stepped outside. Please feel free to comment. (I know this is speculation but I consider it a very accurate one)
Guy steps outside and tells guys to freeze. Instead of stopping they start coming towards him and enter his yard planning him not shooting them and taking his gun and robbing him as well. Turns out they were wrong and he blasts them after a verbal warning to move.

 

[Phyphor]

Like I said sucks to be....er.... to have been them...

 

[mr hanky]

Self Defence does not equal vigilantism.

Why even bother having police, lets disband them and form neighborhood militias like they have in Baghdad.

Why even bother having police? Becuase they are not there to prevent things like this from happening. "We the People" are. Granted, the guys hould have tried a citizens arrest or something similar first before blowing them away but I would rather err on doing something than nothing at all.

 

[Lurp]

My opinions have already been stated a bunch of times already...All I can say is if he's ever in Austin the drinks are on me

 

[Pepper46]

If you do some research, on the web, under the heading of,"police, duty to protect", you will find that the police are under no obligation to protect you or your property, and if they choose not to or fail to do so there is no legal recourse, be it civil or criminal. That being said.
I do believe that the police for the most part have a genuine desire to protect the populace at large.
Police can not be everywhere, and we wouldn't want them to be.
It is times when they can not be there when we need them, that we have a duty to ourselves and the community that we live in to defend ourselves and our property as well as the lives and property of others, since the original propery owners could not seek assistance on their own.
While none of us know all the facts, only what we read here and in the news, it is very difficult to say who is right, and who is wrong, with the exception of the BG's burglarizing the house, and possibly confronting the shooter.
This needs to play out through the system.
I bid good luck to the shooter.

 

[mekender]

the supreme court has ruled that the police cannot be held liable for not protecting you from a crime... in fact, if you call the cops about your house getting broken into, and it takes 45 mins for them to get there, they suffer NO liability at all, you cant eve sue...

ive known a lot of cops, and generally their attitude toward getting a call about a shooting in progress is that they dont get paid enough to be the one getting shot at... sure they will get involved if they have to, but if the lead is flying, they are hiding behind cars and walls just like the next door neighbors...

all this nonsense that you seeing the movies of cops in the streets drawing down on BGs and getting into massive shootouts in broad daylight is BS... it happens rarely, and hardly ever lasts more than a few seconds...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

FWIW, the Dallas Morning News had an article on this shooting that was basically a press release from the man's lawyer. The charge still has not been presented to the grand jury.

I can tell you one thing though... if he has retained a lawyer prior to the grand jury, he is smart; but he is also going to pay a lot of money to protect his neighbor's property.

He is also racking up political issues in addition to his legal issues. Some local "activists" are demanding he be charged and as far as the authorities go, they are in the position of if they don't charge him, they look like they condone marginal shoots. If the citizens of Houston want this man to get a pass, they had better ratchet up the pressure on their elected officials.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

Posted excerpt from the relevant Texas law:
"(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession"

That's exactly what the guy did, right? It was perfectly reasonable for him to believe that immediate force is necessary to recover his property--as of 1996, the rate of convictions per offense of burglary was 10 per 1,000, according to the DOJ. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/cpo.htm
I would argue that the guy was within the law to do what he did, regardless of his comments, although I would wager that he's going to go down for murder anyway.

 

[nalioth]

That's exactly what the guy did, right? It was perfectly reasonable for him to believe that immediate force is necessary to recover his property

It wasn't his property. It was his neighbors property.

 

[lotsunsold]

This guys is in trouble. The primary safety(the one between his ears)was off.

 

[Harold Mayo]

Looks like I won't be trying to get out of jury duty this time around....

 

[precisionshootist]

I just listened to the 911 tape, I never heard him say "I'm gonna kill em" or anything like that prior to going outside.

I only hear him saying to the dispatcher that he is armed and he is not going to let them get away or he is going to stop them. Only when he gos outside do you hear "...your dead" and to me it sounds like he says something before that. when he gets back to the dispatcher he says they came at him and that they were in his yard and he did not have a choice. He also says I did not know what they were going to do.

As far as the "...your dead statedment" maybe he said "stop or halt or you're dead" something to that effect. In that case I don't think the statement was out of line. In fact it may have been a warning but they took a step or two toward him and he fired.

I'm going to listen again

At first I thought this guy is in deep doo doo and this was not a justified shoot but after listening to the whole tape I'm thinking it was clean and likely justified. Myself, I don't think I would have gone outside at all.

Bottom line, I'm willing to bet this neighborhood will experience a sharp decline in burglaries and crime in general.

In the words of Uncle Ted, "I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders"
and there you have it!

 

[precisionshootist]

listened a second time through, he does say "I'm gonna kill em". I don't know how I missed it the first time. That did not sound good but I still think if they really did come into his yard and kept coming toward him it's a clean shoot.
I don't think he had the correct mindset when he went outside but bottom line the two that got killed were criminals in the commision of a crime. While it's not a nice thing and I wish the guy would not have said he was going to kill them this is the correct message that needs to be sent to criminals. It does no good to have Castle laws and such if everyone just calls 911 and waits for the cops to come and fill out a police report. These laws are only effective if some people shoot criminals breaking into homes and use 911 as a clean up call.

 

[mad hungarian]

I have seen a video of the press conference the two theives families held calling for Horn to be brought up on charges of murder. They don't focus on the fact that their loved ones were commiting a felony in broad daylight.
While they say it's wrong that Horn killed their loved ones it is also wrong to break into someone else's home and steal things that aren't yours.

I will support a Joe Horn legal defense fund if one exists and will gladly restock his ammo stash!! The shotgun shells and drinks are on me

The lose of ones loved ones is sad but these two men should have earned a living by working not fleecing anothers property.
While their family grieves they should think about why the two men got caught in this situation that ended with them losing their lives.
THEY WERE CROOKS BREAKING INTO A HOME THAT WAS NOT THEIRS AND TRYING TO MAKE OFF WITH SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY.

It is ridiculous how criminals who are killed or injured in the course of commiting these acts are treated as victims. I do not feel for them and as far as their families are concerned I feel bad that their loved ones cannot see these men for what they are, OOPS what they were THEIVES!!

What's mine is mine and I will defend it with force if need be, I work very hard to provide for my family and possessions that we have are for our use not someone breaking in through a window to help themselves.
Joe Horn can be my neighbor anyday.
There was a flag the colonials had, I am trying to remember what it said because I am not so versed on American history, oh yes I remember now..
DON'T TREAD ON ME

 

[TexicanRadio]

I read that he can be overheard telling the dirtbags: "Move, and your dead."
They moved. I'd "No Bill" him in a heartbeat. He is not
the career criminal (small time or not) They were. He is the lifelong law abiding
citizen now retired and does not deserve to have his life ruined for trying to help and then defending himself from two criminals who probably thought they could rush him since he was elderly. If I were his defense attorney (I am not an attorney) I'd defend him at no charge. TexicanRadio