Man Shoots Burglars: PASADENA, TX: MERGED - Page 2

Man Shoots Burglars: PASADENA, TX: MERGED

This is a discussion on Man Shoots Burglars: PASADENA, TX: MERGED within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; If I were to guess, I would think that he will be indicted based on that transcript, but I can't imagine a Texas jury convicting ...

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 191

Thread: Man Shoots Burglars: PASADENA, TX: MERGED

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array CT-Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,510
    If I were to guess, I would think that he will be indicted based on that transcript, but I can't imagine a Texas jury convicting him when the shooting occurred (supposedly) on his own property.

    His statement "I'm gonna kill 'em" will definitely cause he and his lawyer some hardship in court.

    All depends on how hard the prosecutor decides to go after him.


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,418
    I'm 100% in agreement that one should be legally allowed to defend property. I'm 100% certain no property is worth getting killed over. And 150% certain I'd defend myself if attacked while attempting to defend my own place. The keyword here is "defend."

    However, this old coot seems awfully excited to go stop two people from going over a neighbor's property, when he doesn't know them, hasn't arranged to watch their property whiile gone, and has made such statements about his intentions.

    Caller: No, I am inside the house I went back in the house. Man, they came running in my yard. Didn't know what the (expletive) they's gonna do. I shot 'em. OK?
    In the neighbor's yard, or his own yard? If in his own yard, the ground's a bit more solid that he's standing on.

    Caller: You wanna make a bet? I'm gonna kill 'em."
    My bet: say hello to the Grand Jury. Texas or not, blood lust just doesn't sit right. His attorney is going to have a bit of work to do, as it's all on tape in his own words.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; November 17th, 2007 at 12:11 PM.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  3. #18
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,511
    Quote Originally Posted by DrLewall View Post
    It's a never ending battle, isn't it...scumbags deserved it!
    Perhaps with ENOUGH defensive shootings in homes and businesses, the BGNSU (Bad Guy's National Service Union) will begin realizing that it's too dangerous to continue this line of work!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    That is a seriously damning transcript. I'm about as pro self-defense as they come, and I'd vote to indict. The shooter was never in any danger, deadly or otherwise, that he did not intentionally put himslef in. He expresses his intent to kill long before he was ever even remotely threatened. He ignored the instructions - heck, the begging - of the dispatcher again and again. He is not a cop, is not in danger, is not protecting anyone from death or grave bodily injury. He fires two shots, pauses, and then a third... It looks really, really bad.

    If he weren't in TX, I'd almost guarantee an indictment, if not a conviction.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    There was more coverage in the Chronicle today. It seems some legal scholars in the Houston area are of the opinion that his big issue is the time of day. The ones interviewed that think he has a problem are of the consensus that the laws allowing use of deadly force in defense of a third parties property would only be applicable at night! I personally don't like the way some of these things are written, I sometimes get mixed up in the "and"s and "or"s and end up having to read them a couple of times to get them straight.

    § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
    justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
    tangible, movable property:
    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the
    other under Section 9.41; and
    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
    deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
    arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
    nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
    immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
    robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
    property; and
    (3) he reasonably believes that:
    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or
    recovered by any other means; or
    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to
    protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
    another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
    1994.


    § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
    is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
    protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
    under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
    actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
    or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
    interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
    criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:
    (A) the third person has requested his protection
    of the land or property;
    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
    person's land or property; or
    (C) the third person whose land or property he
    uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
    or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
    1994.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array SilenceDoGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    774
    I wonder how old the caller was b/c (not kidding) this sounds like some seriously senile/delusional behavior. "The laws have changed since sep 1" "A shotgun isn't an illeagl weapon" "You wanna make a bet, I'm gonna kill em' " Inconsistent with rational behavior. but i'm no scientist.
    "A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781

    Man Kills Suspected Intruders While Protecting Neighbor's Property

    As reported by ABCNews.com:

    Man Kills Suspected Intruders While Protecting Neighbor's Property
    Shooter's Legal Right Questioned


    Some think Joe Horn when too far when he shot and killed two men he believed were buglarizing his neighbor's home.

    Nov. 17, 2007

    Texans are debating if a man who said he was defending his neighbor's property when he shot and killed two suspected burglars was within his rights.

    Texas state law allows people to use deadly force in order to protect their property. And so far, Pasadena, Texas, resident Joe Horn has not been charged in the shooting deaths of Manuel De Jesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, earlier this week.

    Horn, 61 ran out of his house when he suspected the men were attempting to burglarize his neighbor's home. He called 911 to alert authorities of the situation, and the conversation has been preserved on tape.

    Joe Horn: Hurry up man. Catch these guys, will ya? 'Cause I ain't gonna. I'm gonna be honest with ya. I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let them get away with this.

    The dispatcher begged him to wait for police instead of taking any action.

    Horn: You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going.
    911 Dispatcher: Don't go outside.

    On the recording, Horn can be heard threatening to shoot the men if they move.

    Horn: Move, you're dead.

    Still, Horn's attorney insists his client is not an out-of-control vigilante.

    "Joe is not a vigilante," said the attorney, Tom Lambright. "He's not a Rambo. He is exactly the opposite of that. He's a nice, loving family man."

    But Ortiz's wife, Diamond Morgan, said she believes Horn used excessive force.

    "[Horn] said that he feared for his life. But he made the 911 call. And the dispatcher kept telling him don't go outside," she said. "I feel he wanted to shoot them anyway."

    Police said a grand jury will determine if what Horn did was illegal.

    Meanwhile, he has expressed some regret about what occurred.

    "The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased," Horn said in a statement to ABC News.

    The story can be found at; http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3880630
    Reader feedback; http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/comments?t...ory&id=3880630

    - Janq would not have engaged them knowing only what Joe Horn knew
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248

    I Believe this man should go to Prision.

    I have looked to see if this case has been sited before and didn't find it.
    I hope this is the right place to put it.
    Please go to this site and read the article and PLEASE listen to the Dispatch recording.
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5309288.html
    I believe this man was SO wrong on SO many levels, that prision is the only answer. Too bad, but action without thought DOES cost.
    What do you think?
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  9. #24
    Member Array Diamond D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    27
    Yea,
    what he did was wrong. It would be hard to sit back and watch someone take your stuff, but like the dispatcher said, property is not worth killing someone over. If his life was in danger, then yes, lethal force would be warranted, but chasing someone down with a shotgun and killing them is murder....

    And what would his defense be? Him saying "i'm going to kill them" doesn't put him in a good light at all.

    I don't think he was even arrested after the shooting...

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array Fragman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    568

    This is Texas

    This is Texas. Deadly force is authorized in the protection of property, even someone elses property under many cricumstances.

    The only thing counting against him is the fact that it was 2pm. If it had been dark, it would have been pretty much a no brainer.

    It's also telling that he has not been arrested or even charged with a crime, although in Harris County at least, all homicides, justified or not, go before the grand jury.


    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
    (3) he reasonably believes that:
    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:
    (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
    (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

  11. #26
    Ex Member Array Creature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    343
    Wow...thanks for the info, Fragman. Burglary in Texas is just stupid!

  12. #27
    Senior Member Array Fragman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    568

    Right vs Legal

    Now, my post above isn't saying that what he did was smart or even right. Personally, I think it was downright stupid and unnecessary, but as for being illegal and therefore worthy of jailtime, thats not as clear cut as the OP thinks.

  13. #28
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Guys (Spirit 51 in particular) - have done a merge on this - so all info is in one place.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  14. #29
    Ex Member Array Creature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    343
    Now, my post above isn't saying that what he did was smart or even right. Personally, I think it was downright stupid and unnecessary, but as for being illegal and therefore worthy of jailtime, thats not as clear cut as the OP thinks.
    Agreed.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    I have trouble understanding why so many of you think this guy was right. Please read the entire article and listen to the dispatch recording.
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5309288.html
    This man had NO right to go out and confront these people, He had called the police and there was NO threat to life or well being....just theft.
    He said to the dispatch he was going to kill them and now says he regrets it.
    This kind of action is bad for all those who do have the right to action. Please review it.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Burress shoots himself: MERGED
    By bonehead in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: December 12th, 2008, 12:23 AM
  2. GOOD- Homeowner Shoots Two Burglars!
    By Balsac in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: July 5th, 2008, 08:29 PM
  3. 4 YO shoots self with Grannys gun: MERGED
    By Free American in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: June 10th, 2008, 02:51 PM
  4. Dog shoots owner, dog must have been very mad (merged)
    By nkanofolives in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 9th, 2008, 09:35 PM
  5. Story from East TX, homeowner shoots JD burglars
    By rmkwebdesign in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2006, 11:17 PM

Search tags for this page

california man shoots two thieves
,
man shoots burglars in pasadena texas
,

pasadena shooting in 2006, shoots burglers

,
pasadena texas man shoots burglar
,
pasadena tx homicides
,

pasadena tx man shoots

,
pasadena tx man shoots robbers
,
pasadena tx man shoots thieves
,
pasedena tx man shoots two burglars
,
texas detain thief burglar gunpoint
Click on a term to search for related topics.