« A Plant Grows In Las Vegas | Main | Oh, Chimpanzee That... Monkey News »
Tip Of the Day: Do Not Burgle Joe Horn's Neighbors
61-year-old Texan Joe Horn called 911 on Wednesday to report two men breaking into his neighbor's home. The police didn't arrive in time to catch them leaving with a sackful of cash, so Horn went out to confront them, telephone and 12-gauge shotgun in hand. Three shots rang out, leaving both intruders dead.
The entire episode (including an extensive debate bewteen Horn and the dispatcher as to whether he ought to intervene) was captured on Horn's 911 calls, which were released yesterday.
Horn acknowledges shooting the suspects, but was not arrested and has not been charged with any crime. Police said a grand jury would decide whether any charges are appropriate.
A new state law (pdf) that went into effect in Texas this September expands the protections (criminal and civil) of civilians using deadly force to defend against robbery. The law relates specifically to incidents taking place in "the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment" and requires that the actor "has a right to be present at the location where the force is used."
Horn certainly seems to satisfy the latter requirement (on the recording, Horn states the men are in his yard, where Horn obviously has a right to be). The former might be trickier, as the Texas penal code defines "habitation" as:
a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and
(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.
Seems like it might not cover yards. Then again, if Horn went outside, not necessarily to shoot the men, but to hold them at gunpoint until cops showed up, and shot only when the men advanced on him (which is suggested in his second 911 call), my guess is that he's got a much cleaner self-defense defense.
If yards are not covered by the new property-defense law, maybe that means Horn goes to trial, but I'd have to think oddsmakers would favor acquittal, given the circumstances and the venue.
I'm not a lawyer, but sometimes I play one on this blog. Libel-spotting is always appreciated.
Handcrafted by Flip on November 16, 2007 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572653ef00e54f86add78833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tip Of the Day: Do Not Burgle Joe Horn's Neighbors:
» Side effects of celebrex. from Naproxen celebrex.
Celebrex side effects. Denver celebrex attorneys. Celebrex start. Celebrex. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 14, 2008 12:45:54 AM
» Somas do they have codine in them. from Prescription somas at pricing of 9.99.
School of mathematics and statistics somas. Somas. Prescription somas at pricing of 9.99. Somas with carisoprodol doese t contain codeine. Somas do they have codeine in them. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 23, 2008 6:02:19 AM
» tramadol from tramadol
tramadol [Read More]
Tracked on May 4, 2008 12:45:16 PM
Comments
Actually, the self-defense defense is probably trickier than the defense of property defense, unless the robbers were armed (with guns). But I'd guess that, by construction, the "habitation" definition extends to the yard. If you're allowed to use deadly force to defend your property (rather than yourself, or others) inside your home, then to do so on the rest of your property is logically permissible. Given that this is Texas, I would guess the guy gets a favorable interpretation (especially if it goes before a jury).Posted by: Tom Joad | Nov 17, 2007 5:17:47 PM
I'm on Joe Horn's side. We should protect our friends and family. We should protect him not the criminals! It would send a message to criminals that they are not protected by the law, they are breaking it!Posted by: Annya | Nov 19, 2007 10:09:51 PM
To Tom Joad: Self-Defense does not mean "guns" it means deadly weapon. I've actually seen what a crowbar does to a watermelon. I don't think Joe Horn wanted to have that done to his head.Posted by: Rick Johnson | Nov 28, 2007 2:32:02 PM
II support Joe Horn and have contributed and bought the t-shirt teequick.comPosted by: Greg West | Dec 5, 2007 9:53:30 AM
Its what I've been saying ever since 9/11: Its open season again on non-whites. The majority of the nation's Anglo citizens will rally around anyone who kills a minority "in self defense". Doesn't matter if the victim wasn't armed at the time of the killing, doesn't matter what he/she was doing: as long as the white person can point to a law and says "I believed he/she was breaking the law", the killing is now justified. Horn did not ask the men to stop. He did not warn them he would shoot if they came closer. Even a police officer is required to do so unless the situation doesn't leave him time. This was not Horn's case. I would even go so far as to speculate that he even hid the shotgun behind him to urge them closer, onto his property. (Would you believe that two men, regardless of race, would amble closer to someone holding a shotgun on them?) The he simply said "Boom! Your dead!" and killed them. He used the telephone to try and justify what he clearly meant to do before he even dialed 911. It doesn't even fall under Texas's new protection of life/property rules. It wasn't his property UNTIL he lured them onto his. Horn had the right to call the police and maybe even let the men see that their illegal act was being witnessed. I am not defending the deceased criminals in any way. Had they not been trying to steal someone else's property, they might still be walking around today. The cause of the incident was purely their fault. However, the manner of their deaths was just another underhanded way to get to kill some Mexicans and get away with it. It was premeditated murder.Posted by: Ladye Catte | Dec 6, 2007 5:14:56 PM
Ladye Catte, give me a break with your boo-hoo B.S. for minorities. Why don't you reply with your best guess as to what might happen to a white man trying to rob a home in a hispanic slum or african american hood. Same result, except the shooter would simply play the same race card you have at your ready to defend himself instead of looking to the legal system to justify it. I don't think that race should even be included in the discussion. Get over it! Infringe on my privacy or safety by invading my territory, and the result will be the same regardless of race or creed.Posted by: Brickghost | Dec 8, 2007 11:52:54 AM
This was premeditated murder. May be if he had not told the 911 operator that he was going to kill them, you may have a point. But he said it, even as he was still in the house. There was no one home, Joe Horn knew this because he was their neighbor. No one's life was in danger. Horn deliberately placed himself in harms way when HE chose to go out side after the operator advised him not to. He made the decision to be the criminals' judge, jury, & executioner. No one appointed him. I'm in now way excusing the theft. I've been a victim of theft more than once. I know how it feels to be violated in such a manner. But were those possesions that were stolen, worth a human life? I don't think so.Possessions can be replaced, a life just can't.Posted by: TexasTea | Dec 8, 2007 2:10:39 PM
Brickghost: No "Best Guess" here-- Were the races reversed, the perpetrator(s) would be just as dead. And if such had been the case, I would STILL call it premeditated murder. I did not make this a race-related case: The police who declined to arrest Horn for murder did. This has been happening all over America in a pattern I recognize from history books, where the majority of the nation is agreed that its okay to be biased against a certain group. Right now, its Hispanics. For a while after 9/11, it was Muslims. And its pointless to go back any farther in this nation's history except to say I didn't hear of any mass-profiling of Roman Catholics or others who even resemble McVeigh/Nichols during their criminalistic heydey... The predictable, past-proven fall-out is what I'm citing here. Given the mood of the nation, had the shooter been Hispanic and the perpetrator White, the shooter would have been in jail before his gun hit the ground in surrender, as it should be in such a case. But in what is CLEARLY a case of premeditated murder, the Anglo shooter is walking around free, with gratuitous pats on the back from the Anglo public for having done it. PLEASE pay attention to the 911 call: he DID NOT have to go outside and kill these men, and in fact was told not to do so by a police officer. His life nor anyone else's was in danger at ANY point until he CHOSE to set it up that way. This is not a case of protection of property-- the man was clearly intent on murdering these men and in all likelihood counted on the nation's mood regarding Hispanics to see him through, same as Roy Bryant in 1955 Mississippi. They were both right. I welcome your intelligent, well-researched response.Posted by: LadyeCatte | Dec 8, 2007 10:49:48 PM
