Posted on 11/17/2007 7:33:50 AM PST by Dubya
The Pasadena man who killed two suspected burglars as they left his next-door neighbor's home did not intend to kill them when he stepped outside with his 12-gauge shotgun, his lawyer said Friday.
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.
"He (Horn) was just doing what everyone is supposed to do," Lambright said at a news conference in front of the Houston police memorial near downtown. "He called the police. He was cooperating with them as best he could, trying to give the police the direction of the burglars. He knew there was danger going outside."
Horn ignored repeated instructions from a 911 dispatcher to remain in his home. He told the dispatcher, "I'm not going to let them get away with it. I can't take a chance in getting killed over this. OK? I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."
While lawyers and legal experts across the city continued to debate the legality of Horn's actions, he has left town with his family, Lambright said.
"Hopefully he will see a doctor and maybe get a sedative," he said. "He is not well mentally. This has devastated him. Not in his wildest dreams could he fathom this event."
Lambright said Horn, whom he has considered a friend for 41 years, wept inconsolably during their conversations.
"Joe is the absolute opposite of what everyone thinks he is," Lambright said. "He is not a cowboy. He is not physical. He's 61 years old and overweight. He's not confrontational. He's just a good guy."
Lambright read a written statement in which Horn said the killings would "weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."
Lambright said Horn was a hunter, but kept the shotgun in his pickup "for security."
No firearms in house Horn lives with his daughter and granddaughter and does not keep firearms in the house, his lawyer said.
Lambright said Horn was upstairs working at a computer about 2 p.m. when he heard the sound of breaking glass next door. Horn called 911, engaging in a protracted conversation with the dispatcher, who repeatedly advised him to wait inside until police arrived.
"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun," the dispatcher told Horn at one point.
"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."
Legal opinions conflict Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. "He was petrified at that point," the lawyer said. "You hear him say, 'I'll shoot. Stop!' They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It's a self-defense issue."
Attorneys and legal experts said Horn's defense probably will be based on state law that allows people to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property.
"If you see someone stealing your neighbor's property, you can get involved and help to stop it," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
Others disagreed.
The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett, a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.
"It can't be during the day," Jett said.
Experts said that a grand jury may sympathize with Horn. Some people believe that you should be able to protect your neighborhood, said Anthony Osso, a Houston criminal defense attorney.
Osso said that Horn's defense might be that he wanted to prevent the robbers from leaving until police arrived, but they tried to flee and he shot them.
"His best scenario is that he went out to use the threat of deadly force," Osso said. "But they came at him on his own property."
Osso said Horn's 911 call does not tell the whole story about the shooting. Investigators will need information about where the suspects were shot and if they had stopped when Horn ordered them not to move.
"Some people on the grand jury will sympathize with him," said Adam Gershowitz, a law professor at South Texas College of Law. "Maybe he shouldn't have done this, but he was acting in a way a lot of people feel."
But that does not mean he won't be charged, Gershowitz added.
"There's a reason we don't let people take the law into their own hands," he said. "We have a police force for that. As an established society, we believe we are better off with an authorized police force that has standards and training rather than untrained vigilantes."
A transcript of the 911 call suggests Horn intended to do what he felt necessary to stop the burglars. Despite a concerted effort by the dispatcher to persuade him to let police deal with the break-in, Horn was insistent on trying keep them from getting away.
"I don't want you going outside, Mr. Horn," the dispatcher said.
"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."
Seconds later three shotgun blasts are heard.
Praise for dispatcher Experts who reviewed a recording of the call at the Chronicle's request said the dispatcher handled the call professionally and did all he could to defuse the situation until police arrived.
"He was doing everything he could to 'normalize' the conversation and not agitate the caller any further," said Sue Pivetta, a training consultant from Sumner, Wash. "Trust me when I say that he was indeed showing professional control at the highest level."
Charles Carter, a former police executive in Atlanta who has trained dispatchers for two decades, said the officer who handled Horn's call used proven techniques to dissuade him from leaving his home.
"We teach a technique called repetitive persistence," Carter said. "It needs to be at a level lower than the person calling to try to get him to calm down and listen to you. ... He did an outstanding job and needs to be commended."
Chronicle reporters Mike Tolson and Ruth Rendon contributed to this report.
allan.turner@chron.com
dale.lezon@chron.com
The cost in dollars is probably in the hundreds of billions each year, but the cost to native born Americans of losing our culture and having our once unique American society turned into a carbon copy of a 3rd world Latin American barrio is beyond monetary valuation.
I thought the same for a couple of seconds and now think better of it. I really don't care what the anti-gun nannies thinks about this. Cry me a river but if a preteen girl would blow the brains out of a rapist who was on top of her, the anti's would still complain.
And THAT exactly is why the discussion doesn’t approach that aspect...
That would be “racist”...or uncaring...
America better grow some balls, and ENFORCE laws already on the books and right NEW LAWS to reverse the damage and loopholes or we will join the Turd World in our lifetime...
Think about it, all the aspects of our Nation are under attack:
1. Our borders - by non defense against illegal alien immigrants.
2. Our schools - by Leftists, Atheists and multiculturalists.
3. Our Constitution and it founders undeniable belief in God, by all the above.
4. Our currency - the dollar is under effective attack by a combination of enemies.
5. Our economy, by the “environmentalists” and Arabist's refusal to allow energy Independence.
6. Our Medical System - Is now focused and bankrupted by service to illegal aliens.
7. Our roads - where Illegal Aliens are killing over 4,000 people per YEAR.
Yet - our Media and Congress Critters AVOID the issues that MUST be addressed..
The bastards are more concerned with their own political or racist objectives...
We are in a heap of trouble, and if the Democrats gain control of Congress AND the White House — you can bend over and kiss your ass goodbye........or take up arms in preparation for CWII.
Next year - the TOP item on EVERY American adult's Birthday or Anniversary gift list should be a reliable and effective firearm and LOTS of ammo.
Disconcerting, isn’t it?
Yet, our Media still focuses on who the skanks in Hollywood are doing, or raising hell about the treatment being given to our captured illegal combatants who are NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions.....
For more information on the illegal alien impact on America, you can start with the links below — but be prepared to be horrified:
"...LOTS of ammo."
That's what I said to someone recently. There is no need to take away guns, if there is no ammunition for them.
Thanks, RR
It’s always a good idea to have at least one weapon that is chambered for one of the CURRENT U.S. military rounds for either a rifle or pistol...both if affordable.
That way — if push comes to shove one can “appropriate” the ammo.....
As regards the question: “How did he come out of the house with the gun, when he didn’t keep guns in the house?” there is a logical answer. The article says he kept the gun in his vehicle. He probably had an attached garage (which some would consider part of the house). Perhaps he kept the vehicle locked and out of the sun in the garage. Perhaps after he saw the perps breaking in the house, he went and retrieved his car keys, went down through the kitchen, into the garage, unlocked the vehicle, retrieved the gun and went back into the house to see what progress the perps had made.
Thanks, Ramius, I saw that as well. I am all for whatever force is necessary for ones own self-defense. Self-defense, armed robbery or an attempted rape I understand lethal force completely. I think these Texas laws go much farther than is necessary. I tend to look at these things from a moralistic viewpoint.
Is it right to take a life for the sake of material? Do we really want Joe Citizen there running around deciding who is and isn’t committing a crime? I understand sometimes, it is glaringly obvious a crime is being committed, but I see a tragedy just waiting to happen with this law. I can foresee a kid doing something really stupid (the stupid stuff we have all done at one time) and losing their life because of it. I have seen too much personally from these old kooks who are armed, to be comfortable with this kind of latitude regarding lethal force. 12 Year olds shot dead because they were in someone’s yard. I have seen people disoriented and thinking someone stole something from them and then later they find it where they left it of course.
I am not in anyway saying people should cower in fear and wait too late to react to a threat, and therefore lose their own life. I am saying when it comes to material possessions, and you are are not in a confrontational environment; Do not enter into one. It just isn’t smart and whatever good you may think you are doing, could end in a tragedy you will never be able to reconcile. It might range from a killing on your conscience to unintentionally shooting and killing an innocent child. It appears what Mr. Horn did was absolutely lawful, but I am not so sure what he did was right.
Know much Texas law?
Sounds like a reasonable assumption.
If they were obviously committing a crime (broken into neighbor's place, carrying out loot, etc.) then I would call it a perfectly good shoot. This took place in Texas, not Connecticut.
In a disarmed society, an increase in the burglary rate will reduce the percentage of burglaries that result in prosecution. The reduced risk of prosecution will make burglary more attractive, pushing the rate up further.
In an armed society, an increase in the burglary rate will cause more people to arm themselves, which will increase the likelihood of a burglary being fatal. This in turn makes burglary less attractive as a career choice, and helps keeps the burglary rate in check.
True, but this is a restriction that applies only to LEOs. It does not apply to victims, on grounds that they are not expected to be law enforcement professionals.
If it were well known that thieves could be shot on sight, I would see no moral problem (provided, of course, that the people who were shot were, in fact, all thieves). If a criminal decides that his life is worth less than his victim's property, I see no moral requirement that the property owner second-guess that determination.
In some states, one could very well argue that the burglar by his actions wasn't showing that he valued his own life less than he valued his victim's property, since he had no reasonable expectation of losing the former. In Texas, though, the law has been there long enough that burglars should know the risks.
Let’s see him ‘splain that one to his wife.
I wasn’t speaking about Texas law. I was speaking more in terms of what is right. I realize now that what he did is considered legal in Texas. Abortion is law, American law, but it’s murder and an injustice all the same.
What one views as right or moral will vary greatly from individual to individual. Discharging a weapon in a neighborhood at 2pm when he could have easily stayed put and been safe was just stupid and reckless. I am not so much concerned about him or the burglars as I am the citizens he could have endangered by his very unwise act.
I didn't write, "Law Enforcement isn’t allowed to just shoot people fleeing a scene...
It's not as critical knowing what's behind your target if you're shooting a shotgun AND you hit your target.
Besides, how do you know that Mr. Horn didn't take the precaution of knowing what was behind the scumbags?
No one got hurt, except for the scumbags who DESERVED it.
Good shooting.
Case closed.
He’s a HERO...God Bless this man!!!
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.