Posted on 12/13/2007 8:32:57 AM PST by BradtotheBone
In Joe Horn's now-infamous 911 call reporting the burglary of his neighbor's home last month, there's a particularly disturbing refrain that made many of us cringe.
"I'm not going to let them get away with this," the Pasadena homeowner tells the dispatcher several times in various ways in the moments before he shot to death the two burglars, Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 28, and Diego Ortiz, 30.
To many of us, Horn's preoccupation with stopping the crime and recovering the stolen property — "a bag of loot," as Horn described it — seemed irrational and vengeful rather than heroic. We agreed with the dispatcher, who repeatedly pleaded with the 61-year-old computer consultant to keep himself and his shotgun safe inside his own house while police headed to the scene.
"Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over," the dispatcher told Horn.
Property versus human life Human life is worth more than property. It seems like a universal truth. But apparently not in Texas, or other states with similar laws.
Over the past week, I've researched the Texas Penal Code and discovered some provisions that were surprising even to this fifth-generation Texan.
The law of our land seems to place more value on the property being stolen — even if it belongs to a neighbor — than on the life of the burglar stealing it.
A review of our state's protection-of-property statutes suggests that Horn's repeated declarations about not letting the burglars "get away with it" may be the words that ultimately set him free.
If Horn doesn't get indicted, don't blame the grand jury. And don't blame Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal. Blame the section of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code that deals with protection of property.
Justifiable homicide Under the section, which has been in place at least since 1973, a person is justified in using deadly force to protect a neighbor's property from burglary if the person "reasonably believes" deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
Now, one might argue that, since the dispatcher told Horn that police were on their way, Horn should have reasonably believed authorities would nab the bad guys.
But the escalating anxiety in Horn's voice as he sees the burglars emerge from his neighbor's window with the goods, and his reiteration that "they're getting away" moments before he fires his 12-gauge may indicate to a grand jury that Horn didn't believe police would arrive in time.
Rosenthal wouldn't discuss the particulars of the Horn case, which he is still waiting to receive from Pasadena police. And police haven't revealed all the facts. A police spokesman disclosed last week that, according to a plain-clothes detective who witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings, Horn shot the two men in the back after they'd ventured into his front yard.
The fact that they were on his yard may provide Horn with even more protection.
Rosenthal said he's gotten about 50 letters and e-mails, including out-of-state inquiries from California to Minnesota, split about even in favor and against Horn being indicted. Rosenthal said he won't let the controversy surrounding the case — including a death threat against Horn called into the DA's public integrity division on Sunday —influence his office's handling of it.
He said he's not assigning any particular prosecutor, saying "whoever's working intake (when Pasadena files it) gets to be the person in the bucket."
And the prosecutor won't make a recommendation to the grand jury, which Rosenthal said is standard for such cases.
"We'll take it to a grand jury; we'll present it straight up, and whatever the grand jury does, we'll follow it. And if they decide they want to indict the guy, we'll handle it and we'll suffer the slings and arrows, but that's part of the territory," Rosenthal said.
Texas isn't unique in allowing the use of deadly force in the protection of property during felony crimes such as burglary, but the experts I talked with weren't aware how many states allow deadly force in the protection of a neighbor's property.
And for those of us tempted to dismiss such laws as backward or antiquated notions in a trigger-happy state, experts suggest states are moving closer to Texas' model than away.
"My sense is that the reason, not just Texas, but other states have been enacting statutes more and more like this is because politicians are afraid to vote against them," said Steven Goode, a law professor at the University of Texas.
"They don't want the next attack ad to be one where they are criticized for voting against someone's ability to protect themselves in their home."
"In a calmer and less politicized environment we might have different laws," Goode said. "But campaign ads don't allow for particularly nuanced discussions of issue."
Even if they don't indict him, it doesn't mean Horn's actions were morally right. He chose to kill; he didn't have to. His own life and property were not in danger until he confronted the burglars.
There's a difference between what we can do and what we should do. Without careful judgment and discretion, the law can be a dangerous thing.
The same law that may protect Horn from indictment could also protect someone who, in the dark of night, discovers a group of teenage girls wrapping his front yard trees with toilet paper.
To a rational person, this is a harmless prank. Under Texas law, in a world without discretion, the girls are engaging in criminal mischief and the homeowner would be justified in mowing them down with a shotgun.
Best line and best reasoning on the entire thread!!
Operator: Don’t go outside the house.
Horn: I’m doing it.
Operator: Mr. Horn, do not go out of the house.
Horn: I’m sorry. This ain’t right, buddy.
Operator: You’re gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with that gun. I don’t care what you think. Stay in the house.
Horn: You wanna make a bet? I’m gonna kill ‘em.
Operator: Ok. Stay in the house.
I’m not sure what relevance it has that his proclamation that he was “gonna kill ‘em” was in response to the operator telling him he would be shot if he went out with the gun, but that’s the sequence of the comments. It is still clear from that comment and Mr. Horn’s subsequent actions that his intent was to kill the men before he ever left his house.
You are right about that. Most people who are outraged by this are liberal whiners who think they should be able to abort at will and euthanize Grandma. I am not against the concept that you have a right to protect your property. My problem is that I think Mr. Horn was entirely too eager to kill someone. His stated intent was to kill the men, and that’s exactly what he did. He gave a farce of a warning with no time to react, then shot the men in the back.
I’ll ask anyone on this thread who blindly supports Mr. Horn: What if , despite your best efforts to train them to respect other people’s property, your 15 year old had a few beers too many one night and got involved in something like this with a couple of friends? Would you feel that Mr. Horn was justified, or would you think maybe he had gone a little too far?
I suspect that a great deal of the support for Mr. Horn on this board has as much to do with the ethnicity of the perps as it does with whether Mr. Horn’s actions were right or wrong.
The only people here who are doing anything “blindly” are those trying to find fault with Horn.
He intended to kill them? Good.
Nothing was at risk but property, and he killed them anyway? Good.
They were running away, and he killed them anyway? Good.
I don’t care if they were down on their knees crying and begging for their lives. They forfeited their right to breathe when they entered that house. Horn just made them pay the check.
The only way we’re ever going to take our country back is with a lot, ***LOT*** more of this kind of thing.
If you think a lot more of this kind of thing is going to “take our country back” then you clearly misunderstand the way this plays to most Americans.
I’m not talking about Freepers. I know that Mr. Horn is very popular here. I’m talking about the vast majority of the rest of America, the ones that voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Dummies last election. We don’t win over anyone by shooting people in the back without sufficient warning. Mr. Horn’s case will be used by the left as a prime example of the need for stricter gun control, beyond handguns and “assault rifles” and now extending to shotguns and all other types of weapons.
On this board - clearly there is the opposite reaction, but sentiment on this board rarely reflects political reality as much as it does political idealism. If you don’t believe that, just look at how different the results of the last couple of elections have been than posters on this board claimed to be confident that they would be.
I’m not calling for a pragmatic approach to win votes, but this case just bothers me as a clear example of a man who, much like Officer Gardner of the Utah Highway Patrol, was much too eager to pull the trigger.
Actually, the Founders were killing people over property. They took the "property" stuff our of the Declaration and Constitution in part because it was commonly understood at the time that property was paramount.
I imagine the Founders would be gobsmacked at today's notion that "it's just stuff".
That's how the government ended up owning most of our "stuff", including our paychecks, real estate and automobiles.
Question: Was the 15 year old drunk boy with the 4 girls toilet-papering?
Another question: What if the 15 year old boys actions inadvertantly caused another person to die?
Straw men can run wild.
And do you really believe “sentiment on this board rarely reflects political reality”? What is up with that?
And you appear to clearly misunderstand that most folks on here just don't give a rat's derriere HOW this "plays" to most Americans.
The issue being discussed is whether Joe Horn did the right thing, and the overwhelming concensus is "YES!"
"Most Americans" wouldn't know the "right thing" if it jumped up and bit them on the nose.
“The law of our land seems to place more value on the property being stolen — even if it belongs to a neighbor — than on the life of the burglar stealing it.”
Since the life of a sneak thief is essentially worth nothing and any kind of property has some sort of value by definition, I think this is right.
As with most liberal pro-criminal screeds, this one is based on a strawman. It is not property in and of itself that is worth a human life, it is the right not to have our possessions taken by force that is worth defending with lethal force. They are not the same thing at all.
The silly [w]itch is blaming Texans for those two poor disadvantaged illegal aliens robbing a Texans home, just doing the jobs that real Texans refuse to do and they get themselves shot and killed in the process. She, like the two thieving sorry-ass thugs just don't understand Texas homeowners anger and rage at being taken for a expensive ride and then advantage of by bleeding heart social engineering liberals and their handymen thugs.
Even if they don't indict him, it doesn't mean Horn's actions were morally right. He chose to kill; he didn't have to. ......
The two low-life professional thugs also knew that this was a risk they were willing to take when they chose to break into a mans home and steal his hard earned property [in Texas]. I'm afraid even more of them will get blown away yet still as they just don't want to live with the rest of us in a peaceful and law abiding manner. Too bad. Personally, I too am locked, loaded and ready for em'.
Burglary of a residence was a capital crime in most states, back before the communists took over. It still is anywhere I reside.
“I’m not talking about Freepers. I know that Mr. Horn is very popular here. I’m talking about the vast majority of the rest of America, the ones that voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Dummies last election.”
Vast majority? I don’t think it’s that bad. The utmost efforts of the left combined with the fecklessness of the Republicans and election fraud on an unbelievable scale to lose the pubbies the majority. I don’t think that adds up tgo a vast majority.
Besides, the way this plays to idiots has little to do with whether or not it’s the medicine we need.
“Mr. Horn’s case will be used by the left as a prime example of the need for stricter gun control, beyond handguns and “assault rifles” and now extending to shotguns and all other types of weapons.”
Yes, of course they will squeal, and it is up to us to show that the reason they’re so afraid is that the seeds of their defeat are seen in incidents such as this.
“I’m not calling for a pragmatic approach to win votes, but this case just bothers me as a clear example of a man who, much like Officer Gardner of the Utah Highway Patrol, was much too eager to pull the trigger.”
No comparison. In the one case, the man was an ordinary citizen quibbling over a traffic ticket, in the other it was two dangerous felons. The only way Horn could have been too quick on the trigger was if he had shot these two before they went in the house.
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.