Posted on 11/16/2007 4:59:15 PM PST by Daffynition
HOUSTON (CBS) ― It will be up to a Texas grand jury to decide whether a man who fatally shot two men he thought were robbing his neighbor's home acted within the state's self-defense laws.
The man, who is in his 70s, shot the two suspected burglars Wednesday afternoon in a quiet subdivision of the Houston suburb of Pasadena. He confronted the men as they were leaving through a gate leading to the front yard of his neighbor's home.
No identities have been released.
Police say that just before the shootings, the man called 911 to say he heard glass breaking and saw two men entering the home through a window.
911: "Pasadena 911. What is your emergency?"
Caller: "Burglars breaking into a house next door."
A police spokesman says the man told the dispatcher that he was going to get his gun and stop the break-in.
Caller: "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"
911: "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
The dispatcher repeatedly urged the man to stay calm and stay in his own home, reports CBS News correspondent Hari Sreenivasan.
911: "I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."
Caller: "I understand that, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself."
A Texas law strengthening a citizen's right to self-defense, the so-called "castle doctrine," went into effect on Sept. 1. It gives Texans a stronger legal right to use deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.
The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.
Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.
He shot one suspect in the chest and the other in the side.
Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said a legal expert.
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role."
The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.
It "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth told the newspaper. "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."
The dispatcher told him. Dispatchers are rarely sworn officers. They are sometimes young men or women,waiting to get onto the force, but more often people who have no interest in being cops, but either just want a job, or want a job in real public service. Not being sworn officers, they have no more authority than anyone else.
Other than hearing them break the window, seeing them go in through it, and then seeing them come out with the loot. No evidence at all really.
You most certainly can, certainly in a situation like this, as long as they are making off with the stolen property. It's still a crime in progress, and is on the list of crimes that one may use potentially deadly force to stop.
Sounded like "Move" to me, and I heard it on Fox, then came looking for this thread. But you can listen for yourself Here
Maybe a little. Somewhat, but not enraged, and definitely. I'd say more determined than angry, but some angry. Anger can be justifiable and a "Good Thing".
There is a third shot, not following the second quite as quickly as the second followed the first.
Honestly.
This is one of those where I may not agree 100% with what happened, but would not vote to indict or convict.
If bad guys are scared and are afraid to show their face, good.
If he saved his neighbor's stuff rather than his own, fine.
It isn't technically within the scope of the law? Too bad. Maybe the law needs to be changed. People are tired of feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods and homes.
So, yeah, 70s as good an age as any.
But he didn't start in his 70s now did he?
I, and several others have quoted the relevant portion of the Texas Penal Code. The other, taking the case to the grand jury is based on living in Texas for 30+ years, and seeing it happen over and over again. The guy that shot at some kids, with an SKS, killing several of them, who were stealing his fancy wheel rims (Black on Black that one was) and he was no-billed by the Grand jury. In San Antonio a guy shot and killed a kid (around 14 or so IIRC) who was stealing his chickens, or maybe only breaking into his chicken coop. Another grand jury no bill. (Theft during the nighttime in both cases) The Arlington grandmother who shot a guy that had broken into her house while running from the police, wasn't sent to the grand jury, IIRC, but she wasn't charged either. He wasn't even trying to steal anything or hurt any resident of her household.
Similar, but not the same. Besides, lever action rifles are quite distinct sounding compared a shotgun. Shotgun is more "boom" with no "crack". Rifle is more "bam-crack".
No but it found him anyway. I'm sure your grandpa would have shot them if they made a move to escape, to harm your grandma, or harm him. In fact it sounds like your grandma would have shot him in the same situations had she been the one who came up with the pistol.
I knoq my grandma, who was born at the turn of the 19th to 20th century, would have. There wasn't a squeamish bone in her body that I ever noticed.
I Must have fast forwarded right through that third shot! Thanks!
““911: “Nope, don’t do that. Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?” “
“Stay inside the house and don’t go out there, OK?” responded the dispatcher. “It’s not worth shooting someone over this.”
I think the court should reimburse him for the shotgun shells.
Unfortunately they will not execute him, but the history of his type is such that you can almost count on him killing someone else in prison.
Yeah, those 70-year-old curmudgeonly homeowners are pure hell on the prison population.
You said.... “Had a neighbor who was a small time mafia guy all his life”......
ALL HIS LIFE, not started in his 70’s; therefore, your point is moot.
I love it!!
Teehee... oops, my bad!
“Bottom line, if the departed had not been burglarizing houses, they’d still alive.”....
A lot of people seem to disregard that IMPORTANT fact. It’s called personal responsibility, God forbid people show some.
That is the dispatchers personal opinion. From what I’m reading here, he may have been within the law to shoot the scum. This man’s personal opinion (hopefully with the law on his side) differs from the dispatchers. So?
“So?”
I realize that the dispatcher is not a LEO, but I worry that someone on a jury perhaps might hear the tape with a “cold” ear, so to speak, and might get the impression that Mr. Horn was deliberately being defiant by ignoring semiofficial instructions.
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.