Like a good neighbor, Joe Horn is there!
Great news out of Texas. A Grand Jury failed to indict Joe Horn, the friendly gun-toting neighbor who spied some burglars coming out of his neighbor’s home with their criminal booty & ill gotten gains. He called the police, who were slow to get to the scene, and when he thought the crooks were making their escape and potentially crossing over into his property, he grabbed his shotgun and delivered some Texas-style justice to those criminals!
ABC News reports…
Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor’s Burglars
‘Castle Doctrine’ Gives Texans Unprecedented Authority to Take Action Against Intruders
By CHRIS BURY and HOWARD L. ROSENBERG
June 30, 2008—
A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor’s home won’t be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.
In the Lone Star state, where the six-gun tamed the frontier, shooting bad guys is a time-honored tradition, and Horn’s case centered on a Texas state law based on the old idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The “castle law” gives Texans unprecedented legal authority to use deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplaces. And no longer do they have an obligation to retreat, if possible, before they shoot.
“I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn’s conduct,” Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters at the courthouse. “The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances. … In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense.”
‘I’m Gonna Shoot!’ Horn called 911 in November to report a burglary in broad daylight at the house next door.
“I’ve got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?” Horn asked the dispatcher.
“Nope. Don’t do that,” the dispatcher replied. “Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?”
Horn was clearly upset by the dispatcher’s response.
“I’m not gonna let them get away with it,” he said. “I can’t take a chance getting killed over this, OK.”
Despite the dispatcher’s protects, Horn said, “I’m gonna shoot! I’m gonna shoot!”
The 911 dispatcher warned Horn to stay inside at least a dozen separate times, telling him, “An officer is coming out there. I don’t want you to go outside that house.”
Then Horn sounding angrier by the moment cited the new Texas law.
“OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir,” he said. “And you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it.”
Moments later, Horn saw two burglars leave his neighbor’s house, one of them carrying a bag filled with cash and jewelry.
“I’m gonna kill him,” Horn said. “Stay in the house,” the dispatcher said. “They’re getting away,” Horn replied. “That’s all right,” the dispatcher said. “Property’s not worth killing someone over. OK?” “—damn it,” said Horn, who then defied the dispatcher.
“Well, here it goes, buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking, and I’m going,” he said.
“Don’t go outside,” the dispatcher warned.
Self-Defense? Horn says he came out his front door, down his porch and confronted the two burglars. The next sounds heard on the 911 tape are Horn ordering the two men to stop & and then shooting them both.
“Move you’re dead,” he said, and fired his shotgun three times.
“Both suspects were shot in the back,” Pasadena Police Captain A.H. “Bud” Corbett said. “Not at the same angle, but both suspects were hit in the back.”
Horn fatally shot the burglars, two illegal immigrants from Colombia named Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus. Stephanie Storey, De Jesus’ fiancée, wanted to see Joe Horn prosecuted.
“This man took the law into his own hands,” she said. “He shot two individuals in the back after having been told over and over to stay inside. It was his choice to go outside and his choice to take two lives.”
Horn turned down an ABC News request for an interview but his attorney Tom Lambright insists Horn was entirely justified.
“He was afraid for his life,” Lambright said. “He was afraid for his safety, and then they charged him. I don’t think Joe had time to make a conscious decision. I think he only had time to react to what was going on. Short answer is, he was defending his life. ”
Lambright acknowledged that the 911 dispatcher urged Horn to stay inside but said, “Joe was doing what he thought was necessary. As a man, he thought it was his duty to protect his house, his neighborhood, his community.”
The Horn case has aroused plenty of passion. At a recent demonstration outside his home, police in riot gear stood by as activists demanded prosecution while counter-demonstrators defended him, including a group of bikers led by Randy Laird.
“In this grand jury decision, we look for a complete acquittal, no charge of any kind, and that’s what we believe will be right,” Laird said then. “That’s what’s going to make either the Castle Doctrine stand or fall.”
The Castle Next Door Some prosecutors are wary of “Castle Law.”
“There’s too many imponderables in this law, whereas the previous law was working just fine,” said Warren Diepraam, the Harris County Assistant District Attorney. “Frankly, life is precious.”
The critical legal question hinged on whether Horn acted in a reasonable way to defend his neighbor’s property.
“You cannot take another person’s life in defense of their property unless you’re somehow given permission by the other person to protect their property,” Diepraam said.
On that 911 call, the dispatcher asked Horn directly about the owners of the house that was being burglarized, and whether he knew them.
“I really don’t know these neighbors,” Horn said. “I know the neighbors on the other side really well & I can assure you if it had been their house, I’d already have done something.” Still, Lambright says that his client “absolutely” had his neighbors’ permission.
“There’s no question about it,” he said. “They’d tell you today that they are very happy that he was there and that he was watching out. Every neighbor in the state of Texas watches out for one another.”
“In most situations, calling 911 is the best remedy, not calling out for your 9-millimeter,” Diepraam said.
‘A No-Brainer’ Damon Barone, who killed a burglar in his own home, isn’t sure whether Joe Horn was justified, but he does believe the Castle Doctrine has already delivered a crystal clear message to criminals.
Barone said that in Texas, the occupational hazard of burglarizing someone’s home is “death.”
“If you’re lucky, you’ll get arrested and sent to jail,” he said.
In December 2007, Barone confronted a burglar breaking into his Houston home in the middle of the night. His wife, baby daughter and 6-year-old son were asleep when Barone heard a commotion and grabbed his Glock handgun.
“I heard a crashing through my window & [in] my bedroom, and I got my gun,” Barone said.
“When I came around the corner, I saw the silhouette in my window, I pointed my weapon, I fired three times,” he said.
Asked if he was shooting to kill, Barone said, “Yes.”
The burglar Barone shot dead had a lengthy criminal record, and Barone had a permit for his gun. Even before the new law, he certainly could have been justified in using deadly force. But the “Castle Law” gives Barone added protection from criminal prosecution and even civil lawsuits.
Barone is “positive” that he did the right thing.
“And if I had to do it over again, I would,” he added. “I mean, that’s the safety of my family over us being hurt. It’s a no-brainer for me.”
Indeed the people of New York’s Upper West Side, and the state of Massachusetts felt a great disturbance in the Force, and suddenly cried out in terror! This is one of those litmus test stories: you either shake your head in disgust, or stand up and cheer. Me, I’m cheering! The world’s two career criminals lighter.
I will say, though, that his self-defense argument is unconvincing. As is his lawyer’s claim that they charged him, yet somehow both ended up getting shot in the back.
The actual law aside, how you feel about this story boils down to the question of whether or not you agree “property’s not worth killing someone over.” My gut says yes, but if I thought about it, the practical answer might well be no.
That the world is two criminals lighter is indeed cause to celebrate.
As for his self defense argument, it does appear to be a question mark. His account of the story is that he was concerned they would come to his home next.
And he does seem to give them fair warning with “Move (and) you’re dead!” I suppose they moved, and in doing so turned around, which explains the bullets in the back.
This works for me. Crooks should be afraid to dare violate someone’s home. Indeed they should be afraid to break the law. In this case, there are a couple of criminals who will never violate someone’s home, or break the law, ever again.
The world is a better place in my book.
I can’t help but be reminded of a recent story here in NYC, where John White, a black father, took his handgun into the street to confront a band of white hoodlums who had gathered outside his home with ill intent toward his son. Although they were not similarly armed, he ended up killing one of them. Clearly, he can make a better case than Horn for feeling his or his son’s life was in danger, but somehow it also seems to me easier to conclude that he went too far.
Defending property is another, separate issue, but if you claim that fear for your safety or your life is your main concern, then staying in the house and calling the police seems like it would have been the wiser course of action for him — and Horn — resorting to deadly self defense, only if necessary.
You’ll never catch me mourning the loss of worthless punks, but I can’t help the creeping suspicion that maybe Horn and White are probably in the wrong on this one.
I recall the White case, and also believe he was convicted in a fairly controversial trial. In his case, a group of youths has come to his home and began menacing his son. The situation was tense and no doubt White brandishing a weapon may have escalated the situation, but to be fair to him one salient point you note, that the youths were not similarly armed, was only established after he decided to use his weapon. He didn’t know they were unarmed, and they presented a very real danger to his son, himself, and his home.
Of course all this is a matter of fact for a jury to decide, and they heard the evidence and decided to convict White. He is sympathetic in my book, but a jury said what he did wasn’t just. That’s the system. I can see a jury fairly finding that he was just and unjust – that’s the court system.
As for Horn, I understand he was under the impression that his home was threatened by these two criminals. Well, at least that’s what he says. The police were slow in coming, so I don’t blame him for having no faith in their swift arrival. As for going outside to challenge the threat, that could reasonably be construed as wiser than waiting indoors – if the criminals indeed did come inside, the closed quarters could conceivably make the situation inside more dangerous.
I can see how his decision to take matters outside (with his weapon) could reasonably be seen as a smart move. It can go either way, really.
Horn and White may indeed have been a bit trigger happy, and the system found different fates for the different men. They may have indeed been wrong, or maybe they may have been right. They both got fair shakes in the judicial system – that’s all we can expect.