Using Lethal Force to Defend Property - When It's Your Neighbor's

[Athena]

62 year old Joe Horn was alone in his Texas home one evening when he noticed two men with bags climbing through his neighbor's window; the neighbor was out of town. Mr. Horn did what any concerned citizen should do. He called the cops. What he did next, however, was pretty controversial.

"Don't go outside the house," implored the 911 operator. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn replied. "I'm going to kill them."

And Mr. Horn did just that. He grabbed his 12 gauge shotgun, exited his house, approached the neighbor's and, according to his lawyer, became frightened when these men didn't scare off so easily. So he shot them both in the back.

Now, he certainly didn't kill any upstanding members of society. Both victims were illegal immigrants and one had already been deported once for a cocaine-related crime. Still, the killings didn't seem to be the result of fright, exactly. After all, did he not say to the 911 operator before he got off the phone that he was going to kill them?

Yesterday, a grand jury cleared him of all charges.

You know, one of the great things about the United States is the fact that different states can govern themselves differently. What works for Texas may not work for Maryland or Washington. In this particular case, I'm glad for that. I believe in a person's right to defend their own property. But, the neighbor's?

It also begs the question - was the issue of illegal immigration, or maybe plain ol' racism, a factor in the acquittal? Would things have gone down this way had the burglars been, say, skinhead meth addicts? Was Mr. Horn more comfortable, and the jury more forgiving, because he was killin' darkies? Illegal ones, at that?

[w8ng4msrgt]

We need more neighborhood groups like this.

[Athena]

Ehhhh....Nervousness. I've had to climb in to my house through a window before, with my purse because I don't want to leave it outside. I'd hate to be mistaken... :p

[dop]

I doubt that racism, or even illegal imigration as a whole, was a big determining factor on the aquital, or this dudes desire to show them his toy...

The grand jury was likley just glad one less pair of scum is rolling around, trying to steal their house.

[Athena]

You think so, dop? I don't like to assume the worst, but he shot two unarmed men in the back because they were stealing from (not posing any threat to) the neighbor. I'm not normally one to pull the racism card, but it seems that an exception was made for Mr. Horn's actions...An exception I'm not sure they'd make if the intruders were legal and white.

[Pirelli Jones]

Hmm, I'm not sure where the line between racism and xenophobia lies but it seems to me there is a huge contingent of folks adamantly "I'm not a racist or anything but those (dark, poor, atheist, islamic, etc) do....(something distasteful)"

In Texas I'm surprised they bothered with a GJ investigation but in a less renegade state could you imagine any incident where two men were killed an no indictment/trial came down? Cleared at the GJ? WTF?

I'm a huge believer in the right to self defense, I don't believe that right extends to my property, let alone the neighbors property. This guy was just looking to cap someone. Unjustified IMHO.

[tricia71]

he did tell them to stop.......lol, strange case yes it is but hey, you really shouldn't be robbing people. Is that against the law? I don't feel sorry for them.

[Athena]

I'm a huge believer in the right to self defense, I don't believe that right extends to my property, let alone the neighbors property. This guy was just looking to cap someone. Unjustified IMHO.

That's essentially how I feel about it. Well, both self-defense laws and this case. I do think that, if a person, even unarmed, forces themselves into your home while you are there, they pose a legitimate threat that justifies lethal force. What I do not believe is justified is shooting someone on their way out or off the property, or shooting someone because they're attempting to steal your car.

And, this guy? Yeah. The operator begged him to stay inside. An officer arrived quick enough to witness the shooting. This man didn't have to shoot those men by any stretch of the imagination, and even said "I'm going to kill them." Not even "shoot them".

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

You think so, dop? I don't like to assume the worst, but he shot two unarmed men in the back because they were stealing from (not posing any threat to) the neighbor. I'm not normally one to pull the racism card, but it seems that an exception was made for Mr. Horn's actions...An exception I'm not sure they'd make if the intruders were legal and white.

How would he know they were legal? And just because they were NOT white, doesnt MEAN it was racist...c'mon.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

As for killing them, good. Good for the jury, good for him, good for everyone around. And I DO believe my right extends to MY property, certainly. ANd as for RIGHTS? By LAW, this man was within his, as seen by a jury of his peers, so hey.

Good shootin, pard!

[Morbid]

I am sooooo glad this guy got off.

[Athena]

How would he know they were legal? And just because they were NOT white, doesnt MEAN it was racist...c'mon.

Jumpin' the gun, Lieman. Of course Horn didn't know they're status. Why would I even suggest that he could have? And, no, his actions weren't necessarily racist, which is why I posed a question. However, in terms of the jury's decision, illegal status could have certainly influenced things. Houston had recently been called a "sanctuary city" in terms of its treatment of illegals. The Horn incident resparked the debate. Might some jurors want to "prove" that their area is not a sanctuary city by letting a guy off for what would pass as murder in a number of other states? I don't know. It's why I asked.

[dop]

I can fully agree the "became frightened" self defence thing is bullshit, and he came out there with the intent on killing them, but he came out there with the intent of killing thiefs, not latinos, blacks or anything of a race crime conotation...

The guy migth be full fledge racist and member of the KKK for all we know, but I find it hard to believe if he had seen their skin tone was white he wouldnt have done the exact same thing and blasted them to kingdom come, hence race isnt a real factor, heck, even if he is indeed racist and enjoyed it more its still not a factor...

As for the grand jury, Texas is packed with legal latinos, I find it hard to believe there werent some there representing, even if they were the minority.

What this whole case comes down to is a man killed two burglaring pieces of shit, their race should be indiferent, should this be legal to include your neihbors home? probably not, as like you said can lead to accidental shootings but if I was his neighbor id sure as hell be glad to have him next door.

[Athena]

As for killing them, good. Good for the jury, good for him, good for everyone around. And I DO believe my right extends to MY property, certainly.

Well, hopefully, you live in a state that supports that belief. Personally, I wouldn't even think to shoot someone who was stealing my car, or was on their way out a window with some stuff when I came home from work. But that's me. I don't believe stuff is worth a life, even if it's a degenerate one.

ANd as for RIGHTS? By LAW, this man was within his, as seen by a jury of his peers, so hey.

And, while I respect their decision, juries are flawed by their very human nature. The Castle Doctrine didn't apply to him, so self-defense was all he had. If you go find someone with your gun, with the intent to kill them, can you really call that self-defense?

[Athena]

As for the grand jury, Texas is packed with legal latinos, I find it hard to believe there werent some there representing, even if they were the minority.

I don't know for a fact what the makeup of the jury was, but I bet the defense went out of their way to avoid having Latinos picked for the jury, not unlike the defense in a rape case will try to avoid having women picked. Here in the U.S., juries are not random. They are built and, although we have measure to try to ensure fairness, that isn't always the case.

I agree with you that race shouldn't factor in, but it does sometimes. And, considering there is a lot of energy in Texas regarding immigration, I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Jumpin' the gun, Lieman. Of course Horn didn't know they're status. Why would I even suggest that he could have? And, no, his actions weren't necessarily racist, which is why I posed a question. However, in terms of the jury's decision, illegal status could have certainly influenced things. Houston had recently been called a "sanctuary city" in terms of its treatment of illegals. The Horn incident resparked the debate. Might some jurors want to "prove" that their area is not a sanctuary city by letting a guy off for what would pass as murder in a number of other states? I don't know. It's why I asked.

Youre right, sorry. When you said an exception Im not sure THEY would make if they were legal or white, I thought you said HE.

[Morbid]

He was acquitted because the statute states, dealing with protection of a neighbor's property, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

If the jury agreed or not, Horne was legally in the right.

[Rotten Apple]

I think they are saying that he shot them AFTER they had jumped on to his property, which in Texas is legal as far as I know. At least when I lived there, we assumed it was. ;)

I think the guy got off because there was nothing else they could do to him. I don't think he's a hero though. He shot them in the BACK. They were running away.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

True enough, he's NOT a hero, sure.

THese days, while we're tyring desperately NOT to convict pedophiles, drunk drivers (that is NOT a shot at you, A, but since it comes up a lot here), and all kinds of other criminals, its nice to see we're at least not going to start convicting people who act against criminals, anyway...or at least, in this case.

[w8ng4msrgt]

Well, hopefully, you live in a state that supports that belief. Personally, I wouldn't even think to shoot someone who was stealing my car, or was on their way out a window with some stuff when I came home from work. But that's me. I don't believe stuff is worth a life, even if it's a degenerate one.

What would you say? Have a great time with my car or tv? If some POS is stealing my stuff they are going to get some holes in them. They may get lucky and only get an ass kicking if I don't have time to grab a gun.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

You got it, w8t....I shot my friend some years back when I was trying to shoot some pieces of shit trying to steal out of my parents' house...they had taken their car, and some shit out of their garage, and were hitting them on different nights....my friend and I went to go set shit right, and when the shit hit the fan, I shot at who I saw. Turned out to be my bud, but in the end, those piles of shit never came back, ever.

And my friend wasnt hurt that bad, so it all worked out.

But if someone has it in them to break into people's homes and rob them, they better be ready to die if they get caught.

[DA Devil's Advocate]

I don't know for a fact what the makeup of the jury was, but I bet the defense went out of their way to avoid having Latinos picked for the jury, not unlike the defense in a rape case will try to avoid having women picked. Here in the U.S., juries are not random. They are built and, although we have measure to try to ensure fairness, that isn't always the case.

I agree with you that race shouldn't factor in, but it does sometimes. And, considering there is a lot of energy in Texas regarding immigration, I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

The case was not presented at trial to a jury. It was NO Billed (they decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial). http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

A grand jury works differently than a jury. Neither the prosecution nor the defense get to exclude members of the grand jury. It is usually made up of more than 12 jurors. In most cases the defense doesn’t even get to present any evidence. In some instances the defendant may testify. In many cases the defendant may not even be aware a grand jury was empanelled to hear the case. Not all states use grand juries. In those that do the purpose of a grand jury is to decide if the prosecution has enough evidence to indicate that the defendant MIGHT be guilty. If so they return an indictment and the matter goes to trial.

[Athena]

He was acquitted because the statute states, dealing with protection of a neighbor's property, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

If the jury agreed or not, Horne was legally in the right.

The man who WROTE the law said it didn't apply to this case (Senator Jeff Wentworth, R-TX). Where are you getting this? I'm reading the bill itself, and I see no reference to property other than ones own.

In his 911 call, Horn cited a newly enacted Texas law, the "castle doctrine," which authorizes the use of deadly force during a home invasion.

But Sen. Jeff Wentworth, who wrote the law, said it did not apply to Horn's case.

"It was not an issue in this case other than him saying incorrectly that he understood it to mean he could protect his neighbor's property," said Wentworth, R-San Antonio.

He said the castle doctrine simply didn't apply because, although the burglars were running across Horn's lawn, Horn's home wasn't under siege — his neighbor's home was.

"It comes from the saying 'A man's home is his castle,' " Wentworth said. "But this wasn't his castle."

Source

The Yahoo article states:

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. It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.

So, based on these two things, I'd imagine self defense was the primary issue being addressed.

[Athena]

What would you say? Have a great time with my car or tv?

I'm not going to shoot someone over some material possessions I can easily replace. I've got full insurance on my car and renter's insurance on my house. Hell, I'm so well insured, I almost WISH someone would steal my stuff. I'd probably get better stuff out of it.

But, yeah, if someone's so attached to a car or TV that they're willing to kill someone over it...I just can't empathize. Perhaps its a generational thing, or the difference between urban and more rural settings. Theft around here is just a part of life. You try to protect yourself; I might try to stop them some other way, perhaps. I'd certainly file a police report and whatnot, but no, I'm not going to kill someone over my car. That seems silly to me.

[Athena]

The case was not presented at trial to a jury. It was NO Billed (they decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial). http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

A grand jury works differently than a jury. Neither the prosecution nor the defense get to exclude members of the grand jury. It is usually made up of more than 12 jurors. In most cases the defense doesn’t even get to present any evidence. In some instances the defendant may testify. In many cases the defendant may not even be aware a grand jury was empanelled to hear the case. Not all states use grand juries. In those that do the purpose of a grand jury is to decide if the prosecution has enough evidence to indicate that the defendant MIGHT be guilty. If so they return an indictment and the matter goes to trial.

Good lookin' out. Even though I've read it a million times, I keep forgetting this was a GRAND jury rather than a trial jury.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I'm not going to shoot someone over some material possessions I can easily replace. I've got full insurance on my car and renter's insurance on my house. Hell, I'm so well insured, I almost WISH someone would steal my stuff. I'd probably get better stuff out of it.



But, yeah, if someone's so attached to a car or TV that they're willing to kill someone over it...I just can't empathize. Perhaps its a generational thing, or the difference between urban and more rural settings. Theft around here is just a part of life. You try to protect yourself; I might try to stop them some other way, perhaps. I'd certainly file a police report and whatnot, but no, I'm not going to kill someone over my car. That seems silly to me.

Not everyone is insured, Athena.

I sure as hell right now, with the economy, with my financial struggles of late, can't "easily" replace my tv, my car, whatever.

What they take, it's gone. And I worked for that shit. It may seem silly to you, but it's not to most. I worked for what I have, I spent the money, the time, the effort in getting it, and if it's taken from me, I might not be able to replace it any time soon.

Shy should I have to replace it? Seriously, how come?

WHy should I call the police, and wait for them to respond, and put the case in a backfile, and never be even seriously looked at, because it's a crime that's almost impossible to be solved? How come.

Why should I risk fighting them off, only to possibly be hurt, or even be killed? Why should I risk my daughter growing up without a dad?

Fuck that. I will shoot them, and I will kill them for breaking the law, and trying to take my things unjustly. And I better not be prosecuted.

[Athena]

I think they are saying that he shot them AFTER they had jumped on to his property, which in Texas is legal as far as I know. At least when I lived there, we assumed it was. ;)

Perhaps it was, once upon a time, but I'm under the impression that the Castle Doctrine was passed specifically to legalize similar actions. But, even in this legislation restricts that. It specifically authorizes the use of force when a person has "(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment." "Habitation", as defined by Texas penal code, "means 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."

S.B. No. 378

Definitions

I could be wrong, but the use of the term "structure" leads me to believe that the yard is excluded. But maybe there's another law that includes it. I don't know. I kind of always assumed property was included, too.

[Rotten Apple]

I could be wrong, but the use of the term "structure" leads me to believe that the yard is excluded. But maybe there's another law that includes it. I don't know. I kind of always assumed property was included, too.

Yeah, its been a while. I just always remember my thuggish dad going, "PLEASE come to my house and get me asshole. I am begging you. Just put one tiny toe onto my property..."

Yeah, I repeated it often to the boys in my neighborhood. I was ready to shoot too. :p

[Athena]

Not everyone is insured, Athena.

I sure as hell right now, with the economy, with my financial struggles of late, can't "easily" replace my tv, my car, whatever.

What they take, it's gone. And I worked for that shit. It may seem silly to you, but it's not to most. I worked for what I have, I spent the money, the time, the effort in getting it, and if it's taken from me, I might not be able to replace it any time soon.

Shy should I have to replace it? Seriously, how come?

WHy should I call the police, and wait for them to respond, and put the case in a backfile, and never be even seriously looked at, because it's a crime that's almost impossible to be solved? How come.

Why should I risk fighting them off, only to possibly be hurt, or even be killed? Why should I risk my daughter growing up without a dad?

Fuck that. I will shoot them, and I will kill them for breaking the law, and trying to take my things unjustly. And I better not be prosecuted.

If you destroy someone's property, should they be allow to shoot and kill you because of it? If someone perpetrates fraud in your name and costs you thousands, should you be able to kill them? After all, what you just described is clearly based on principal, and the same principal applies to all sorts of scenarios.

Life isn't fair. No one should "have to" even protect themselves from theft at all. But it happens, so we do. I think the belief that even a thief's live is worth less than a functional hunk of metal is asinine.

I'll kill when my life or the life of a loved one is threatened. I'll trade lives for lives, if someone is stupid enough to make that necessary. I'll never trade lives for stuff...material possessions. Anyone who will shoot a man in the back is a fucking nancy. I don't care what of yours he's holding.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

If you destroy someone's property, should they be allow to shoot and kill you because of it? If someone perpetrates fraud in your name and costs you thousands, should you be able to kill them? After all, what you just described is clearly based on principal, and the same principal applies to all sorts of scenarios.

Life isn't fair. No one should "have to" even protect themselves from theft at all. But it happens, so we do. I think the belief that even a thief's live is worth less than a functional hunk of metal is asinine.

I'll kill when my life or the life of a loved one is threatened. I'll trade lives for lives, if someone is stupid enough to make that necessary. I'll never trade lives for stuff...material possessions. Anyone who will shoot a man in the back is a fucking nancy. I don't care what of yours he's holding.

Yes and yes. If someone is fucking up my home, yes. If someone steals my identity, I'd love to kill them. Thousands of dollars can ruin the lives of many people. You seem to have it all worked out, but you seem to be a soft target for these sorts of things.

And lives have been expendible for possessions and land for a long, long time.

For the record, you may think I'm a nancy, but I don't have any problem shooting in the back. When I shot Dave? I was shooting at the closest guy running from me.....am I a nancy? HA!