Skip to comments.
Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released (Audio at link)
KTRK ^
| 11/15/07
| KTRK
Posted on 11/16/2007 12:03:36 AM PST by tlb
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
To: af_vet_rr; from occupied ga
I guess their desire to avoid confrontation was foiled.
You win some, you lose some. Sometimes, the loss is very valuable.
41
posted on
11/16/2007 7:08:16 PM PST
by
Thumper1960
(Unleash the Dogs of War as a Minority, or perish as a party.)
To: tlb
Okay, finally listened to the audio. Joe Horn sounded more irate that burglars were getting away than anything else. He sounded nervous to me, but not scared. So he went out and killed the scum. Fine by me. The guy’s a good neighbor.
To: SwinneySwitch
Police have not found the families of the dead men, who both are in their 30s.Wow. You would think that after 22+ years of stealing, these guys would be more careful.
To: tlb
In portraying Joe Horn as a victim of circumstances, lawyer and longtime friend Tom Lambright called the 61-year-old computer consultant “a good family man” who has been devastated by the Wednesday afternoon burglary and shooting.
Killed in the incident in the 7400 block of Timberline were Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston.
Each had a minor previous brush with the law. Records show DeJesus was charged with failure to identify himself to a police officer in July 2004. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 days in jail. Ortiz was charged with possession of marijuana in July 2005, but it was later dismissed.
44
posted on
11/17/2007 12:46:08 AM PST
by
kcvl
To: tlb
I looked for this yesterday but missed it. Someone had posted the link on the Texas message board.
45
posted on
11/17/2007 4:25:36 AM PST
by
Arrowhead1952
(I've been too busy for FR this weekend, because I did the things I refuse to let the invaders do.)
To: austrian
I would love to live next-door to him. If all neighbors were as responsible and protective as this guy, crime would cease to occur.
Here in Texas, we understand that simple fact. Our Founding Fathers believed that the right to own property was the fundamental right and thus the right to protect that property is fundamental.
Criminals prey on the weak and those unable to defend themselves. That is why the crime-rate drops everywhere a right to concealed carry law passes. If a criminal thinks his victim might be armed, he is much less likely to commit the criminal act.
This man is my nominee for "Neighbor of the Year." He is a hero.
46
posted on
11/17/2007 5:18:26 AM PST
by
Sudetenland
(Liberals love "McCarthyism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
It was not 30 seconds after the shots were fired that the dispatcher was telling the guy that he 'has several officers out there, some not in uniform and did not want any of his officers to get shot'
Where were these guys when the shooting went down, and why did the dispatcher not inform the property owner that they were on the scene, if they in fact were?
47
posted on
11/17/2007 5:39:28 AM PST
by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
To: Smokin' Joe
The only time I saw was the 911 call where the dispatcher kept him on the phone for over 7 seconds.
Pasadena police used to be a lot faster and meaner.
48
posted on
11/17/2007 6:01:12 AM PST
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
Seven
Minutes!
I listened to the audio, and in the feed it was less than a minute after the shooting the dispatcher was going on about his officers outside and not to shoot them.
If that was real time and unedited, there was little time between there being 'a number of officers outside on the scene, some not in uniform'.
If he really wanted to prevent the shooting, all he had to do was identify an unmarked unit and tell the guy they were going to follow the thieves to break up a ring of thieves, or tell the guy he had people on the scene--he did neither.
49
posted on
11/17/2007 6:07:26 AM PST
by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
To: Thumper1960
Sometimes, the loss is very valuable.At least to the rest of the community ;-) Just hard working hispanic immigrants trying to chase the American dream.
50
posted on
11/17/2007 6:28:00 AM PST
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
To: af_vet_rr
51
posted on
11/17/2007 7:23:56 AM PST
by
SwinneySwitch
(US Constitution Article 4 Section 4..shall protect each of them against Invasion...domestic Violence)
To: Lancey Howard
“Police have not found the families of the dead men, who both are in their 30s.”
Post #51 might explain, Lancey.
52
posted on
11/17/2007 7:32:25 AM PST
by
SwinneySwitch
(US Constitution Article 4 Section 4..shall protect each of them against Invasion...domestic Violence)
To: austrian
Good morning.
“...he fired instantly so i suggest that he wanted
to kill those burglars anyway.”
There was a short pause before he fired. It was a very short pause, but there, nonetheless. I suggest the bad guys were stupid bad guys and they moved. They were also unlucky since the citizen was together enough to fire three aimed shots rather than spraying and praying. Tough for them.
Michael Frazier
53
posted on
11/17/2007 9:16:38 AM PST
by
brazzaville
(No surrender, no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
To: FreedomCalls
You don't think the neighbor was in lawful possession of the property in his house?
The wording of the law is such that the owner of the property, under specific circumstances, may use deadly force to protect his own property. It says nothing of ones legal right to use such force in the defense of another's property.
The statute allows deadly force "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property."
It allows reasonable force. He would have to demonstrate that resorting to deadly force was reasonable under those circumstances, and being recorded as saying he's going to shoot before he even confronts them is going to look very bad.
To: Syllojism
The wording of the law is such that the owner of the property, under specific circumstances, may use deadly force to protect his own property. 9.42 indeed says that.
It says nothing of ones legal right to use such force in the defense of another's property.
This is where you are wrong. 9.43 applies the same provisions to the use of deadly force to the defense of someone else's property as along as 9.41 (and 9.42) is adhered to, that is as long as the property is rightfully owned -- i.e. not stolen.
55
posted on
11/17/2007 11:13:28 AM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(Texas: "We close at five.")
To: FreedomCalls
I’m not sure how this case will be resolved in court. Even if the Texas court acquits, the feds may step in with a federal charge (remember Gilmer Hernandez, who was cleared by the Texas Rangers but then Sutton stepped in and prosecuted anyway?)
OTOH, there is some concern that under other circumstances innocent people may be shot. Suppose that you tell me to watch your house while you are gone, but forget to tell me that some people are coming to pick up something. They start to carry it out and I point a shotgun at them and order them not to move. They run — maybe they think I am a random lunatic — and I kill them. I honestly believed that they were stealing from your house, pretty much like the neighbor in this story, but in my case I was mistaken about what they were doing.
My question is not what Texas law says, but what the law should be.
56
posted on
11/18/2007 2:04:08 PM PST
by
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
(Illegals: representation without taxation--Citizens: taxation without representation)
To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
OTOH, there is some concern that under other circumstances innocent people may be shot.That's covered in §9.05 of the Texas Penal Code too:
§9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.
Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.
57
posted on
11/18/2007 3:56:08 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(Texas: "We close at five.")
To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Suppose that you tell me to watch your house while you are gone, but forget to tell me that some people are coming to pick up something. They start to carry it out and I point a shotgun at them and order them not to move.
I agree with what you are trying to say, but in this case, it was clearly evident that it was a burglary with the broken window and all. If it wasn't for the breaking of the window, would horn have known they were there at all?
58
posted on
07/03/2008 5:09:57 AM PDT
by
tstar423
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson