Man Shoots Burglars: PASADENA, TX: MERGED

[P7fanatic]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/14698578/detail.html

Man Uncharged In Double Shooting Deaths
Shooting Could Test Self-Defense Laws

POSTED: 6:30 pm CST November 26, 2007
UPDATED: 8:53 am CST November 27, 2007

Pasadena police were still investigating Monday and planned to present their findings to Harris County prosecutors within the next two weeks, police spokesman Vance Mitchell said. From there, it is expected to be presented to a grand jury. In the meantime, Horn remains uncharged.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they could otherwise be killed. In some cases, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbors' property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

Gotta love Texas! I sure miss it.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[abuttermilk]

YYYEEESSSSSSS!!!! The pendulum is swinging the other way back to common sense and good, tax paying citizens are getting their rights back!!
ROCK ON!!!!!!!!!!

[Janq]

Amazing. ^^ [P7s news update post & link]

He himself stated to the 911 operator on tape he did not know his neighbors, and thus they could not have asked that he watch over their property.
Further he was in no danger being unseen by the criminals from inside his home yet he _chooses_ to go outside, confront the alledged burglars, exacerbate the situation interjecting himself into a dangerous situation making it even more dangerous, and he brings to bear lethal force on two unarmed persons even as one fled. Worst he showed premeditation in his mindset via his own court admissable statements to the 911 operator as recorded.

Amazing.
This is much, even for Texas.

- Janq

[Freedom Doc]

Janq, I understand your point of view and desire to follow the rule of law, but I think this whole thing shows how fed up people are by rampant criminality. I agree with Peaceful Jeffrey and Abuttermilk on this one -- the guy eliminated 2 jerks that were nothing but a drag on society. Sometimes, liberals go so far as to come out and say they view criminals as their pawns in their war on America. (I have HEARD them say this). Well, this is America fighting back!

[abuttermilk]

And so the message goes out loud and clear! Don't do a violent crime in Texas. The citizens of Texas have their rights and will defend them. If a majority in a community stand for their rights, the community will be strong and safe.
There will always be the "Don't want to get involved" hangers on and the "I'll just let them do it and I'll just sit back and reap the benefits" type whiney butts with rubber spines.
What is unfortunate is that there are a lot of good folks out there with steel in their spine who don't come out of the woodwork unless pushed so they are not known about. Or, maybe it is fortunate because when they come out of the woodwork, they come out with a vengence. And they will come out when they realize they have support from the good people of a community. TALK IT UP!! Let them know they are appreciated.
Case in point: Within the last two the last two weeks, I ,and other employees, were involved in a foot pursuit for a shoplifter. After running for a little over a block, a citizen pulled up beside us in a pickup and yelled to get in the back. As soon as we pulled in the alley and the residents saw it was us, the residents began telling where the thief had gone to and where to find him. A month ago that would not have happened but because of the death of two big drug dealers, and an increased police presence, the residents have taken back their neighborhood and are standing for what is right.
Yes it can work and each one of us, with a backbone, as members here should be getting involved and letting others know it is our community and our country and we are not going to live in fear of thugs.
When the judges in our courts see this action, their decisions will follow suit.
Let's swing the pendulum back!!

[Janq]

Janq, I understand your point of view and desire to follow the rule of law, but I think this whole thing shows how fed up people are by rampant criminality...

Agreed Doc, and I see and am hearing same.

I completely understand where folks are coming from (PJ et. al.) and a part of me wants to agree, good riddance to bad rubbish. My mom always told me for two decades as I'd lived under her roof that you live by the sword and you'll die by it as well as "you make your bed and you lie in it". Mann it gives me the willys just thinking of it as I'd heard her say that soooo many times toward every bad thing I ever did or time I'd come home from a fight be it win, lose, or draw.
A part of me feels like ehhh F*&$ 'em. They made their move and well there was risk to go with their expected reward.

But then I recall the law, and the Constitution, and I think of humanity.
As well I think of that 911 tape and Mr. Horn's repeated statements toward a desire to go out there and onto another mans land (which in and of itself is trespass) to "kill'em".

In this specific case I cannot resolve one against the other.
Or rather one is less good and less beneficial than the other, and that one is murder of two people who themselves were acting wrongly committing a crime that normally is not by law associated with penalty of death.

Sigh

- Janq

[riverkeeper]

Horn did 2 things wrong and one thing right & IMHO seems to have gotten lucky.

Wrong--
"I'm going to kill them"
He went outside and possibly risked his life for portable property.

Right--
When they approached him on his property and did not (apparently) follow his direction, he 'stopped' them.

[peacefuljeffrey]

Janq, I understand your point of view and desire to follow the rule of law, but I think this whole thing shows how fed up people are by rampant criminality. I agree with Peaceful Jeffrey and Abuttermilk on this one -- the guy eliminated 2 jerks that were nothing but a drag on society. Sometimes, liberals go so far as to come out and say they view criminals as their pawns in their war on America. (I have HEARD them say this). Well, this is America fighting back!

Thank you. You spoke for me, but you got it right.
I am indeed fed up with watching bad guys prey on good guys, and then the societal reaction is that we have to all work our very hardest to make sure that the predatory bad guys get fair treatment, and that we don't overreact to their criminality, that we shoot only in the furthest extreme, etc.

It's way past time for the to start FEARING those they would prey upon. We have already seen what we get when criminals become aware of the fact that the law doesn't side with good guys defending against criminal predation. We have tried the "restraint" path, and it led us to dismal straits. It got us to where criminals feel they have the run of the place, and honest good people are afraid to go out of their homes.

Perhaps we should have granted all along, legally and socially, that you can shoot people for taking your property. Maybe we wouldn't have fallen so far down this slope, to the point where we actually have CCWers standing here saying that it's "only" a theft, making excuses for why we should be leaving criminals alive only to attack again. The way I see it, it has been permissiveness (bleeding-heartism) that allowed criminal behavior to take such strong root around this country.

I am frankly ecstatic that this guy will not be tried. This kind of message needed to be sent. IT IS, TRULY, THEM OR US. I still recognize that what this guy did was extreme: what I'm saying is that at this point, I do believe that "extreme" is what's called for or we will witness the ultimate destruction of our society and our way of life.

Proactivity is now called for.

[mousehunter]

I suspect he was well within his legal rights to go outside with a shotgun on his own property. I am pretty sure he was fine to conduct a citizens arrest across the property line. Lethal force to stop a burglary is case dependent yet - but if they made any threating move against him (they lunged towards him), since Texas passed the castle doctrine he had the right to defend himself without retreating first.

Basically he was lucky if the blood showed that they were advancing towards him, and would be doubly lucky had the perps been Caucasian males (so no race card could be played).

[Janq]

PJ,

We, US society, has been there before though and what we gained from as much was wide spread vigilantism, lawlessness, lack of civility, street justice, subordination of civil rights...and even greater fear amongst us all.
It wasn't all that long ago either and as much is very well documented in American history.

Todays so called 'proactivity' sits on the same slope as yesterdays lynching of the accused, denial of a fair trial, suspension of Constitutional rights, and so called trial of persons who committed alleged crime of some sort such as famously Sacco & Vanzetti and even Emmett Till.
And that's just in the last century nevermind life as it had been for many if not most during the bad old days of the 1900s and prior. Recall the saying of 'frontier justice'? It wasn't so just for many and varying folks all of whom were not criminals in truth though they were in fact citizens.

Again I totally see and understand where you and others are coming from on this. I feel your emotion and understand it as well.
I'm personally though just not convinced nor willing to go down the road of ends justify the means, again. I've seen that picture and personally tasted that fruit and found that for me it's ugly and bitter.

- Janq

[dang.45]

I am frankly ecstatic that this guy will not be tried.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've read so far today (here & elsewhere) has said that the police are not charging him with anything, but that all the evidence is being handed over to the DA, with the possibility of charges coming at some later date. As I've stated earlier in this thread, I'm not upset by the outcome of the incident, but I have a real problem with Mr. Horn declaring that he was going to kill these guys well before he could possibly have felt any fear for his life.

I still think there has to be a reasonable fear of bodily harm (at least) before a law-abiding person should be able to utilize deadly force. I also think it should be up to the prosecution to prove that the person claiming self-defense was not fearing for their life in the moment, rather than the shooter having to prove that it was self-defense. This would take away the advantage the BGs have over their victims, i.e. you and I would not have to worry anywhere near as much about going to jail or dealing with an indictment over what we are confident is a "good shoot", while still allowing prosecutors to go after cases where there is good evidence that it was not a "good shoot". What I'm talking about isn't a radical shift in law, just a tilting of the playing field away from the BGs and back toward those of us living our lives lawfully & morally.

If the laws in TX were as I laid out above, Mr. Horn would still have a hill to climb...

And PJ, while I don't think we should be able to simply shoot someone for property crimes that don't involve anyone directly (such as was the case being discussed here), I do think law abiding citizens should be free to confront with the threat of force, those who are found committing these crimes. If I confront two guys coming out of a window carrying stuff I'm confident doesn't belong to them, I should not have to fear prosecution for pointing my handgun, shotgun, AR-15, etc at them and commanding them to "kiss the dirt" until the police arrive. And then, if and only if I am threatened by one or more of the thieves would I be justified in using deadly force to stop that threat.

My problem with the way laws in most of the country are written now is that, if I were to leave my home armed to confront these thieves, I would be seen as the aggressor & likely prosecuted as such. That's a bunch of &*%$, for the reasons you and others have articulated. We law-abiding citizens should never have to sit back and watch as criminals take the hard-earned possessions of others, period.

[mousehunter]

I read a bit more of this now. He went outside and was confronted by the perps on his front yard. As such, they were a threat to him on his property. Bingo! If they county insists that every shooting goes to the grand jury, then fine - but pretty much feel he was 100% within the Law in Texas.

fwiw. He had a moral responsibility to go out and detain the perps - a responsibly too many people would prefer to avoid. I don't think he should have shoot them had they fled - BUT definitely had the right to protect himself after he told them to stop if they threatened him.

Here is my version of the story. I walk outside (on my property) with a gun. I tell the perps that that they should have a seat, I have a great ID of them and the police are on the way. If they attack me (which is rational, since I can ID them), I can defend myself. If they run, I do my best to help the police catch them. I don't think we should be forced by the nanny state to cower in our homes as big brother protects us.

[kentuckycarry]

I'm surprised at some of the "vigilanty attitudes " on this forum over this. We preach on here when and when not to shoot. If someone reaches the point that they give a big "bravo" for killing 2 people just because they were stealing a neighbors property, maybe they should rethink why we carry a gun. This man went out there to confront these people with a gun. Said he was going to kill them. From the info we have, he was not threatened.
If someone broke in my house while I'm home, yes I will use deadly force. But to go to a neighbors house ,( that he really doesnt even know to beat all ) and go murder 2 people. Personally I think the guy should be prosecuted to some extent. We carry a gun ( and have them at home ) for self defense. This WAS NOT self defense from the info we know of.

[mcp1810]

Robere, I am not endorsing Mr. Horns actions, but I do believe he was legal. And if he is legal, we could say he "homicided" two people but not "murdered" them. Murder is by definition an unlawful killing of a person. If Texas law allows Mr. Horns actions, it isn't murder, as much as we may believe it to be. For instance, we all feel perfectly justified shooting an armed burglar in our own home. In jolly old England that would land us in prison. Different place, different law. Texas law does not require the shooting to be self defense
as I read it. I am not saying that I would shoot someone over property, much less a neighbors property, what I am saying is that as much as we may dislike it, Mr. Horn's actions appear to be within the law.

§ 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.

Please note that (3) is (A) or (B)!

§ 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.

Do I think what Mr. Horn did was right? No.
Do I think what Mr. Horn did was legal? Could very well be!

[kentuckycarry]

I'm surprised at some of the "vigilanty attitudes " on this forum over this. We preach on here when and when not to shoot. If someone reaches the point that they give a big "bravo" for killing 2 people just because they were stealing a neighbors property, maybe they should rethink why we carry a gun. This man went out there to confront these people with a gun. Said he was going to kill them. From the info we have, he was not threatened.
If someone broke in my house while I'm home, yes I will use deadly force. But to go to a neighbors house ,( that he really doesnt even know to beat all ) and go murder 2 people. Personally I think the guy should be prosecuted to some extent. We carry a gun ( and have them at home ) for self defense. This WAS NOT self defense from the info we know of.

Ok I stand corrected, homicide, I agree.
Sometimes on this forum people speak one way of handling a situation,then when it happens, it's different. How often do we hear " Stay out of it and be a good witness"? If this scenerio had been asked " What would you do if this happened" the majority of people would say, "Call the cops and be a good witness, stay out of it". So a guy decides to do everything wrong and now he's getting praised by some on here. ( Not all, some ).
I'm fed up too with criminals having all the rights and getting out of prison early and getting away with murder and all that. But we can't reach the point in society of killing someone just because we are "fed up". This guy played cop, judge and jury. He had NO BUSINESS going out and confronting these people
( ok scum ), It's like he instigated it. Just because somone is "scum" doesn't mean we have the right to take the law into our own hands like he did.. I'm not going to condone shooting anyone that hasn't threatend me or anyone else.
Reading the Texas laws, he may be legally justified. But "whos" property does that pertain too? This guy didnt really even know his neighbors. If you see someone leaving anyones house with something you can shoot them?