Old redneck shoots burglars...

[Superman]

Texan kills burglars after vowing to do so in 911 call
Man's case potentially tests self-defense laws

Associated Press
Originally published 07:00 a.m., November 27, 2007
Updated 07:00 a.m., November 27, 2007

HOUSTON — The cha-chick of a shell entering a shotgun's chamber rattled through the 911 line just before Joe Horn stepped out his front door.

Horn, 61, had phoned police when he saw two men break into his neighbor's suburban Houston home through a window in broad daylight. Now they were getting away with a bag of loot.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

He did.

Admirers, including several of his neighbors, say Horn is a hero for killing the burglars, protecting his neighborhood and sending a message to would-be criminals. Critics call him a loose cannon. His attorney says Horn just feared for his life.

Prosecuting Horn could prove difficult in Texas, where few people sympathize with criminals and many have an almost religious belief in the right to self-defense. The case could test the state's self-defense laws, which allow people to use deadly force in certain situations to protect themselves, their property and their neighbors' property.

Horn was home in Pasadena, about 15 miles southeast of Houston, on Nov. 14 when he heard glass breaking, said his attorney, Tom Lambright. He looked out the window and saw 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and 30-year-old Diego Ortiz using a crowbar to break out the rest of the glass.

He grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun and called 911, Lambright said.

"Uh, I've got a shotgun," he told the dispatcher. "Uh, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher responded. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Horn and the dispatcher spoke for several minutes, during which Horn pleaded with the dispatcher to someone to catch the men and vowed not to let them escape. Over and over, the dispatcher told him to stay inside. Horn repeatedly said he couldn't.

When the men crawled back out the window carrying a bag, Horn began to sound increasingly frantic.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

A few seconds passed.

"Move," Horn can be heard saying on the tape. "You're dead."

Boom.

Click.

Boom.

Click.

Boom.

Horn redialed 911 and told the dispatcher what he'd done.

"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."

Lambright said Horn had intended to take a look around when he left his house and instead came face to face with the burglars, standing 10 to 12 feet from him in his yard.

Horn is heavyset and middle-aged and would have been no match in a physical confrontation with the two men, who were young and strong, Lambright said. So when one or both of them "made lunging movements," Horn fired in self-defense, he said.

Family members of the two shooting victims have made few public statements.

Diamond Morgan, Ortiz's widow, who has an 8-month-old son with him, told Houston television station KTRK that she was stunned by Horn's statements on the 911 tape. "It's horrible," she said. "He was so eager, so eager to shoot."

The Associated Press could not find a telephone listing for Morgan.

The case brought back memories of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker whom some hailed as a folk hero after he shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.

Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault charges but convicted of illegal possession of the gun he used to shoot the youths. He served 8½ months in jail and was ordered by a jury to pay $43 million to one of the teenagers he shot.

Pasadena police were still investigating Monday and planned to present their findings to Harris County prosecutors within the next two weeks, police spokesman Vance Mitchell said. From there, it is expected to be presented to a grand jury. In the meantime, Horn remains uncharged.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they could otherwise be killed. In some cases, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbors' property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

At issue is whether it was reasonable for Horn to fear the men and whether his earlier threats on the 911 call showed he planned to kill them no matter what, said Fred C. Moss, who teaches criminal law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

One source

Here's the actual call: Linky

It's hard to feel sorry for people robbing someone's fucking house.

[Superman]

Ah crap. Can a mod fix the link? Or just delete it since it's basically summarizing the second?

[Erik von Nein]

He killed two people robbing someone else's home and you don't feel sorry for these people? What the Hell?

I don't see how this case is anything but murder. Regardless if these people were criminals they weren't threatening this man's life and it's not his place to sentence them to death over robbery.

[Superman]

He killed two people robbing someone else's home and you don't feel sorry for these people? What the Hell?

Why should I feel sorry for people burglarizing someone else's fucking home?

I don't see how this case is anything but murder. Regardless if these people were criminals they weren't threatening this man's life and it's not his place to sentence them to death over robbery.

You could be right. This happened in Texas, so I doubt anything will happen to him at all, but I don't think being a vigilante is acceptable. I heard that he's claiming one came at him with a crowbar, but he was clearly worked up before any of that happened.

[Balrog]

"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."

Lambright said Horn had intended to take a look around when he left his house and instead came face to face with the burglars, standing 10 to 12 feet from him in his yard.

Horn is heavyset and middle-aged and would have been no match in a physical confrontation with the two men, who were young and strong, Lambright said. So when one or both of them "made lunging movements," Horn fired in self-defense, he said.

Sounds like self-defense to me, they were on his yard and made threatening gestures towards him when he came out. My sympathy meter reads zero as well.

[Elaro]

Admirers, including several of his neighbors, say Horn is a hero for killing the burglars, protecting his neighborhood and sending a message to would-be criminals.

HA ha ha hahah hah ahh!

Yeah, because would-be burglars have the means to read about and the sense to take into account bloodlusting old Texan men armed with shotguns.

Riiiight.

So, instead of aiming for the legs and possibly turning two criminals into more useful members of society, he turns them into worm food instead.

Remind me never to step foot in Texas.

[Superman]

So, instead of aiming for the legs and possibly turning two criminals into more useful members of society, he turns them into worm food instead.

Are you joking? In the heat of a situation like that, he's going to aim for the legs? With a shotgun? That's television, not real life.

[Stuart]

[quote="Elaro]So, instead of aiming for the legs and possibly turning two criminals into more useful members of society, he turns them into worm food instead.[/quote]

Two words. Femoral artery.

[Spice Runner]

My sympathy for those two schmucks of robbers is zero. If the man's story is to be believed he was acting in self defense.

[Jadeite]

So, instead of aiming for the legs and possibly turning two criminals into more useful members of society, he turns them into worm food instead.

Remind me never to step foot in Texas.

There is no such thing as "shoot to wound", particularly with a shotgun, and your post essentially shows you have little to no idea of what you're talking about when it comes to firearms and self-defense.

[Superman]

There is no such thing as "shoot to wound", particularly with a shotgun, and your post essentially shows you have little to no idea of what you're talking about when it comes to firearms and self-defense.

You took the words right out of my mouth... or letters off of my keyboard. Wouldn't police be doing this if it were possible?

[Gil Hamilton]

My sympathy for those two schmucks of robbers is zero. If the man's story is to be believed he was acting in self defense.

Except that's not what happened. This is actually kind of an old news and they've played the actually dispatch tape with the police, which has Horn saying that the next doors neighbors house is being robbed and he going to go out and shoot the robbers. He in fact promises to go out and kill them, while the dispatcher specifically tells him to stay in his home and not confront them. Then, immediately upon him going outside he shouts "Don't move! You're dead!" and starts firing.

The fact is that he went out to shoot them, which isn't self-defense. This was vigilantism.

[Superman]

Except that's not what happened. This is actually kind of an old news and they've played the actually dispatch tape with the police, which has Horn saying that the next doors neighbors house is being robbed and he going to go out and shoot the robbers. He in fact promises to go out and kill them, while the dispatcher specifically tells him to stay in his home and not confront them. Then, immediately upon him going outside he shouts "Don't move! You're dead!" and starts firing.

The fact is that he went out to shoot them, which isn't self-defense. This was vigilantism.

He could have just stepped outside to get a better look. This isn't illegal. When they came at him, he acted in self defense.

[Gil Hamilton]

He could have just stepped outside to get a better look. This isn't illegal. When they came at him, he acted in self defense.

Ah, no, the recording they have of the incident clearly has him going out to shoot them. He tells the dispatcher exactly that. He put himself in that position with an intent to kill. That does not make him acting in self-defense, that actually makes him the aggressor. You hear it on the recording.

[Alyrium Denryle]

My sympathy for those two schmucks of robbers is zero. If the man's story is to be believed he was acting in self defense.

Except that's not what happened. This is actually kind of an old news and they've played the actually dispatch tape with the police, which has Horn saying that the next doors neighbors house is being robbed and he going to go out and shoot the robbers. He in fact promises to go out and kill them, while the dispatcher specifically tells him to stay in his home and not confront them. Then, immediately upon him going outside he shouts "Don't move! You're dead!" and starts firing.

The fact is that he went out to shoot them, which isn't self-defense. This was vigilantism.

I would respond by saying he was being a good neighbor and protecting them.

I mean, police cant really prevent a crime from occuring. Chances are they wouldnt even catch the burglers. In other words, on a day to day basis, one cannot really count on the police to protect you and your stuff from other people. Who can you depend on?

This guy's neighbors have him and he seems to do a good job...

[Superman]

Ah, no, the recording they have of the incident clearly has him going out to shoot them. He tells the dispatcher exactly that. He put himself in that position with an intent to kill. That does not make him acting in self-defense, that actually makes him the aggressor. You hear it on the recording.

It seems the DA disagrees, since, so far, they're not bringing him up on charges. If it were as easy as you say, it would be a slam dunk since he talked to the dispatcher for almost the entire time.

And yes, all you can do is hear the recording. If he stepped out to his front yard, causing these two idiots to notice him and come at him, it's still probably going to be ruled as self defense.

[Gil Hamilton]

I would respond by saying he was being a good neighbor and protecting them.

I mean, police cant really prevent a crime from occuring. Chances are they wouldnt even catch the burglers. In other words, on a day to day basis, one cannot really count on the police to protect you and your stuff from other people. Who can you depend on?

This guy's neighbors have him and he seems to do a good job...

He wasn't protecting his neighbor, he was protecting a bag full of his neighbors crap. The neighbors in question weren't home. Weren't you the person in the bear thread selling utilitarianism? What does it say about shooting two people over a bag of stolen goods?

Besides, going by the news stories I saw on television, there actually were police in the neighborhood at the time.

[Superman]

I would respond by saying he was being a good neighbor and protecting them.

One thing people don't always realize is that criminal laws aren't always simple matters of black and white lettering on paper. Judges make, pardon the pun, judgment calls and offer interpretations all the time. Is this man honestly a criminal?

[Superman]

He wasn't protecting his neighbor, he was protecting a bag full of his neighbors crap. The neighbors in question weren't home. Weren't you the person in the bear thread selling utilitarianism? What does it say about shooting two people over a bag of stolen goods?

The reason that no charges are being filed is because it was ruled as self defense. Yes, he could have stayed in his home and just watched (probably avoiding the entire situation), but he didn't. There's no law saying he has to do so. When he went outside, the confrontation took place. This isn't a difficult concept.

I don't believe that people should necessarily be able to kill others over property either, and that's not issue here. This was ruled as self defense.

Besides, going by the news stories I saw on television, there actually were police in the neighborhood at the time.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant.

[Gil Hamilton]

It seems the DA disagrees, since, so far, they're not bringing him up on charges. If it were as easy as you say, it would be a slam dunk since he talked to the dispatcher for almost the entire time.

They haven't charged him yet. The reason, as explained, is that charging him would cause ALOT of problems, because this guy has alot of local support.

And yes, all you can do is hear the recording. If he stepped out to his front yard, causing these two idiots to notice him and come at him, it's still probably going to be ruled as self defense.

He literally says on the tape that he is going outside to kill them. I don't get how you are overlooking that. You don't have to even suppose intent to kill, because the guy in question straight up state his intent to kill.

You are just bending over backwards to make this self-defense but it cannot possibly work that way. They burglars were scumbags to be sure, but there is no way to spin this as self-defense when the have a clear recording of the guy telling the police he's going outside to shoot the burglars, then proceeds to do so. That's cut and dry.

They were thieves, but there no no escaping that this guy commirted a double homocide. If it weren't for the fact that this has become a large political mess, this would be a slam dunk.

[Gil Hamilton]

The reason that no charges are being filed is because it was ruled as self defense. Yes, he could have stayed in his home and just watched (probably avoiding the entire situation), but he didn't. There's no law saying he has to do so. When he went outside, the confrontation took place. This isn't a difficult concept.

How retarded are you? He went outside with the specific intent to commit murder. He state so himself. That's not self-defense. That's aggression on his part.

I don't believe that people should necessarily be able to kill others over property either, and that's not issue here. This was ruled as self defense.

With a political motive, they haven't charged him. Every single lawyer I've seen on television who's talked about this case has stated up front that this was vigilantism. There is no two ways about it, from any realistic standpoint, this guy committed a double homocide, given that he instigated the incident with a lethal weapon and a stated intent to kill.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant.

No, since they most likely would have ended up picking the robbers up had this guy not shot them first.

[Superman]

They haven't charged him yet. The reason, as explained, is that charging him would cause ALOT of problems, because this guy has alot of local support.

And do you have anything other than your conspiracy theory driven imagination to support that?

And yes, all you can do is hear the recording. If he stepped out to his front yard, causing these two idiots to notice him and come at him, it's still probably going to be ruled as self defense.

He literally says on the tape that he is going outside to kill them. I don't get how you are overlooking that. You don't have to even suppose intent to kill, because the guy in question straight up state his intent to kill.[/quote]

Here's what happened. A district attorney looked at the situation and decided that the evidence says he shot these assholes in self defense. His admission of "I'm going to shoot them" doesn't necessarily amount to a plan of murder, especially from a legal standpoint. Look at the bigger picture here. He was nervous and exited, armed himself, and called the police. When the confrontation occurred, he's still protected under the law and has a right to defend himself. It's a matter of who attacked whom first. Who the hell do you think a judge is going to side with in a situation like this?

quote]snip[/quote]

Stop raving and get some evidence to support your rant.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would respond by saying he was being a good neighbor and protecting them.

I mean, police cant really prevent a crime from occuring. Chances are they wouldnt even catch the burglers. In other words, on a day to day basis, one cannot really count on the police to protect you and your stuff from other people. Who can you depend on?

This guy's neighbors have him and he seems to do a good job...

He wasn't protecting his neighbor, he was protecting a bag full of his neighbors crap. The neighbors in question weren't home. Weren't you the person in the bear thread selling utilitarianism? What does it say about shooting two people over a bag of stolen goods?

Besides, going by the news stories I saw on television, there actually were police in the neighborhood at the time.

For one, the ethical system I adopt is far more complex than act utilitarianism. It is a component yes, but not the whole thing.

The issue is a bit more complex than just the action and immediate response as well. The suffering of the the family who gets robbed will be tremendous, so will the immediate suffering of those that got shot same for their families.

But there are spillover effects as well. A successful robbery makes an entire community feel unsafe. They will fear for their lives and property. This is suffering as sure as anyone else's. Someone who burglarizes a home is likely to do so again. So this suffering will be compounded each and every time they rob a house. There is a risk each and every time they enter a home that they will be forced to harm one of the residents. I could go on. The point is a strict utilitarian calculus is not as conclusive as you might think. There are other considerations which must be taken into account as well.

[Superman]

How retarded are you? He went outside with the specific intent to commit murder. He state so himself. That's not self-defense. That's aggression on his part.

Look dumb ass, legally, that's not the same as an intent to commit murder. You seem to think that this is a black and white issue, and it's not. A judge or DA would look at the entire situation as a basis of a ruling. Again, the circumstance was a crazed old redneck guy watching a crime taking place. His threats toward them on the phone, most likely, aren't going to be viewed as an admission of a plan of murder. And they weren't. Go figure.

With a political motive, they haven't charged him. Every single lawyer I've seen on television who's talked about this case has stated up front that this was vigilantism. There is no two ways about it, from any realistic standpoint, this guy committed a double homocide, given that he instigated the incident with a lethal weapon and a stated intent to kill.

So? Some lawyers also think that people should be awarded millions of dollars from restaurants because coffee is served hot. And yes, this is a homicide. The term in itself is neutral. The issue is whether it's a criminal or non criminal homicide, and it seems that the DA doesn't agree with you.

[mingo]

Years ago I served in a reserve unit with a Master Chief Petty Officer who's civilian job was at the last chance juvenile facility here in Michigan. He told the story of one of his charges, one he thought had a chance. As he told the story though, the kid went back to hanging with the wrong crowd, and they took a road trip, up to Fremont Michigan, home of Gerber baby food and 18 miles from my home town. The Jr hoods decide to rob a video store there in town. The owner of the video store blew the Master Chief's former prisoner's guts all over a Lethal Weapon poster. Then Master Chief told me "So I tell my boys, don't go up there, those people don't think you have a right to live" . I told him "Master Chief, I'm from there, and you're exactly right, that's how we feel"

When we called the police, it was to write the report on whatever it was that had already happened. The cops were at least 45 mins away from my house on a good day. The first response to trouble wasn't call the police, it was get the gun. If you steal from me, you deserve what you get. I don't give a shit about the "socio-economic factors" that make you want to steal.