In general yes, but this guy was going to go out there and shoot someone, I'm not convinced he wouldn't have slipped up. But that's hypothetical.

I think everyone knows that in Texas they can shoot you fairly easily. I doubt that it deters much of anything as these guys were targeting a house that was empty.

I have a big problem with letting any gun-holder be the distributor of justice. His life wasn't in danger until he stepped out the door (and doubtful even then). Something he did knowing exactly what was going on outside. Police were on the way, he had the advice of an expert in these matters not to go out because it could be dangerous. I don't see this as self-defense. And I think there's a big difference between vigilantism and justice. Justice wasn't served here. Yeah, getting shot is an "occupational hazard" of being a burglar, but it would have been far better for these guys to have been caught by the authorities, and tried for their crimes because that's the way it is supposed to work and even criminals should have civil rights.

Homeowners have rights as well -- the right to be secure in their own homes from burglars, for example.

I think the policy here is that the law allows the homeowner to shoot before a situation threatening her life comes to fruition.

When legislators write these sorts of statutes, they're looking at a situation where if they define homeowners' rights too broadly, a few burglars will lose their lives. On the other hand, if they define homeowners' rights too narrowly, either there will be deaths or injuries dealt to those who are trying to comply with the law, e.g., observing a duty to retreat, etc., or there will be prosecutions of individuals who are really only trying to defend their homes.

Yeah, vigilantism is bad. I think that from a law and order standpoint, what this guy did was morally corrupt, however, I don't know if he actually broke the law -- I don't really think he did.

You have to have a permit in Texas to carry a handgun. That's about it.

Rifles and Shotguns don't have to be registered and you don't have to have a permit or license.


Personally, I don't think he broke the law either. Also, how are many of you stating that he was in no danger, didn't feel threatened, etc. Were you all there? Do you know the guy?

Well Texas does clearly warn everyone not to mess with it... guess that's proving to be sound advice.

OK, have any of you ever fired a SHOTGUN? I haven't either, but I've shot plenty of other guns (pistols and rifles) and learned enough about them to know that a shotgun is by no means a particularly accurate firearm. Honestly, if he cared about gun safety and being "careful" and accurate when he fired it, he wouldn't have used a shotgun. A homeowner that brings out a shotgun to confront some guys on his lawn is doing it to scare the crap out of them, not as a cautious response.

I think we all agree that it's unclear whether this guy broke the law (though the scale is weighing in his favor), but that even if he didn't break the law, that doesn't mean that what he did was right. And that the law is too generous regarding when it is OK to go after someone with deadly force.

Macallan, I would be one...listen to the 911 call, he clearly was in no danger as long as he stayed in the house, he never made it sound as if the robbers were coming to his house, he never made it sound as if they threatened him, from the recording, as long as he stayed put and let the cops do their job, he was safe.

More importantly, feeling "danger" and being "threatened" are not elements which are necessary to raise the defense.

None of that stuff is necessary either. Texas doesn't have a duty to retreat, nor does it specify that you have to feel there's a danger of death or serious bodily harm, or papercuts, or that the defense can't be raised on days starting with a T. The statute is pretty clearly set up to allow homeowners to take care of situations which may potentially become dangerous, thus allowing the homeowner to avoid having to ever be in danger at all.

Weighing the equities here, I'm going to have to say that I'll place the security and safety of homeowners above burglars' lives every single time. You don't know that by calling the cops, if there had been the duty to retreat, etc., that there would have eventually been a hostage situation, or something dangerous like that. You just don't know.

In Texas, they prefer not to find out.

As I always like to say...

"Don't go to Texas and raise a ruckus...you might not come back."

A shotgun’s accuracy varies depending on the ammunition that is being used. They are the perfect firearm for home defense. It’s dam near impossible to miss when firing in close quarters and you don’t have to worry about collateral damage. It was probably the safest firearm he could have used in this situation. If he had used a handgun and missed, then this very well could have turned into a tragedy when the bullet traversed into a neighboring house with the potential to impact an innocent resident.

Yeah, got to agree there. I pistol gripped shotgun (riot gun) is probably the best for home defense without question. You don't have to be accurate at all.

Maybe he should have used a taser....

heh

Texas is just a crappy state period


-Alabama

Update:

A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two burglary suspects he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.

Link: To Full Article

Joe Horn is a redneck and he belongs in jail. It was obvious from the 911 call that Horn planned on $hooting the burglars. Horn was not in any danger. The burglars were shot in the back.

This is everything thats wrong with America. How can you honestly sympathize with these criminals? It would take a "redneck" to care enough about your neighbors to risk your life for them. He even says that he barely knows them. The man is a hero, not a villain.
Whatever, have fun voting for Obama, hippie.

I just listened to the whole thing, I couldn't help loling when he killed the scumbags.

Either that or a handgun with hollow points. It makes the bullets stop if they hit a wall and eliminates collateral damage.

If true, this worries me a little for you.

It's one thing to be relieved that the guy wasn't indicted. It's another to celebrate and laugh at loss of human life that might have been averted.

Personally, I find it troublesome that Horn declared he would shoot them before he went outside. I'm ambivalent about the failure to indict: on the one hand, I like the idea that you can protect life and property and not be criminalized; on the the other hand, I don't think that stealing should get the death penalty and the only reason Horm ended up being threatened was that he elected to go outside and confront the robbers.

I disagree, I think that the world and our country is a better place without these two illegal aliens that steal from hardworking American citizens. I'm a big picture guy, in the end it helps society to have those two dead.

I don't know. It seems like a different issue all together really to consider whether we're better off with them dead than it is to laugh at their deaths.

I'm satisfied that Ted Bundy was executed back in the day. It doesn't make his execution funny. It seems like there ought to be a dignity in regarding loss of human life, even if the humans in question are criminals. It's more about us than them.

ETA: sorry about the self-righteousness. I can see laughing if they hadn't been killed or grievously wounded. It's sort of what shows like Cops and American's funniest videos are all about, right?

Its ok, I wasn't really laughing because they died. I was laughing because the way that the guy handled it was funny. He was so calm and deliberate in his actions and just comes back to the phone and says "I shot them."

This moron was let off the hook. :rolleyes: It's a slippery slope and I almost guarantee this CRIMINAL would've gone to trial had the alleged burglars not been illegal immigrants (and maybe even if Horn had not been a white man). A loophole in the Texas law would've been found and the jury would've found that this vigilantism was taken to a criminal level.

'Castle Doctrine' Gives Texans Unprecedented Authority to Take Action Against Intruders
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784&page=1

Texas allows you to kill people who deserve to be killed... crazy idea.

Exactly.

"Deserve to be killed" is too subjective to be placed in the hands of vigilante citizens. This man is a murderer regardless of what Texas law states.

Vigilant? Yes. Vigilante? No.

It's all well and good with you all until a vigilante kills someone based on a misunderstanding or misinformation.

To hell with the justice system and just burn perceived criminals at stakes.

This entire post is unrelated to this case.

That entire post speaks to the core of the issue.

To hell with Joe Horn and his supporters.

I still fidn it botherson that from the time it took to get 911 on the phone until the time police to arrive was under 8 mins...good response time in most places...thety couldnt get there any faster unless someone 'beamed' them in...so I wonder if really ol' Joe was itching for a fight.

The jury's decision set a dangerous precedent in that more of these shootings and court rulings will refer to this case and interprtations of it.

Look at the Texas law and judge for yourself. Why is this not an affirmative defense to homicide?


or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Kevin, I read over that whn the verdict went down and I am sure that was the centerpeice based on what the jury used to come to a conclusion.

I still look at it...as the jury ruled based on somethign that they felt was right at the time...if that is how they interpreted the law....fine. If they felt that joe was right, fine...

But I got a bad feeling about what this will do for future cases...

All we need is one person breaking into thier own home because of lost keys or something and getting shot by a trigger happy neighbor.

I can't disagree with the letter of the law...it is was it is...I just disagree with the jury...but then...who am I?


let me ask another question...being as though in my opinion, he didn't give law official ample enough time to execute thier duties...does anyone disagree with his actions?

The report states one of the criminals ran at Horn. I'm not seeing a problem here with shooting an illegal Colombian ex-con who just robbed his neighbor's house and was then dumb enough to try to run, especially towards him, when being held at gun point.

Calling this man a murderer is pathetic. These men were not perceived criminals...they were criminals, and he rid our state of two of them. Shouldn't have tried to run. Deal with it.

DS, If memory serves me, there was an officer on the scene who was there long enough to see him holding up the criminals and then shoot them when, from his point of view, one of them ran at Horn. Surely he was there in enough time to perform his duties.

correct...a UC was at the scene...who more than likely was or could be utilized as eyes for the uni already en route that would have been able to track the criminals down...

Getting out of the car could have had the consequences of him getting shot by Horn, who could have mistaken the UC as a getaway driver. Or possibly the UC getting shot or detained by unis who also could have mistaken him for one of the perps and the perps were getting away...

just a thought.

But in any instance, the UC did what he was supposed to do IMO

Exactly and I agree with your other posts, too.

Horn was a proud gun toting Texan who was looking forward to shooting someone, regardless of anything else. The "regardless of anything else" is what makes this scary because individual citizens don't have the right to take the law into their own hands and PLACE THEMSELVES in danger for the helluvit. He killed people over property--there is no self-defense when you go outside with a gun and claim you felt threatened when one of the dudes came toward you. Horn treated this like he was playing a video game.

There are laws that state what home owners can and can not do to burglars. These may not exist in Texas and that makes Texas a perfect example of some of what anti-gun people are talking about.

(Horn might be crazy, too, so this could support mental health screening for gun owners.)

You're not taking the law into your own hands when you follow the law. Joe Horn followed the law.

And just because you don't like a law doesn't make it not binding.

Especially when said law is enacted in a different sovereignty than your own.

Logically and legally I agree with Kevin


Morally is where I disagree and I think this is why a lot of people have issue over the ruling and the law and what may happen in future cases

DUH.

Doesn't make him any less of a vigilante or a murderer (as far as many are concerned).

That law is encouraging vigilantism and that law will not be equally applied.

'nuff said

as well as the verdict...and I agree...