Joe Horn has been cleared by a Grand Jury.

[ghaverkamp]

The Texas Castle Doctrine law permits use of deadly force to upon entry into a habitation, not just a person's land. It clearly doesn't apply here, as there was no attempt to enter his land.

 

The self defense and property defense laws make it clear he had no duty to retreat, but that's only if he didn't provoke the confrontation, which he clearly did. He wasn't attempting to prevent one of the enumerated crimes, and the deceased weren't attempting to enter his habitation.

 

I'd say the grand jury did anything but strictly follow the law.

[Fugu]

"Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house, both shot in the back."

 

Murder.

What do you know about OODA loops relative to the amount of time it takes to turn around?

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Bottom line is you have no idea what you would do. That's what's BS here. It's totally understandable that in your ignorance you think the way you do. Stop and consider how life has a wonderful way of reminding you that you really don't know squat. Apply it to this situation and hope you never find out.

 

There are certain things I can be sure of, and one of them is that I won't run outside of my "habitation" to gun down two people with a shotgun because I suspect their fleeing with my neighbor's chattel.

 

The decision to go outside was not a good one, but it wasn't illegal. That doesn't mean Horn abdicates his right to self defense.

 

One has no right to self-defense, even under Texas law, if one provokes the deadly situation.

[Lawman]

More simply stated;

 

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is

justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or

tangible, movable property:

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the

deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of burglary, or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing

immediately after committing burglary, 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.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

 

 

 

[smiller]

From what I read those statues are written provide a rather wide latitude of action, do not strictly apply only within a residence, and I don't think you can be held accountable for 'provoking' an intruder if he is considered to be on your property, or at least that's the way I read them.

 

I'm sure as hell not trying to defend this jackass (I'll leave that up to you as his counsel), but I don't think it's difficult to make a case that the law, as least as written, could indeed be on his side here.

[Twisties]

Here's the law..Joe Horn broke no law..I like the law..

 

 

 

§ 9.42. 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.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

 

 

 

Precisely. That is the disgrace. Hopefully the feds will now step in and try the murderer under federal law.

 

[smiller]

Hopefully the feds will now step in and try the murderer under federal law.

And what Federal law would that be?

[ghaverkamp]

From what I read those statues are written provide a rather wide latitude of action, do not strictly apply only within a residence, and I don't think you can be held accountable for 'provoking' an intruder if he is considered to be on your property, or at least that's the way I read them.

 

I would suggest you're reading them differently than I.

[Fugu]

he had no duty to retreat, but that's only if he didn't provoke the confrontation, which he clearly did.

 

§ 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH. (a) A peace officer, or a

person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search

is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he

reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and

(2) before using force, the actor manifests his

purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace

officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he

reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by

or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

 

 

Lawful arrest is not provocation. Yelling at burglars to stop is not provocation. There's NOTHING illegal about doing either while holding your shotgun.

 

 

[smiller]

I would suggest you're reading them differently than I.

But not, apparently, different than the grand jury.

[SageRider]

That's a nice law there, Billy!

 

[Lawman]

Hopefully the feds will now step in and try the murderer under federal law.

And what Federal law would that be?

 

Maybe he's talking about violating the civil rights of the two illegal alien burglars.

[lawnchairboy]

where is the lurking popcorn eating emoticon when I need him??

[Twisties]

Hopefully the feds will now step in and try the murderer under federal law.

And what Federal law would that be?

 

Maybe he's talking about violating the civil rights of the two illegal alien burglars.

 

Yes.

[ghaverkamp]

Lawful arrest is not provocation. Yelling at burglars to stop is not provocation. There's NOTHING illegal about doing either while holding your shotgun.

 

Coming out of a place of safety to confront two people is provocation.

[ghaverkamp]

But not, apparently, different than the grand jury.

 

Perhaps. My guess is they just didn't want the guy charged.

 

This is pretty straightforward. Joe Horn was never in lawful possession of the property. Therefore, he cannot meet the required elements of 9.41. Joe Horn had no reason to believe that he had a duty to protect the property of his neighbors. If he can't meet the elements to protect property under 9.41, he can't meet the elements to protect property under 9.42, and he can't meet the elements to protect property under 9.43.

 

Fugu's argument that this was justifiable force used in arrest fails, because he didn't read the entire statute, which concludes:

(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances enumerated in Subsections © and (d).

 

(© being arrest by a peace officer and (d) being an arrest by a non-peace officer in the presence and under the direction of a peace officer.)

[ghaverkamp]

§ 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH. (a) A peace officer, or a

 

How convenient that you left off ©, (d), and (g). It is always easier to make things read the way you want if you just lop off the inconvenient parts.

[Lawman]

Hopefully the feds will now step in and try the murderer under federal law.

And what Federal law would that be?

 

Maybe he's talking about violating the civil rights of the two illegal alien burglars.

 

Yes.

 

Don't think there is anything even close here..If you are talking about Civil Rights violation by use of excessive force I think it only applies to cops, judges, prosecutors, security guards etc..Don't think the law applies to citizens..If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me very quickly...

[ghaverkamp]

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me very quickly...

 

In this instance, even I won't say that you're wrong.

[Lawman]

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me very quickly...

 

In this instance, even I won't say that you're wrong.

 

 

[Mike05]

where is the lurking popcorn eating emoticon when I need him??

 

 

 

[Fugu]

Fugu's argument that this was justifiable force used in arrest fails, because he didn't read the entire statute

 

That's not my argument. Him walking outside to try to stop a crime in progress is lawful and it's not provocation under the deadly force statute because it's a lawful arrest attempt by a citizen. Do you REALLY think that somebody trying to stop a crime would be stripped of their rights to self defense by statute under the guise of provocation?

 

Oh, that's right - despite overwhelming evidence, you don't think these guys were even burglars. Apparently you think they forcibly entered the residence, took stuff (to go get it cleaned for the homeowner I'm sure in your mind) and then snuck back OUT a window.

 

Deadly force was justified by the threat of two burglars rushing the old man. Disparity of force. Nothing to do with property, but since you don't know a thing about self defense, you can't grasp how a man could be in jeopardy because two burglars were rushing him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lawman]

Joe Horn was never in lawful possession of the property.

 

 

Why so?

If as reported the neighbor had asked Mr. Horn to watch his place I believe you would be mistaken.

[Twisties]

but since you don't know a thing about self defense, you can't grasp how a man could be in jeopardy because two burglars were rushing him.

 

With their backs towards him.

[ghaverkamp]

Oh, that's right - despite overwhelming evidence, you don't think these guys were even burglars.

 

I didn't say they weren't burglars.

 

Deadly force was justified by the threat of two burglars rushing the old man. Disparity of force. Nothing to do with property, but since you don't know a thing about self defense, you can't grasp how a man could be in jeopardy because two burglars were rushing him.

 

Where "rushing him" is running away at a diagonal.

[smiller]

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me very quickly...

In this instance, even I won't say that you're wrong.

Don't look now but I think the stars are going out...

[Bob Palin]

Deadly force was justified by the threat of two burglars rushing the old man.

Backwards.

[ghaverkamp]

Why so?

If as reported the neighbor had asked Mr. Horn to watch his place I believe you would be mistaken.

 

1. I've never seen that reported.

2. What I have seen reported is this:

On that 911 call, the dispatcher asked Horn directly about the owners of the house that was being burglarized, and whether he knew them.

 

"I really don't know these neighbors," Horn said. "I know the neighbors on the other side really well … I can assure you if it had been their house, I'd already have done something."

3. And I know that the penal code defines possession as:

(39) “Possession” means actual care, custody, control, or management.

 

Hardly possession to just ask a neighbor to watch things, if they did so.

 

[Fugu]

With their backs towards him.

 

Jan, same question I gave Killer about OODA loops. Shot placement is frequently irrelevant. Some of you guys need to realize how ignorant you are about the dynamics of a gunfight.

 

You ever play that slap game as a kid? You hold your hands out palms down. The other person holds their hands out palms up, under yours.

 

Why can they move their hand out, up, rotate it over, and slap you on top of your hands before you move them?

 

Same reason a criminal can go from running at you to turned away faster than you can see what's happening and make the decision to NOT shoot after you've already decided to shoot when he was running at you.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this has been proven in court repeatedly in defense of the police, which is where this situation most commonly comes up. The media gets whipped into a frenzy because of a bullet hitting a bad guy in the back, but it's a fairly simple thing to understand if you look at how OODA loops impact our actions and what our physiological limitations are.

 

If you are talking, your OODA loop slows down. Recall that Horn was talking, too. Brains run on Windows and can't multitask as well as we think they can.

 

If you doubt any of what I'm telling you or would like to see first hand what I'm talking about in real life and how it can be your friend in a bind I'd be happy to show you. Beers would, of course, follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[smiller]

Yes, but given how long it takes to fire a pump shotgun, chamber a new round, and fire again the subjects would have to have done quite a choreography...

[Fugu]

Where "rushing him" is running away at a diagonal.

 

Where "running away" results in them being CLOSER to him. Read what the detective said.

 

The positions their bodies came to rest in are not relevant.

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

An interesting tidbit from the article in the original post is that there was a police detective sitting in a car watching all this in response to the 911 call.

 

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (getaway driver). He ducked at one point."

 

So not only does he shoot two people in the back, he's a mortal threat to an police officer.

 

How do you applaud the actions of an idiot who inserts himself in the middle of police action? Isn't the big self-defense argument that the police are never around when you need them? Well, the police were around, and if this thug had stayed in his house and minded his own business, maybe the police could have done their job and two people wouldn't be dead.

 

What really disturbs me about this almost fetishistic gun obsession is that it has at its heart a hatred of law enforcement. Guys like Joe Horn take the law into their own hands because they think they can do the job better than the cops can. He didn't want to let the cops do their job, he wanted to go out and kill someone. The real police officer had to duck in fear for his life because some lunatic was shooting everything that moved on the street. The real threat to public safety was Joe Horn, not the burglars.

[Fugu]

Oh, that's right - despite overwhelming evidence, you don't think these guys were even burglars.

 

I didn't say they weren't burglars.

 

Oh, you said Horn didn't know they were despite watching them break into the premises and leave through a window with stuff. Big difference.

 

Maybe they were collecting for UNICEF. They frequently do that through windows.

 

 

 

[Fugu]

Yes, but given how long it takes to fire a pump shotgun, chamber a new round, and fire again the subjects would have to have done quite a choreography...

 

Just how slow are you?

 

Try some of that reduced recoil stuff.

 

 

 

Two separate instances. I wasn't there. Simply pointing out plausible and defensible possibilities to placate those who apparently think the cops AND the grand jury all blew it.

 

 

[Lawman]

An interesting tidbit from the article in the original post is that there was a police detective sitting in a car watching all this in response to the 911 call.

 

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (getaway driver). He ducked at one point."

 

So not only does he shoot two people in the back, he's a mortal threat to an police officer.

 

How do you applaud the actions of an idiot who inserts himself in the middle of police action? Isn't the big self-defense argument that the police are never around when you need them? Well, the police were around, and if this thug had stayed in his house and minded his own business, maybe the police could have done their job and two people wouldn't be dead.

 

What really disturbs me about this almost fetishistic gun obsession is that it has at its heart a hatred of law enforcement. Guys like Joe Horn take the law into their own hands because they think they can do the job better than the cops can. He didn't want to let the cops do their job, he wanted to go out and kill someone. The real police officer had to duck in fear for his life because some lunatic was shooting everything that moved on the street. The real threat to public safety was Joe Horn, not the burglars.

 

Maybe you need to catch up a little..Mr. Horn was on the phone with the cops because he called them..The cops did not call Mr. Horn. Mr Horn waited as long as he could for the cops to get there..When the burglars left before the cops arrived he had the choice of watching them leave with his neighbors stuff or stopping them..He chose the latter.

[ghaverkamp]

Maybe you need to catch up a little..Mr. Horn was on the phone with the cops because he called them..The cops did not call Mr. Horn. Mr Horn waited as long as he could for the cops to get there..When the burglars left before the cops arrived he had the choice of watching them leave with his neighbors stuff or stopping them..He chose the latter.

 

Except that the cops were there.

[smiller]

Just how slow are you?

When they're running away it really screws with my follow-up shots...

 

[ghaverkamp]

Oh, you said Horn didn't know they were despite watching them break into the premises and leave through a window with stuff. Big difference.

 

There is a big difference. I've never been so scared that I've run out and murdered two people, but I have climbed out my own window. I've also broken a window when I've been locked out.

 

So, what we have is a person who admits he didn't know his neighbors very well declaring he's going to go out and kill the people he heard going out and doing just that.

 

You can try to manufacture all of the justifications that you want -- which is what I imagine the grand jury did -- but that doesn't make it justifiable.

[Fugu]

What really disturbs me about this almost fetishistic gun obsession is that it has at its heart a hatred of law enforcement.

 

That must be why Horn called the police TWICE that night. That deep hatred of the law.

 

On the second call, where he's clearly in great distress and he says he had no choice, that was obviously part of his devious plan to commit cold blooded murder.

 

He had been waiting all those years for two suitable victims to stumble along.

 

Hannibal Lecter's got nothing on him, I tell ya.

 

 

[hopz]

I think Horn made some stupid and wrong headed moves but they were not illegal. Apparently the Grand Jury thought the same.

 

The really stupid act here was the decision to break into a guys house and steal his stuff. They paid a pretty big price for being stupid and doing stupid things.

 

 

[Fugu]

 

Except that the cops were there.

 

In plain clothes, hiding in an unmarked car...

 

 

 

 

[Fugu]

Just how slow are you?

When they're running away it really screws with my follow-up shots...

 

The detective testified that they were closer to Horn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fugu]

You can try to manufacture all of the justifications that you want -- which is what I imagine the grand jury did -- but that doesn't make it justifiable.

 

That's hilarious.

 

The grand jury manufactured justifications. Never mind that they had all of the admissible evidence available to them, you know better because you've skimmed some articles in the newspaper with the same thin facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

The grand jury manufactured justifications. Never mind that they had all of the admissible evidence available to them, you know better because you've skimmed some articles in the newspaper with the same thin facts.

 

They also likely had inadmissible evidence at their disposal.

 

I am amazed how you could possibly know so much more than I, however, given that you're limited to the same sources of information I am. Of course, I'm not trying to filter what I read.

[ghaverkamp]

 

Except that the cops were there.

 

In plain clothes, hiding in an unmarked car...

 

The officer saw fit to make sure what steps he was going to do would be reasonable, unlike the Horn. Horn already declared his intention to go outside and kill the fleeing burglars regardless of what was going on. He made those intentions clear to the 911 operator.

 

I gather you have no interest in the rule of law unless that law allows you to have your handguns.

[Matts_12GS]

Just how slow are you?

When they're running away it really screws with my follow-up shots...

 

maybe investing in some range time is the answer?

 

seems to be that anytime anyone else admits to dicking something up the answer comes out to that they should attend a riding school...

 

I gather you have no interest in the rule of law unless that law allows you to have your handguns.

I'm not addressing this at you specifically Greg, but it surely seems in the press these days that the converse is true of many as well.

I'm just saying...

 

You boys go ahead and continue your harping while Mr. Horn deals with the knowledge that he ended the lives of two people. Two people who were stupid enough to turn to crime instead of constructively applying themselves to our society.

[MotorinLA]

The fact that neither one of the burglars were shot from the front, makes it a little difficult to believe that they were running directly towards Joe Horn...

 

Plenty of cops have been acquitted after shooting criminals in the back. The same mechanics are at work here.

 

As a cop you should know all about this. Are you trying to play dumb?

 

 

No. Just pointing out the holes in your argument.

[MotorinLA]

Not by Texas law.

And, as I said, that's disgraceful.

You appear to be stuck thinking this was deadly force to protect property. It wasn't, contrary to what the media reports (because that's more interesting - new law by an evil Republican already causing problems...)

 

It was self defense, [snip].

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and I have some ocean front property to sell you in Montana.

 

I'd have to mirror Russell's statement on that one and call 'Shenanigans'.

[bakerzdosen]

Well, personally, I'm not going to argue this one out. I can't keep up.

 

However, personal gut feeling: I'm pretty much with lawman and Fugu on this one. I couldn't live in Texas because of the heat, but I'd be happy to live in a place with gun laws like Texas.

[russell_bynum]

Well, personally, I'm not going to argue this one out. I can't keep up.

 

However, personal gut feeling: I'm pretty much with lawman and Fugu on this one. I couldn't live in Texas because of the heat, but I'd be happy to live in a place with gun laws like Texas.

 

For the record...it doesn't bother me in the least that the guys in the black hats ended up at the business end of a 12-gauge. Legal or not, I have no problem with that at all.

 

I just think it was very poor judgement on Mr. Horn's part and the whole "he was in fear for his life" bit rings a bit hollow considering he intentionally went out and created the confrontation.