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

[Logos]

Mr. Horn is SO in the clear.

He's in Pasadena, Texas.

Pasadena, California.......now that would be different.

I looked at the pictures above.

If those two ugly guys turned toward me.....I would feel not just feel my life was in danger.....I'd probably feel something running down my leg.

Shooting would be a foregone conclusion.

 

[CalamityJane]

If you can't kill a kitten or a puppy, a deer, or a cute little dove, then what makes you think you can kill a human when you need to?

Do you mean if a kitten, puppy, deer, or little dove is posing a threat? Is it just me? I don't understand this statement. I'm sorry, but I don't get what killing innocent animals has to do with whether or not a person can defend self or loved ones?

Do I have the wrong "mind-set" for self and family defense, since I don't want to kill the kitten?

CJ

 

[blutarsky]

sorry if this was covered -- i didn't notice it when i was catching up with the thread and i only just heard about this aspect this evening.

was watching local cbs affiliate earlier (never usually watch them -- i'm sure other stations had similar stories) and they mentioned the following (from their webpage):

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou071204_tnt_pasadenaburglars.69d89aae.html

DPS was watching burglars shot by Horn

Even before their deaths prompted a series of heated debates about the use of deadly force, detectives at the Department of Public Safety had their eye on Diego Ortiz and Miguel Dejesus.

The two were shot and killed by Joe Horn, a Pasadena man who thought they were burglarizing his neighbor’s home last month.

According to a DPS memo obtained by 11 News, the department was investigating the use of Puerto Rican birth certificates by Colombians seeking to obtain Texas driver’s licenses.

Both Ortiz and Dejesus had applied for licenses. Dejesus listed his country of origin as Puerto Rico, but both men were Colombian.

Apparently, the DPS is investigating hundreds of immigrants who may have used illegal papers to get Texas licenses.

But that’s not all.

A much wider probe has been launched into an organized syndicate of Colombians who are engaged in illegal weapons sales and home break-ins – just like the one Ortiz and Dejesus were involved in last month in Pasadena.

That day, Joe Horn and a shotgun stood in the way of the suspected thieves, but in many instances the suspects have gotten away.

The ATF, ICE and DPS have reportedly formed a task force to bring the crime wave to an end.

The burglars are said to be very effective at what they do, conducting extensive surveillance on their targets before striking. Some of the suspects are extremely violent.

The investigations have already led to several arrests.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

So basically the ATF, ICE, and DPS couldn't do what an old man with a shotgun could. Some people need to be shot, and in this case they were. Illegals breaking into houses get no sympathy from me.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

What's ethical about using a crowbar to smash in a window and steal from another person? What's ethical about sneaking into this country illegally (as some posts indicate they, at the very least, falsified documents) and committing crime or draining the system? What's ethical about being caught red handed and then advancing towards the law abiding citizen who caught you?

It's good that some people can take the high road (pun incidental but not unavoidable) and still talk about the ethics of legally shooting down thieves. Let us not forget these words, even if the true source of the quotation is often in question:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

While some can sip tea and discuss the moral obligation of a neighbor, there are some out there with the law on their side and gumption to stand up for the rights of a community.

 

[30 cal slob]

...the benefit of the doubt goes to the victim

which is refreshing in an age where the "mood of the courts" can and often does by default go against the armed citizen.

but, at the end of the day, in my head, while my life is always > some menacing scumbag's life, human life > stupid flat screen t.v. or something like that. there is the law, and then there is individual restraint operating within the confines of that law.

i really think that deep down most armed citizens who have the power of life and death in their hands likely care about the ethical implications of self defense, regardless of what they'll say on the interblab.

again, i'm not preaching to anyone. nothing i say on the interblab is going to change anyone's mind on the subject. i am just thinking out loud, okey doke?

 

[crazed_ss]

Here's another angle to this story I was wondering about.. Does everyone think it was a sound tactical decision for Horn to leave the safety of his own house and confront these guys? Would anyone here actually do what Horn did?

He doesnt know if they're armed or not. He may have the element of suprise, but it is going to be 2 vs 1 if they both have guns. It's possible Horn could have end up getting killed by putting himself in a disadvantageous situation. Even if it was completely legal, I would never go outside and bring the fight to bad guys like that.. You never know what they're packing. I believe Horn put himself into more danger. He put himself into a position where he had to shoot. I dont think this is desirable.

 

[mekender]

Here's another angle to this story I was wondering about.. Does everyone think it was a sound tactical decision for Horn to leave the safety of his own house and confront these guys? Would anyone here actually do what Horn did?

He doesnt know if they're armed or not. He may have the element of suprise, but it is going to be 2 vs 1 if they both have guns. It's possible Horn could have end up getting killed by putting himself in a disadvantageous situation. Even if it was completely legal, I would never go outside and bring the fight to bad guys like that.. You never know what they're packing. I believe Horn put himself into more danger. He put himself into a position where he had to shoot. I dont think this is desirable.

yeah not the smartest move, but i can bet that his defense will be that he saw the guys looking over his house and assumed that they were on their way to break into his house next, so he too preemptive action to prevent that... when he confronted them, they advanced toward him forcing him to defend himself... they entered his property during the commission of a felony... from that defense, he will probably get charged but not convicted

 

[Thumper]

yeah not the smartest move, but i can bet that his defense will be that he saw the guys looking over his house and assumed that they were on their way to break into his house next, so he too preemptive action to prevent that... when he confronted them, they advanced toward him forcing him to defend himself... they entered his property during the commission of a felony... from that defense, he will probably get charged but not convicted

Self defense is not necessary in this case.

Did you read the relevant law before posting?

From Texas' Deadly Force Justification:

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

 

[anygunanywhere]

Do you mean if a kitten, puppy, deer, or little dove is posing a threat? Is it just me? I don't understand this statement. I'm sorry, but I don't get what killing innocent animals has to do with whether or not a person can defend self or loved ones?

Do I have the wrong "mind-set" for self and family defense, since I don't want to kill the kitten?

Goodness gracious. For heaven's sake.

Try to keep up!

I do not go around drowning puppies, or strangling kittens on a whim. A sweet little (tasty) dove is not mind set on killing you.

Mind set.

Mind set to take a human's life.

Irregardless of what animal worshippers say, those sweet little animals are not human, do not possess human qualities, are not in possession of a soul, and are not made in God's image.

I have shot critters. I am a hunter. I will bust a cap on an animal to satisfy a craving for protein.

I have busted a cap on stray dogs that wandered onto my property and were of questionable health and disposition. Skunks too. Cute ones. Possums. Raccoons. What is the difference between a rat and a cute squirrel? A bushy tail!

I have never killed another human.

I have no doubt I can focus on the sight and press the trigger.

Mind set. Think about it real hard. The day arrives when your "dreaded scenario" appears before your eyes. Mr. Horn's did, and I bet he never thought of the scenario he faced that day. If you can not willingly kill a non-human critter without pondering and discussing the morality, ethicity, or immediate legality of the act or cuteness of the critter in the time it takes to bat an eye, how are you going to ventilate a human?

Anygun

 

[41magsnub]

Off topic a little but this crap about animals having or not having souls is just that... crap.

 

[CalamityJane]

If you can not willingly kill a non-human critter without pondering and discussing the morality, ethicity, or immediate legality of the act or cuteness of the critter in the time it takes to bat an eye, how are you going to ventilate a human?

Anygun,
I think you and I have misunderstood one another. I have and will again dispatched coyotes and various other varmit-type animals in order to take care of what's mine and in my care. I do not hunt at present because I prefer beef and chicken to venison, although if the day comes when there are no grocery stores I'll be out there without a qualm trying to put food on our table. If/when a day comes when a human is threatening myself or my loved ones be assured that I can/will do whatever is required to protect our invaluable lives.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

[mekender]

Self defense is not necessary in this case.

i know and i did read the laws governing this area, but im sure that he and his lawyer will claim something very close to what i was saying... it makes it a whole lot easier to justify his actions to a court if it were SD...

i still say good for him

 

[jimbob86]

Someone said it was tacticly unsound to leave the safety of his home and confront two (possibly)armed men........ I seem to recall that was THE definition of valor- the disregard of personal safety to do what must be done.

Three cheers, a No Bill, and a MEDAL, I tell ya.......

 

[Thumper]

i know and i did read the laws governing this area, but im sure that he and his lawyer will claim something very close to what i was saying... it makes it a whole lot easier to justify his actions to a court if it were SD...

I agree.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Self-defense IS going to be necessary in this case. All you folks who keep guaranteeing a no bill based on the protection of third party property statute seem to be forgetting that that statute refers to the preceding sections relating to defense of your own property. And that statute allows the use of deadly force for the protection of property only at night. This incident took place in the middle of the afternoon.

I am in no way castigating Mr. Horn. I think he did a good deed, and from that post about the Columbian connection it appears that he may have been confronting some seriously bad actors. But legally, he is NOT covered by the statute for use of deadly force to protect property. We can only hope that the grand jury decides to overlook that, or that if he goes to trial he gets a sympathetic jury.

On another note:

The quote addresses major crimes, rape, murder. Theft is evil. Thieves who continue to steal almost always work their way to more serious offenses. Take them out before they kill or rape.

How true. The two scumbags who recently perpetrated the home invasion in Connecticut (badly beating a doctor, raping and killing his wife and daughters, then burning the house) were both out on parole because before that incident they had only been involved in "non-violent" offenses -- such as multi-year careers as burglars. The Petit family just happened to be the victims when the scumbags decided to go for the big time.

 

[anygunanywhere]

Sorry I misunderstood you.

Quite allright. I was possibly not clear enough in my post. Gracious of you to say so. I think we are more on the same page than we realized.

Off topic a little but this crap about animals having or not having souls is just that... crap.

If you would like to discuss this via pm I would be happy to do so. Your comment does not really explain much. It really is such....crap.

Anygun

 

[Thumper]

And that statute allows the use of deadly force for the protection of property only at night.

Sorry, you're not quite right.

Though theft at night is specifically mentioned IN ADDITION TO the burglary charge, both are shootable offenses.

See below: Again, pay particular attention to the "or." The or's and and's will always get you on your law tests.

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.

 

[Dallas239]

At the risk of repeating myself and contributing to thread bloat -- I would bet dollars to donuts that if Horn gets true billed, his primary defense will be that he went out to stop the robbery and brought the gun for protection and to project the necessary force. The burglars then turned on him so he shot in self-defense.

If only there was a case on point in Texas....

Oh wait, there is :

"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)


I'm not a lawyer, least of all your lawyer. This is not legal advice.

 

[Thumper]

At the risk of repeating myself and contributing to thread bloat -- I would bet dollars to donuts that if Horn gets true billed, his primary defense will be that he went out to stop the robbery and brought the gun for protection and to project the necessary force. The burglars then turned on him so he shot in self-defense.

You dont have to jeopardize either dollars or donuts ; his lawyer has already gone down this road.

 

[Dallas239]

Bad news for Mr. Horn

http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/120707kvuejoehorn-mm.79fa65e8.html

Some new information released by the Pasadena PD may not be in Mr. Horn's favor:

An autopsy report of the burglars shot by a Pasadena homeowner shows that one of the men was shot in the back sources tell 11 News.

A Pasadena law enforcement official told 11 News that late yesterday; detectives finally got their hands on the preliminary autopsy results. Pasadena police sources also confirmed that a plainclothes officer arrived on the scene just seconds before Joe Horn opened fire, killing the two burglars.

That officer witnessed the shooting Pasadena police confirmed to 11 News.

 

[JohnKSa]

An autopsy report of the burglars shot by a Pasadena homeowner shows that one of the men was shot in the back sources tell 11 News.

This would complicate a claim of self-defense but would have no effect on a claim to be protecting a third party's property.

 

[Dallas239]

This would complicate a claim of self-defense but would have no effect on a claim to be protecting a third party's property.

I agree. We also don't know from that story what the officer saw. That could be good or bad news, but I suspect it will be key.

 

[mekender]

shooting someone in the back does not mean they were fleeing or that the threat from that person was ended... a person that is not facing someone merely has to turn around with a weapon in their hand to kill you... this is in line with all the videos you see of store clerks running outside to shoot at a robber in the parking lot... those guys rarely get charged

 

[22-rimfire]

Interesting case. My only thought is how Horn could call 911 and announce that he is going to shoot the burglars. My understanding is he was still on the phone or the line was open when fired. Doesn't sound like self defense, but it may be protection of another's property. I had my home in Texas burglarized and I often wish I had the opportunity to change the outcome as little effort is made by the PD to prosecute due to the issue of proof.

I have no problem with a law which allows for the protection of property using deadly force if necessary. So, from that standpoint, I hope Horn gets off with a hand slap and we have two illegal Colombians that bit the dust for criminal activity. Justice is served pehaps.