Neighborly justice or murder?
01:39 AM CST on Thursday, November 15, 2007
Is it justice or is it murder?
Police said a man shot and killed two people he believed were burglarizing the house next door.
The two-suspected burglars were not armed.
And along Timberland Drive, this case is all neighbors were talking about.
Homeowners in the Pasadena community begrudgingly accepted a harsh reality Wednesday night.
“You think you’re safe. You think you’re in a safe neighborhood,” said one resident. “But it makes you aware that this can happen anywhere.”
Police said hours earlier, an elderly neighbor shot and killed two burglary suspects.
They say it happened after the man called 911 to report the sound of breaking glass coming from the home next door.
“The homeowner saw the suspects coming out of the backyard of the residence next door, confronted them tried to get them to stop and shot them both,” said Pasadena Police Capt. Bud Corbett.
“It was boom, boom, boom,” said Lacy Hernandez. Now, she and her neighbors are contemplating its implications.
“My kids run these streets, we leave our back door open, so for something like this to happen, it’s crazy,” she said.
Perhaps so. Perhaps just a sign of the times. A grand jury will determine what happens to the man who opened fire.
“I would just probably tell him you did what you had to do, and I think you did the right thing,” said Bianca Gracia.
LINKS:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4dc_1195205938
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071114_jj_pasadenadeadlydoubleshooting.25c5bb2.html
***********************************************************************************************************
Neighbor who shot potential burglars ‘petrified’
04:51 PM CST on Friday, November 16, 2007
11 News reporter Kevin Reece talks to the shooter and his attorney
The Pasadena homeowner who gunned down two alleged burglars Wednesday told 11 News that he is “petrified.”Police released the 911 call from Wednesday’s fatal shooting of two suspected robbers who he claims were ripping off his neighbor.In the recording the man, who we are only referring to as Joe, opened fire when he confronted two men who thought was breaking into a neighbor’s home.The dramatic call to police has the unidentified shooter telling the Pasadena police dispatcher, “I won’t let them get away with this.”Soon after you can hear the distinct sound of the cocking of a shotgun and repeated shots being fired.The call started off calmly enough.“(There are) burglars breaking into a house next door,” the caller is heard on the 911 tape telling a police dispatcher.“I’ve got a shotgun do you want me to stop ’em?” The dispatcher was quick to respond.“Nope don’t do that. Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over OK?,” the Pasadena dispatcher said as he called out officers to the scene.But the caller, whose name 11 News is withholding because police said they fear for his safety, grows antsy and decides to take matters into his own hands.“I’ll be honest with you I’m not gonna let ’em go I’m not gonna let them get away with this (expletive),” he tells the dispatcher.Then a short time later: “I can’t take a chance on getting killed over this. I’m gonna shoot. I’m gonna shoot.”
“This guy’s got a shotgun if we don’t get there he’s gonna shoot their asses,” the dispatcher radios to responding officers.
Too late.
On the 911 tape the distinct sound of a shotgun pumping and then a shot, then again and 10 seconds later one more shot. Three shots in all can be heard on the recording.
“The last thing Joe intended, knowing him the way I do, was to get in a violent confrontation with these people,” said attorney Tom Lambright, who is representing the man who fired the fatal shots. Lambright said his client, a good friend, didn’t want to kill anyone.
But the confrontation was violent. And it was fatal. Both of the unarmed men who were supposedly burglarizing the man’s neighbor were shot dead.
The shooting may become a test of the state law that allows someone to use deadly force to protect one’s property. But does that right extend to protecting the property of your neighbors?
“They were bad guys, they were doing a bad thing. But the penalty for that is not to be shot,” said 11 News legal expert Gerald Treece. “The penalty for that is not the death penalty. That’s what I’m saying. If law enforcement officials had shown up and done exactly the same thing these law enforcement officials would also have trouble.”
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071115_tj_911call.7f804f1.html
************************************************************************************************************
Man who shot 2 suspected burglars releases statement
12:07 PM CST on Saturday, November 17, 2007
Two days ago, a man in one Pasadena neighborhood told a police dispatcher exactly what he intended to do.
Caller: “Don’t move, your dead.”
Now, the caller has had time to think about it.
And for the first time Joe Horn, the man who fatally shot two suspects who were allegedly breaking into a neighbor’s home, is releasing a statement through an attorney. “The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased.”
The identities of the men killed were released Friday.
 |
Joe Horn
They are Miguel Dejesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30.
Officials records show that each of them had a prior arrest in Harris County for drug offenses.
The woman who lives across the street from Horn says she has always seen him as a grandfather figure. “He is the guardian of the neighborhood. He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him.”
But according to Horn’s attorney and friend for more than four decades, he’s the one in need now. “He just needs everyone to know, he’s not a villain, he’s not a bad guy,” said Tom Lambright. He goes on to say that Horn voluntarily gave an extensive video statement to police immediately following the shooting.
Lambright says Horn acted in complete and total self defense and has nothing to hide.
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071116_jj_timberlineshootingfollow.d0036e5.html
************************************************************************************************************
RELATED LINKS:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5309288.html
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5766452
************************************************************************************************************
This case is scheduled to go before the grand jury next week.
I will keep tabs on this case, and will give updates and my opinion on it when the grand jury renders its verdict.
*************************************************************************************************************
LINKS:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378F.pdf
Ann
The two burglars put property above human life when they decided to commit the crime. Texas allows for the use of lethal force to protect life *and* property. Burglars may want to take not and either ply their trade elsewhere, or change careers.
Joe Horn deserves a DSAF medal (Did Society A Favor).
The original law enacted in 1973 required Texans to attempt to retreat when criminally attacked. In 1995, the state legislature passed an exception to that law allowing the use of force without retreat when the intruder had illegally entered the victim’s home. The state of Texas allows for the use of “deadly force” only when the occupant of their living abode (known as “castle doctrine”) feels a serious threat to their life exists via THEIR home, vehicle or other property (their business, for instance) in which they are occupied.
The law allow Texans to use deadly force “without retreat” when defending themselves INSIDE their homes, cars and workplaces.
The law, SB 378, allows for the reasonable use of deadly force without retreat when the intruder is:
“committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes”.
The law went into effect on Sept. 1, 2007.
Click on the link above in my post.
Note carefully the wording of the law:
“AA…knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A)AA…unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor ’s [shooter] occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment…”
The shooter was under no threat of danger or serious bodily injury, or threat of loss of life.
This incident happened after the shooter called 911. The 911 dispatcher told him to wait, that shooting someone over property was not the right action to take; the shooter did not heed the dispatcher’s pleas; now the shooter feels remorse over what he did. His going outside not only put himself in jeopardy; his carrying a firearm OUTSIDE of his property endangered any bystanders who may have been nearby. The burglars could have been armed with weapons already in hand.
His listening to the dispatcher could have prevented this shooting. The burglars were not on, nor inside this shooter’s property, therefore, HIS life was not under serious threat or harm at the time he shot these two men.
The men who broke into the neighbors home were wrong for committing burglary. But, the shooter took the law into his own hands. That is what the police are for. Whether they arrived 1 minute later, 10 minutes later, or 60 minutes later. The shooter would only have had to wait for the police to arrive. Get a description of the burglars (race/ethnicity, color of clothing, etc.) Get a description of the vehicle (make, model, year). Get a description of what was taken from the neighbors property.
Now he has this double-shooting on his conscious.
No property is worth killing anyone over.
Property can be replaced.
A human life, no matter whose life it is, can never be replaced.
> his carrying a firearm OUTSIDE of his property endangered any bystanders who may have been nearby
Huh? Ann, you made several leaps of faith here with the facts of the case (where did the shooting happen – both the shooter and the criminals, what happened right before the shooting, etc), but exactly how does carrying a firearm outside endanger someone? The danger was the criminal – are we supposed to just hide in our homes and wait for the big bad wolf to go away? Don’t want to provoke him, ya know.
If you want to let your heart bleed, let’s talk about the victim here, the homeowner. Sure he’ll be out some money to replace the stolen items, and at most it will come up to his homeowner’s policy deductible assuming it’s covered, but what about the emotional side of it? How will it affect how he feels about his home and how safe he feels there? Will it ever be the same? Will he need professional help to get through it? Will he have to sell it to be at peace? Will it affect how his neighbors feel about their homes?
The criminals are doing more than just taking property – they’re playing with someone’s emotional well-being.
This wasn’t an accidental theft – it was premeditated. Cause and effect.
“Huh? Ann, you made several leaps of faith here with the facts of the case (where did the shooting happen – both the shooter and the criminals, what happened right before the shooting, etc), but exactly how does carrying a firearm outside endanger someone?”
There could have been bystanders nearby. He could have fired and missed. He could have seriously injured or mortally wounded an adult or child who may have been walking in the direction of the shooting.
He could have stayed in his home and heeded the dispatchers instructions.
Horn left his home in a state of agitation, and he himself could also have been shot if the burglars had weapons.
Horn made the choice to not listen to the dispatcher. He made the choice to leave his home. He made the choice to shoot the accused burglars. He killed them over property. Horn’s life was not in jeopardy nor was it under threat at the time he shot these two men.
Yes, he stopped them from stealing the neighbor’s property, but, he now has to live with the deaths of two men for his not letting the police arrive and handle the incident.
“If you want to let your heart bleed, let’s talk about the victim here, the homeowner. Sure he’ll be out some money to replace the stolen items, and at most it will come up to his homeowner’s policy deductible assuming it’s covered, but what about the emotional side of it? How will it affect how he feels about his home and how safe he feels there? Will it ever be the same? Will he need professional help to get through it? Will he have to sell it to be at peace? Will it affect how his neighbors feel about their homes?
Of course the homeowners will feel violated. Of course the homeowners will be afraid in their home. The neighbors will feel just as nervous for their safety as well. The homeowners will be fearful of any knock at the door, any strange sound in the night because of the invasion of their home. Selling their property will not make what happened to them go away. Pulling up stakes will not stop crime from happening to them somewhere else. Counseling may hopefully give them some peace of mind.
They will go on with their lives and cope with this invasion, one day at a time, just like all of us who have been invaded in our homes, all of us who little by little keep our faith in our fellow human beings no matter what one person who has done wrong to us sought to destroy in us.
The facts of this case still remain.
Horn did not have to leave his home and go out to confront those men.
“This wasn’t an accidental theft – it was premeditated. Cause and effect.”
The punishment for theft is not death.
Horn also engaged in “cause and effect” as well.
His actions he will have to live with for the rest of his life.
No property is worth killing someone over.
Horn chose to leave his home and create a decision he will have to face up to every day for the rest of his life.
So irrational fear justifies murdering someone in cold blood. Typical.
“No property is worth killing someone over.”
No property is worth dying for, but the criminals decided to take that risk when they unlawfully broke into another man’s home. In Texas, a man’s home is his castle, and we like it that way.
Two criminals got caught in flagrante delicto, and society is better off without them.
There is no way that the DA – even if he wants to – will get a Harris County jury to convict Horn of murder. It’s a defense to murder in Texas that the worthless sumbitch needed killin’. It isn’t written down anywhere, but it’s there.
I bet that the old geezer with the shotgun will walk.
“No property is worth dying for, but the criminals decided to take that risk when they unlawfully broke into another man’s home.”
Well said.
The criminals CHOSE to give up their right to life.
Cops can’t be everywhere. They shouldn’t have to be. In a civilized society every person has a duty to stop evil.
It is not solely the government’s responsibility to protect society. If it were, we could sue them for damages when they failed to stop crime.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Two Cases; Two Fatal Shootings What do you think?
The criminals died over property they wished to purloin. Mr. Horn was protecting more than property, He was protecting the rights of himself and his neighbors to be free from violence. Burglary is by its very nature a violent act. It robs the victim not only of hi possessions but of his peace of mind as well. if forced by these criminals to choose between my sense of safety for myself and my loved ones or their lives I would choose the former every time .
S.B. 378 is being mistakenly used in this particular case. There are Castle
doctrines in several states. The most salient point in this matter is the fact that the law does not force Mr. Horn to run and hide in his home. Here is how his attorney will blunt any attempt at charges .
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
Since these two criminals had illegal entered the dwelling next door Mr. Horn
reasoned that they might in fact attempt to do the same to his property. He went outside of his house REMAINING ON HIS PROPERTY at all times where he encountered the aggressors. He had the right to be present on his own property while the criminals did not
From this point all the rights of self protection come into play. The robbers made the fatal move towards him rather than away. This provides the justification for using deadly force as no reasonable person would expect this older man to take on two younger stronger people. The choice of encountering the criminals outside can also be defended. In fact, it was the smart choice to make.
Had Mr. Horn retreated to his house he might have been in much greater danger. A shot gun is much more difficult to wield in the confines of a house. There are many things which can get in your way. Fear can cause a person to freeze or move erratically. Furniture might cause one to trip and fall. This is especially true of older less fit people like Mr. Horn. Once inside the house it is much easier for thieves to kill a person. Facing them outside where they might be detected is a far better scenario. They are far more likely to flee fearing detection from other neighbors or passers by,
The argument that a person should not use a weapon for self defense for fear of hitting a bystander is simply ridiculous. The law has decided that people have the right to use deadly force so the issue is settled. It might be an argument for requiring gun owners to prove proficiency similar to getting a car license. But that is a separate matter.
People often do freeze in the heat of battle . I have witnessed well trained Marines do the same in simulated environments .But my experience has been that carrying a licened firearm has saved me in atleast 2 situations .Some think it is better to be at the mercy of criminals rather than allow average citizens to defend themselves . That debate can go on . But Mr. Horn is on solid ground as to his actions. The Castle laws in other states have proven this in how they have played out. Simply Google and you will see that many of these altercations happen outside of the actual edifice. One of the criminals was shot in the chest , the other in the side . I wish Mr. Horn the best and hope he can find peace of mind .
Ann, the Texas Castle Doctrine (SB 378) does not apply here.
>The law allow Texans to use deadly force “without retreat” when defending themselves INSIDE their homes, cars and workplaces.
Yes, and there are OTHER CASES in which Texans may use deadly force. Texas explicitly allows for the use of deadly force to prevent theft, and mischief at night. Google “Texas statutes” and read Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. Will any of the provisions of Chapter 9 protect Joe Horn from a homicide indictment? I actually rather doubt it, but I am not privy to the evidence presented to the grand jury. Joe will walk for other reasons discussed below.
Every burglar knows – or should know – that robbing another man’s castle entails the risk of death.
>Property can be replaced.
I buy property with money for which I honestly toiled. To steal my property from me is to steal my time, a finite resource which cannot be replaced.
There is an unwritten law in Texas that it is a defense to homicide that the worthless sumbitch needed killin’. The “he-needed-killin” defense may prevent an indictment, or it may persuade a judge to give a defendant deferred adjudication, or it may persuade a jury to give the defendant probation for his homicide.
I predict that Joe will be indicted, and will strike a plea in which he pays a fine, avoids prison, and probably has to turn in his weapons.
Pingback: THE CASTLE DOCTRINE LAWS « BEAUTIFUL, ALSO, ARE THE SOULS OF MY BLACK SISTERS