Joe Horn
 

11/14/07 - Joe Horn's 911 Call

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

In what state is it legal to shoot for property in someone else's home?

From this article:

"Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they could otherwise be killed. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.
The question will be whether it was reasonable for Horn to fear the men and whether his earlier threats on the 911 call showed he planned to kill them no matter what, said Fred Moss, who teaches criminal law at Southern Methodist University.
"That's what makes it so hard and that's why we have juries," Moss said."

Whew..I thought it was Joe Horn, the football player.

You go Joe...I wished you lived next door to me when my house got robbed 2 years ago.....

"Horn's supporters parked motorcycles along the block Sunday and jeered protesters who called for Horn to be prosecuted. The supporters waved American flags and hoisted signs reading, "We love our neighbor for protecting our neighbors" and "Burglary is a risky business." "

and if you think that's crazy...see what breaking into someone's home for marijuana will get you:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...r_N.htm?csp=34

I'm here in Houston where it happpend and we get almost hourly updates on this case.

The issue I think is not so much about race, but as a citizen protecting property, did he cross the line? From the 911 call, he did not seem to be directly threatened by the men and when cautioned by the 911 operator not to shoot, he still shot anyway.

I think in a legal sense Joe Horn was wrong because he did not have to do it, but morally he was protecting his neighbor.

I so agree...he was instructed by the 911 ops NOT TO SHOOT....he never came to harm, his life was never threatened.

The most he should have done was put down th gun and shoot with a camera.

The cops arrived right when the suspects were fleeing the scene, they probably could have caught them

From the Texas Penal Code:

FWIW, I don't think charges even get filed. Under 9.43, I think he's clear -- at least so long as he had his neighbor's consent in all of this.

^^^LOL. Deadly force to prevent criminal mischief during the nighttime. Gotta love Texas. Joe'll stay a free man...

I'm pretty certain it's legal in Florida as well. If you're trespassing and the homeowner feels that you're a threat, the homeowner can use deadly force.

Yea Joe!

Maybe it will put a stop to a lot of things!!!!!:)

Clearly, Texas. :D

What if this guy, or someone else in a similar situation, shot someone who was supposed to be at the house, just not known to the shooter? What if it was a family member, or a friend that wanted to get his tools back after the neighbor borrowed them? What if it was dark outside and the shooter couldn't even see who it was?

I'm thinking of all the times I've gone over to my family's house at night when they've been out of town. I'm glad my family doesn't have a psycho neighbor that fires his gun at just anyone he doesn't know that's on someone else's property!

I think judging from the tone of the 911 call...it was clear (wasn't it?) that the guys were robbing the house...and the fact that they ran from a guy wielding a shotgun was even more evident.

I disagree, there's a difference between being asked to watch/defend/etc your neighbor's house and calling 911 because you happen to see something over there. It's never been made clear that he was asked to keep an eye on that house.

Honestly the fact that he said "I'll kill 'em" on the way out the door with his gun negates the defense that the burglars shot because they were on his property. And if he'd been asked to defend his neighbor's property then it wouldn't have mattered that they supposedly only were shot after crossing the property line.

Sorry, this guy went out with a gun into a situation that was not a deadly one and decided to be judge/jury/executioner. He could very well have shot a cop since, as the 911 operator said, there were officers coming on to the scene who were not in uniform. Vigilantes put innocent people in danger. Just because Batman makes it look cool, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do in real life.

Batman never carried a gun....hehehehehehehehehe!

9.43 only requires that the other person have made the request to this guy to protect his property. I don't think that's apparent from what we see here, but I don't see how that didn't happen either.

The requirement of the potential for potential death or serious bodily harm isn't required. Heck -- criminal mischief in the night. The standard is low.

Yes he did:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2.../tec032-12.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/400/q.jpg
If that was actually true, then why would the attorney neglect to include that. His defense doesn't seem based on a neighbor's request, but on the claim that they went on his property. From the 911 call it was clear he was intending to shoot them whether they were on his property or not.

Not saying it didn't happen, but there's been no claim that it did by the defense or by the neighbor. Sad to say but a little lie by the neighbor may get this guy off.

But what if it wasn't clear? We're telling people to use their own discretion when determining whether it's OK to shoot at someone who's not even a threat?

Some people have said here that the guy was protecting his neighbor, but I don't see that at all. He was, at most, protecting his neighbor's "stuff" which is not enough cause in my mind to shoot someone. In other words, I'm saying the law in this case is idiotic. But I think we all probably get what really happened here - the guy was pissed off and wasn't going to let the robbers get away with anything...not on his block!

And if the guys were running away from him, all the more proof to me that he was not in any danger.

Don't get me wrong, if someone was in my house that I didn't know, they better watch out. But our laws shouldn't permit people to just shoot other people they see breaking the law.

dang...somehow I thought u would find that!!!

Curses foiled again!

Batman fangirl ftw.

I have a book that collects some of the most memorable comics, old school. So I knew it before I googled for the pictures.

that's what I was thinking peppy...what happened was not enough grounds for him to shoot these guys.

I mean just suppose these guys were also armed and what went from a simple robbery, wound up getting him shot?

What kind of obligation was he under to watch a neighbor's (who he didn't know) property and call himself a protector?

I am sure he thought he was being the 'good' neighbor but his responsibility ended when he called 911.

I think what would be interesting to find out is the rate of burglaries in that area over an extended period of time.

Coolness....

Trying to think of a really tough Batman Question to throw at you......

I read the statute wrong. 9.43 -- see the "and" after the first paragraph, and note that the rest of the elements are "or" sorts of elements. So you only need one of these:


(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.

-- I think the bolded one works. It all does come to a question as to whether his belief that deadly force was immediately necessary... but we're dealing with Texas here folks :)

Criminal mischief in the night....

I don't think either A or B are viable here, although again, a lie is all that's required to get him off. He knew the police were on the way so A is not valid. B requires some sort of threat to himself that would suggest that deadly force is necessary. If he saw the burglars carrying a gun for example.

ETA: Also, I don't think this happened at night. That's a BIG issue here. Reports said about 2 in the afternoon I think? I'm trying to find that.

wait...was it at night? I thought this happened in broad daylight.....the deadly force....well again...that may work against him since we come back to the 911 ops telling him several times not to discharge his weapon....interesting...

Nittany...thank you....I think it also answers some questions

Quoted from the article:

"....report a burglary next door on that November afternoon"

and

Although a Texas law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property, some experts say the statute only applies to nighttime incidents.

I only say criminal mischief during the nighttime to illustrate how low the standard is. In this case, I believe burglary was the crime. That used to have an element of it being nighttime, but not really anymore.

I'd like to direct your attention to the "or" following (A).

Anything under B is unnecessary if A is met. The converse is also true.

Also, from a practical standpoint, try picking a jury that's not going to hang on this case :)

No charges will be filed.

The real question is, is it "burglary", "robbery", or "theft in the nighttime" OR "burglary", "robbery", or "theft" in the nighttime.

Since it lists criminal mischief during the nighttime as well as theft during the nighttime as two separate things, I don't see "during the nighttime" applying to the rest of the passage. If your proposed construction were true, the first "during the nighttime" would be redundant.

I'll bet if you go to the Texas Penal Code, you'll find that those two things are distinct crimes.

Quite possibly, but I'm not that bored today ;) I have to read enough laws and codes at work.

I'm still not convinced though. Particularly since his story does NOT mesh with the 911 call, and he (or his attorney) doesn't claim to be defending his neighbor's property but his own.

Well 9.42 and 9.41 are even more liberal than 9.43, so if he was defending his own property, it only comes down to whether or not he reasonably believed it threatened.

True, and that's probably why it's his story, except it doesn't fit with the 911 call showing he had intent to shoot and kill them before he left his house and "discovered" they were on his property. And I'm not sure their location been confirmed by the police at this point.

Add to that my fundamental disagreement with the idea that after calling 911 you should get to go outside and kill someone over a TV - the death penalty isn't used for burglary, even in Texas - and suffice to say I won't be contented with the fact that he might have followed the law. Particularly when all he has to do is lie, or get his neighbor to do so.

The counter to that is that the 911 call is only probative of his mindset prior to the killings. It cannot be used to describe with any accuracy Horn's mindset when he pulled the trigger, nor can it be used to indicate whether Horn's belief is reasonable pursuant to sections 9.41 et seq.

And no, in Texas, the penalty for burglary is not death. I don't see how that's even relevant though. This wasn't a killing pursuant to a penal statute.

This was a killing in defense of property. If Horn is charged with murder, 9.41 et seq. will serve as an affirmative defense just like self-defense would be.

The Texas legislature in their infinite wisdom saw fit to allow citizens to use deadly force to defend their property (but not man traps, see 9.44). Your beef would be with the Texas legislature, not Joe Horn in that regard.

Perhaps the overarching theme here and the wisdom we can glean from all of this is that if you don't want bad things to happen to you, don't be a burglar.

Easy enough :)

If you think the Horn case is interesting, check this one out. Three robbers break into a house. Homeowner kills two. Third robber gets charged with felony murder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21824930/

For making it legal, yeah my beef would be with them, my beef is with him for doing it.

I'd say that the 911 call shows he intended to shoot/kill them no matter where they were. I don't know how that legally impacts the case if they actually showed up on his property when he opened the door (and the lawyer makes it sound like they were a foot away:rolleyes:) but it would impact me as a juror. HE escalated the situation to a deadly one, not the robbers.

I mention that the penalty for burglary isn't death because that is not what the burglars should have gotten for their crime. Their lives were worth more than that, no matter how screwed up they were.

The problem is that when you allow the escalation that Texas allows, burglars aren't necessarily the only ones to have bad things happen to them because of it. This man was lucky he didn't shoot a cop in the process of shooting the burglars. If he had, this would be a whole different story no matter how "threatened" he felt at the time.

Is the "shot in the back" vs "shot in the front" issue at all relevant in Texas?

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

hey....now there is a question.....was his firearm registered?

Does a shotgun in Texas have to be registered?

I have no idea.