Posted on 11/27/2007 6:15:36 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
PASADENA, TEXAS -- When he saw two men pry into his neighbor's house with a crowbar one afternoon earlier this month, Joe Horn did what many people would do: He called 911.
But when police had not shown up by the time the suspects were about to leave, the 61-year-old retiree did something most people probably would not: He stepped outside with his 12-gauge shotgun and killed them.
"I'm not going to let them get away with this," Horn told the 911 dispatcher, who responded: "Property's not worth killing someone over."
Seconds later, the sound of a gun being loaded could be heard on the 911 tape, followed by a warning -- "Move [and] you're dead" -- and then three bursts of gunfire. Miguel DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of whom had small-time criminal histories, died of their wounds.
The six-minute recording of Horn's anger, frustration and eagerness to take the law into his own hands has made him the focus of a national controversy. Critics condemn him as a vigilante bent on meting out murderous justice. Admirers praise him as a courageous hero whom any law abider would love to have next door.
"Why is he still a free man?" Linda E. Edwards wrote in a letter to the Houston Chronicle.
"Joe Horn gets a Texas 'attaboy' from me," countered John E. Meagher in the next letter. "Justice was served, law or not."
As the debate rages on talk radio and cable-TV news shows, Horn remains free.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It can be, under Texas law. True, the legal penalty can not be, although the law once hung horse thieves, but under Texas Law, deadly force can be used to stop the sort of property crime these men were committing. It can also be used in self defense. The Grand Jury will decide, if the DA even bothers to take the case to the grand jury, which is still fairly likely, even if the DA feels there is no real reason to prosecute the defender. Think of it as tying up loose ends. A "No Bill" from the Grand Jury can help with any resulting civil case, which given the involvement of "activists", and the existence of a wife and young child for one the burglars, there is likely to be.
Oops, meant to say "need not agree".
True, but in this case the "Cha-Chink" came while he was still in the house, and still on the phone with the dispatcher.
It would be the height of folly to walk out the house with a firearm with an empty chamber, unless that firearm is a revolver, and the chamber is the one under the hammer, even then I'd cock a single action before going out and maybe a double action as well, just as he racked a round into the shotgun chamber before going out.
As I understand it, the perps were coming at him. Apparently witnesses stated that when he told them to stop, they came at him and he shot.
No problem, it apparently was in the middle of the afternoon. So, he went out during the day and tried to stop an ongoing robbery. He took his gun because he was determined to stop them and determined to protect himself if necessary. When he told them to stop, witnesses say they came at him. All of that other wnet out the window at that moment. Coming at him, he correctly perceived his life in danger and shot. You can do that any time.
K... But the absence of "Chachink!" would lead me to assume a pistol or a bolt-action... slightly less bothersome than a shotgun, but worthy of respect all the same.
In this case, however, one took it front-on, and the other in the side, AFAIR, so they could no doubt see their accuser and the justice in his hands... Bad mistake on their part.
Not when you clearly see that humongous hole in the end of the barrel. I'm sure it was quite clearly visible at 2 in the afternoon. You could be stone deaf and still know there was a shotgun pointed at you.
LOL! Yep.
Esecalated an event???
He confronted criminals, they escalated it when they decided to go after him.. THey are dead by their own poor actions.. your attempt to blame him is nonsense.
Death indeed is a consequence for these two, because they decided no only to steal, but to go after the person who rightfully tried to stop them... they are dead and society is better off for it.
What cowards our nation has become if we as a people sit here and call the one standing up for his own life and halting a criminal act is the one in the wrong.
There are some good reasons not to have the state impose the death penalty on thieves. A few of them:
Without casting aspersions on Mr. Horn or his neighbors, I would expect the neighbors to be inclined to provide a narrative friendly to Mr. Horn regardless of what actually transpired. That is not to say I doubt Mr. Horn was, in fact, justified, but merely that I would not regard the neighbors' testimony as having overwhelming probative value. They're probably telling the truth, but it's not hard to imagine that they might possibly be shading things a little.
then God bless him....
Indeed, and precisely what I meant by:
(regardless of any motive on their part, btw)
Probative or not, there is a certain value in their "shading" of things. If they are willing, that goes along way toward Mr Horn's credibility and their opinion that he is a "good joe". After all, if he were a problematic sort, prone to causing dangerous situations, I doubt his neighbors would "shade" anything.
Now, had there been injury to other than the obvious perpetrators, The DA may feel the need to be more probative. But considering the unified nod of the witnesses, if their testimony can be reconciled well to the audio tape, and to the evidence on the ground, I would be stunned to see the DA press the issue. This guy is close to hero material, and would make for a mighty unpopular DA.
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.