Joe Horn?
 

Ok, so I got on here hoping to find a thread about the Joe Horn news story, but alas there wasn't one. I really wanted to get some dialog going on this story. (Link: here)

There seems to be some discrepancy as far as whether he was within his rights to protect his neighbors property to that extent or if it was "undue force", and also if it was a matter of self-defense.

Although he put himself in a position where he would have to defend himself by attempting to defend his neighbor's property, I'm wondering if they can use that against him as he didn't invite or voluntary consent to having force used against him. Also, does anyone know if the 911 dispatcher has any jurisdiction? (ex: Could he be charged w/ failing to comply w/ a direct order?) I would really recommend listening to the entire 911 call as it puts it into perspective. Opinions?

Cliff notes on story: 61 year old TX resident witnesses 2 burglars breaking into his neighbor's house, and calls 911. The dispatcher tells him to remain inside, but the police have not arrived by the time the burglars are climbing back out of the house, so he goes outside to stop them and ends up killing them.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

This is unequivocally murder, and he should go to prison. Any self-defense claim is complete [censored]. He was safe at home already. No one was burglarizing his house.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am so moving to Texas

Re: Joe Horn?
 

Did you listen to the part of the recording after he shot them?

Re: Joe Horn?
 

Nah, can't listen at work :\

Re: Joe Horn?
 

"Minutes before he shot and killed two burglary suspects, a Pasadena man ignored repeated orders from a police dispatcher not to go outside with a shotgun.

On a 911 tape released Thursday, a dispatcher is heard asking Joe Horn to stay inside his home until police arrived. But Horn, who had called police about 2 p.m. Wednesday to report that he witnessed two men break into a neighbor's home, told the dispatcher he planned to "kill" the suspects.

"I'm not going to let them get away with it," said Horn, who reported being inside his home in the 7400 block of Timberline looking out a window. "I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."

For approximately six minutes, the Pasadena police operator told Horn to remain in his home and repeatedly discouraged the 61-year-old man from taking his gun outside."

-------

Sounds like murder to me.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

I will pay all moving expenses and 1 years rent to move this guy next door to me.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

I wish he had of just told them to get on the ground first before he fired. He made a mistake by not giving them a chance to comply.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

Yeah, I don't know... They were shot in his yard, less than 15 feet from him. I doubt he had much time for civilities.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't know... They were shot in his yard, less than 15 feet from him. I doubt he had much time for civilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were these guys even armed? It doesn't mention it in the article, which makes me think not.

That really makes the "it all happened so fast" excuse kind of disingenuous. Of course it happened fast, because he ambushed these guys and gunned them down without trying to arrest them or giving them a chance to surrender or flee.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

listen to the end of the entire recording, there is a longer time between when he puts down the phone untill he shoots. Its not alot longer but it is a bit more time than it souds like at first.

he goes outside recocks the gun so they hear it, they say something to him, hes says "you move your dead", then obv they moved. BANG BANG.

After that he calls back he says they came into his yard. And before going outside he says he cant see which way they are going. So if he went outside and they were coming up to his house then what should he assume?

OBV. he had already stated his intent to use deadly force. And again he might have shot too fast but if they were coming into his yard and the move they made looked like drawing a weapon, he should fire .

Re: Joe Horn?
 

The guy who wrote the bill that Horn apparently thought gave him the right to go shoot unarmed people on his neighbor's property says it doesn't apply to a neighbor's property:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...=mostpop_story

"Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

Re: Joe Horn?
 

Meh, if you don't want to get shot don't do B&E's.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
he goes outside recocks the gun so they hear it, they say something to him, hes says "you move your dead", then obv they moved. BANG BANG.

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to threaten deadly force on his neighbor's property, and the guy who wrote the Texas law (see post above) never intended the law to function like that.

Just because Horn says "you move, your dead" and the guys move anyway doesn't give Horn carte blanche to fire away.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't know... They were shot in his yard, less than 15 feet from him. I doubt he had much time for civilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were these guys even armed?

[/ QUOTE ]

They had a crowbar, which was used to break into the house. They were otherwise unarmed, at least according to published reports.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because the guy says "you move, your dead" and the guys move anyway doesn't give Horn carte blanche to fire away.


[/ QUOTE ]

/agree ... does it matter to you if they were in his yard at that point as he states on the later 911 call?

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
listen to the end of the entire recording, there is a longer time between when he puts down the phone untill he shoots. Its not alot longer but it is a bit more time than it souds like at first.

he goes outside recocks the gun so they hear it, they say something to him, hes says "you move your dead", then obv they moved. BANG BANG.

After that he calls back he says they came into his yard. And before going outside he says he cant see which way they are going. So if he went outside and they were coming up to his house then what should he assume?

OBV. he had already stated his intent to use deadly force. And again he might have shot too fast but if they were coming into his yard and the move they made looked like drawing a weapon, he should fire .

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this really matters. There are three reasons it can be OK to shoot someone:
1) In TX, because someone is committing one of the crimes mentioned in the statute. Even if they were trespassing, they weren't burglarizing his house. No good.
2) Second, self-defense. For this to work, he has to reasonably fear that someone's going to use deadly force against him. Unarmed men + only his testimony = fail. Also, by leaving his house and menacing people with a shotgun, he may lose the right to use deadly force at all.
3) Citizen's arrest. I really don't know much about this, but maybe under TX law he's entitled to use deadly force to effectuate a citizen's arrest. Doesn't matter though, because he never told them they were under arrest, as far as I can tell.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

OP, you suck at thread titles. Who else assumed it was NFL wide receiver Joe Horn?

Interesting topic nonetheless.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
/agree ... does it matter to you if they were in his yard at that point as he states on the later 911 call?

[/ QUOTE ]

These guys were apparently unarmed. If some unarmed people are trespassing on this guy's property, does he have the right to shoot them? I sure hope not, but I suppose I'll plead ignorant to Texas state law on this one.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/agree ... does it matter to you if they were in his yard at that point as he states on the later 911 call?

[/ QUOTE ]

These guys were apparently unarmed. If some unarmed people are trespassing on this guy's property, does he have the right to shoot them? I sure hope not, but I suppose I'll plead ignorant to Texas state law on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

law =/= right

I don't have a huge deal of sympathy for people breaking and entering however I don’t think that it's moral to kill at zero range people who are ostensibly unarmed. The mentality of someone who goes out of his way to look for someone to shoot (not that that necessarily happened in this case) is a very very disturbing one.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
law =/= right

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was. Since we're talking about the facts of the case, what the guy is allowed to do in the state of Texas to stop a crime, etc., then state law is relevant. I'm not saying "zomg the state law says X, therefore he is morally bound to X".

Do you guys have to ACtard up every thread?

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
These guys were apparently unarmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

after the fact this may be apparent.

But if I point a gun at a robber and say "you move your dead" and he does anything but put his hands straight up in the air. /end robber

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
law =/= right

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was. Since we're talking about the facts of the case, what the guy is allowed to do in the state of Texas to stop a crime, etc., then state law is relevant. I'm not saying "zomg the state law says X, therefore he is morally bound to X".

Do you guys have to ACtard up every thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

So pointing out that law != morality is ACtarding? You yourself imply that you understand law != morality in this very post, does that mean you are ACtarding?

Re: Joe Horn?
 

I'm guessing when this is all said and done he'll regret shooting those guys and will actually wish he'd have just ignored the whole situation to begin with and let them go on their merry way. When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

I say: "Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to threaten deadly force on his neighbor's property, and the guy who wrote the Texas law (see post above) never intended the law to function like that.

Just because Horn says "you move, your dead" and the guys move anyway doesn't give Horn carte blanche to fire away."

neblis says: "but what if the guys were on his property, does that matter?"

I say: "I don't know Texas state law"

tomdemaine says: "law != right"

This is total ACtarding. Yeah, I get it tom, law != right; when I note that Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction and authority to threaten deadly force, it's pretty clear I'm doing so in the context of what the law allows. tom just wanted to ACtard up the thread by making a point I never disagreed with ('law != right') in the hopes someone would take the bait and start engaging him in the ACtard argument he desperately wanted to have, ie., pretty much a repeat of the entire history of this forum for about the last 2 years.

Cue the "zomg ACists just want to talk about the 'interesting' philosophy behind this, some of us don't care what the law is, stop being soooooo mean" whines from the AC crowd and their associated sycophants.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute... Since when do the people get their authority from the Govt? It's my understanding that since the people created the Govt, then the Govt gets it's authority from the people. Not vice versa.

/hijack

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

White guy shoots a couple of Hispanics who were engaging in a nefarious activity in Tom DeLay country.

Something tells me this he's got a good chance of finding a sympathetic jury if he gets charged with something. If the DA decided to charge the guy with anything, I'd wager it's something less than murder (despite the fact it sounded rather premeditated and malicious), because I doubt there's any real hope for getting Horn convicted of murder. So I really don't think the government is going to come down on hard on him, if at all.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

White guy shoots a couple of Hispanics who were engaging in a nefarious activity in Tom DeLay country.

Something tells me this he's got a good chance of finding a sympathetic jury if he gets charged with something. If the DA decided to charge the guy with anything, I'd wager it's something less than murder (despite the fact it sounded rather premeditated and malicious), because I doubt there's any real hope for getting Horn convicted of murder. So I really don't think the government is going to come down on hard on him, if at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll see what happens but I disagree. Don't know all the facts of the case yet though and we'll see what happens at a trial. Might be a good time to revisit this case and see what's presented at the trial.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute... Since when do the people get their authority from the Govt? It's my understanding that since the people created the Govt, then the Govt gets it's authority from the people. Not vice versa.

/hijack

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he thought he had authority from the government to shoot these guys.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently he thought he had authority from the government to shoot these guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, this is going to be a key point if this guy every gets charged and it goes to trial.

Horn's defense attorney will attempt to paint him as a good-Samaritan who was confused about the law, was scared/emotional, feared for his own safety, and made a completely understandable decision 'real' Americans can empathize with, even if it crossed a line.

I'm sure the prosecution will do just the opposite -- attempt to paint Horn as a wild-eyed vigilante who informed the dispatcher of his intent to kill the guys (rather than just try to deter them from robbing the house) and had multiple opportunities to reconsider his actions -- to contradict the defense's claim it was just a "heat of the moment" decision.

I suspect it will depend on whether or not the jury believes this guy was just a confused old man who behaved righteously and perhaps even had am ambiguous law on his side, or if they think he was a hothead cowboy with a gun looking for a reason to shoot some petty criminals who didn't deserve it and posed no physical threat to him.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OP, you suck at thread titles. Who else assumed it was NFL wide receiver Joe Horn?

[/ QUOTE ]
This aggravated me very much.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say: "Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to threaten deadly force on his neighbor's property, and the guy who wrote the Texas law (see post above) never intended the law to function like that.

Just because Horn says "you move, your dead" and the guys move anyway doesn't give Horn carte blanche to fire away."

neblis says: "but what if the guys were on his property, does that matter?"

I say: "I don't know Texas state law"

tomdemaine says: "law != right"

This is total ACtarding. Yeah, I get it tom, law != right; when I note that Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction and authority to threaten deadly force, it's pretty clear I'm doing so in the context of what the law allows. tom just wanted to ACtard up the thread by making a point I never disagreed with ('law != right') in the hopes someone would take the bait and start engaging him in the ACtard argument he desperately wanted to have, ie., pretty much a repeat of the entire history of this forum for about the last 2 years.

Cue the "zomg ACists just want to talk about the 'interesting' philosophy behind this, some of us don't care what the law is, stop being soooooo mean" whines from the AC crowd and their associated sycophants.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, this is going to be a key point if this guy every gets charged and it goes to trial. ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah it might not go to a criminal trial. Even if it doesn't it may go court in a civil trial though. I think this one will have a criminal trial. If Horn cops a plea it would seem that it would hurt him in a civil case. Horn may be "judgement proof" though, don't know. If they decide not to charge him I'd really like to understand why but I'll probably concede that I was way wrong (they could have had guns or knives that we don't know about).

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who else assumed it was NFL wide receiver Joe Horn

[/ QUOTE ]

<raises hand> [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who else assumed it was NFL wide receiver Joe Horn

[/ QUOTE ]

<raises hand> [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My first thought was Joe Horn supports Ron Paul for president?

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who else assumed it was NFL wide receiver Joe Horn

[/ QUOTE ]

<raises hand> [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My first thought was Joe Horn supports Ron Paul for president?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would sure hope so. lol.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
listen to the end of the entire recording, there is a longer time between when he puts down the phone untill he shoots. Its not alot longer but it is a bit more time than it souds like at first.

he goes outside recocks the gun so they hear it, they say something to him, hes says "you move your dead", then obv they moved. BANG BANG.

After that he calls back he says they came into his yard. And before going outside he says he cant see which way they are going. So if he went outside and they were coming up to his house then what should he assume?

OBV. he had already stated his intent to use deadly force. And again he might have shot too fast but if they were coming into his yard and the move they made looked like drawing a weapon, he should fire .

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this really matters. There are three reasons it can be OK to shoot someone:
1) In TX, because someone is committing one of the crimes mentioned in the statute. Even if they were trespassing, they weren't burglarizing his house. No good.
2) Second, self-defense. For this to work, he has to reasonably fear that someone's going to use deadly force against him. Unarmed men + only his testimony = fail. Also, by leaving his house and menacing people with a shotgun, he may lose the right to use deadly force at all.
3) Citizen's arrest. I really don't know much about this, but maybe under TX law he's entitled to use deadly force to effectuate a citizen's arrest. Doesn't matter though, because he never told them they were under arrest, as far as I can tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, there are clearly more situations than this that it is ok to kill someone. If I see someone trying to kill someone else, I'm pretty sure I can use force to stop them. What if I see someone raping someone? Am I allowed to use force to stop them?

Now, just to preempt the analogyphobes, I'm not saying rape or murder = home invasion. I'm merely pointing out that protecting people from being victimized is also a legitimate reason to use force. This may or may not (and I'm sure LEGALLY it does not) apply to protecting someones property from being victimized, but this is much different than vigilante justice.

Maybe this is what you meant by citizens arrest, I'm not sure.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now, just to preempt the analogyphobes, I'm not saying rape or murder = home invasion. I'm merely pointing out that protecting people from being victimized is also a legitimate reason to use force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting someone (I think) necessarily = using force
Using force != shooting someone

Right?

There's "using force" to stop your neighbor's house from being robbed, and then there "taking your shotgun and blowing the guys away who are robbing your neighbor's house". I think there's probably some distance in between these two options, and I think Horn's utilizing of the extreme end of the force spectrum is probably what most people object to. Had he went over there just to threaten the guys with his gun (in other words, "using force to protecting people from being victimized") instead of opening firing on unarmed guys, this probably isn't a notable story.

That the guy was ostensibly doing something "nice" and "admirable" by "protect his neighbors from being victimized" doesn't give him license to use the most extreme and irreversible measures of force to do it.

I agree, it's probably legitimate for people to "use force to protect their neighbors property", but that's just a vague euphemism for what occurred here, hence why you rightly recognized you should be wary of using analogies here. There's a reason why people should be hesitant to rely too heavily on analogies and it's because they often obscure vital elements necessary to cast a prudent judgment. Yes, Horn "used force", true enough -- it was a specific kind of deadly force that (in light of the fact the guys were unarmed and not threatening Horn himself) was completely unnecessary. We can claim "well, maybe he didn't know the guys were unarmed", but he'd still be guilty of some kind of gross negligence or yes, even murder, for making a mistake like that. I don't think reasonable people operate under the "shoot first, ask questions later" principle.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

I don't know what the technical legal mumbo jumbo is on this case. I'm not a lawyer and only know what's relayed in that article, so I won't claim a strong opinion. Professionals who know all the facts and are good at dealing with this stuff should sort it out.

But I do know that if I walked down the street and saw this guy, I wouldn't think of him as a bad person. I certainly wouldn't see him as any sort of threat to me. So my mild opinion is that it doesn't seem like he did something seriously wrong. Maybe he has the character flaw of being trigger happy in the rare instance where his neighbor's house is being robbed and he happens to witness it. I don't think the choices of how to consequence his actions should be either 'perfectly fine' vs. 'oh that's murder.'

So the only strong opinion I have here is that (here you go, Dvaut) in the absence of an inefficient approach to justice, a better result would be more likely. I don't feel I'm in much of a position to have a strong opinion on what fabric Nike should use in their next Air Jordan's, so the same goes here. I really don't know what exactly would be fair, and I think the world would be a smoother place if others admitted the same thing, and worried about the approach instead.

EDIT: And yes, I also thought this was the football player and was annoyed by the title.

Re: Joe Horn?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, just to preempt the analogyphobes, I'm not saying rape or murder = home invasion. I'm merely pointing out that protecting people from being victimized is also a legitimate reason to use force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting someone (I think) necessarily = using force
Using force != shooting someone

Right?

There's "using force" to stop your neighbor's house from being robbed, and then there "taking your shotgun and blowing the guys away who are robbing your neighbor's house". I think there's probably some distance in between these two options, and I think Horn's utilizing of the extreme end of the force spectrum is probably what most people object to. Had he went over there just to threaten the guys with his gun (in other words, "using force to protecting people from being victimized") instead of opening firing on unarmed guys, this probably isn't a notable story.

That the guy was ostensibly doing something "nice" and "admirable" by "protect his neighbors from being victimized" doesn't give him license to use the most extreme and irreversible measures of force to do it.

I agree, it's probably legitimate for people to "use force to protect their neighbors property", but that's just a vague euphemism for what occurred here, hence why you rightly recognized you should be wary of using analogies here. There's a reason why people should be hesitant to rely too heavily on analogies and it's because they often obscure vital elements necessary to cast a prudent judgment. Yes, Horn "used force", true enough -- it was a specific kind of deadly force that (in light of the fact the guys were unarmed and not threatening Horn himself) was completely unnecessary. We can claim "well, maybe he didn't know the guys were unarmed", but he'd still be guilty of some kind of gross negligence or yes, even murder, for making a mistake like that. I don't think reasonable people operate under the "shoot first, ask questions later" principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with your point about force, this man was 60 something years old and the two robbers, i'm guessing, were much younger. What type of force do you think this man would be able to employ that would effectively stop the two robbers with out using a gun? Unless he was Mr. Miogi I doubt he could have overtaken them. So should he have left his home in the first place if his only means to stop the theives was deadly force? I don't know. I certainly don't fault him for it though.