Was It Self Defense or Murder?

Posted by Alex in Crime & Law, Politics, Weapons & War on July 4, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Most people agree that a homeowner has got an intrinsic right to protect himself in his home if attacked – but the case of Joe Horn sparked a furious debate whether that right extended to shooting unarmed burglars in the back:

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."

The Texas grand jury cleared him for the killing, citing the "Castle Doctrine" that gives Texans unprecedented authority to take action against intruders: Link

Do you think what Joe Horn did was justified?

this post? Please

Email this

FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:


Kitchen Gadgets	Buckyballs	Science T-Shirts

Giant Microbes Plush Toys (that's the common cold)	Funny T-Shirts	Custom Bobble Heads

COMMENT

201 comments to "Was It Self Defense or Murder?"

Xultar
July 4th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Horne is a Murderer. Straight up. Castle Doctrine should only give you the right to guard your stuff, not leave your house and run over next door to guard your neighbors.

Call the police yes, keep the cops on the phone and provide as much information as you can yes, leave your house and put yourself and others in danger no.
Gentry
July 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
So we're not supposed to look out for our neighbor's well being now?

To call it murder is idiotic. To rely on the police to protect you is idiotic as well. This isn't their job. Their job is to prevent crime when possible and investigate it afterward. It is our job to defend ourselves.

I wouldn't call Horn the sharpest stick in the barrel, but he certainly isn't a murderer.
kef
July 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
well, you got the gun, you got the criminals, i dont think he had any choice but shoot them.. in the back. id prefer a more hands on approach, bat to the back of the head maybe, but still, way to murder people sheriff horn!
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Only in Texas. Catle doctrine means "your" own property, not someone elses. It also requires he be in real fear of his life. If he was in fear of his life he put himself in it.
Most states you have to defend yourself inside your home. I.E. Castle doctrine. Once the offender flees you are no longer in danger and it is murder.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
sorry bout that unintentional pun, castle, not catle.
AshleyZ
July 4th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Of course he's a murderer. He wanted to kill those guys, and he went out and did it. He didn't have to, since he was in no danger, but he went out and did it anyway.
skoobz
July 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
yea. who knows if the buglars had a gun or not. what would have happened if they robbed the house and discovered the homeowners inside the house and they turned on them? i work hard for my stuff and my family. for someone to come in and take them away from me--i will play God and take their life. an eye for an eye i say.
PK
July 4th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
He will be the next Batman or whatever, shooting all criminals in town because the whole town is his neighbor.
Ratz
July 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Of course he's a murderer, the very, very least you could say about him is it was justifiable homicide. It wasn't his property, he wasn't in fear for his life, it was (briefly) pre-meditated and since he shot them in the back, they were either running away from a madman with a gun, or weren't given sufficient chance to surrender in the first place. If he wanted to do some good, he could have followed them, photographed them, written down useful descriptions, not torn them apart. I suspect after shooting them, he made no effort to preserve their life or give them first aid.

This guy should be sent to jail for a very long time, so he can discover first hand that the word "fist" can be used as a verb.
David Mc
July 4th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I would have done the same given the circumstances.
Craig Miller
July 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I'm a Canadian and, from reading some of the comments here, I feel like I'm eavesdropping on another planet. Maybe that's just the nature of anonymous internet commentary; I have to believe that all of this "justifiable homicide" talk is not representative of the average American.

Speaking of which: Happy 4th to all.
Lola
July 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
And a belated Happy Canada Day to you, Craig!

I agree with those who said that he's a murderer. I would have wanted to do the same but as others said it wasn't his property and his life wasn't in danger. He took things too far. Granted this world needs less criminals though.
Neatoramawontsendmeapassword
July 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I don't think it was justified. If he'd gone after a couple of child rapists or kidnappers, he'd have more of an argument. As it is, he killed two men over someone else's property. They didn't break into his house or threaten his life. But hey, they were illegal immigrants. So who cares, right?

I wonder how long it will be before this law starts to claim truly innocent victims: the kid sneaking home after curfew... the friends planning a surprise party... the sleepwalking spouse. I'm sure Joe Horn would've blown them all away without a second thought... and then tried to claim he'd felt threatened and therefore justified.
Pudifoot
July 4th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
To all of you that think this man is a murderer:

Where do you draw the line? How many times do you let you and your neighbors get robbed? How much robbery, murder and rape do you allow before you say "no more"? When do you say "No! I will not be victimized. I will not be forced to live in terror. I will not let the slime bags of the world to take away my right to live in peace"

I think it is very easy for you to say "oh he is a murderer", but if you found out your daughter was in that house, I bet you would change your tune.

This is America, people. We should be allowed to protect ourselves. And who cares if it was his neighbors house? If you don't make a stand, than your house could be next! He very well might have been in fear of his life... maybe not immediate, but he may have feared that his house could be next... after all if one house is an easy target, than maybe the next house will be too.

I would be proud to have this man as a neighbor... because i know one thing: It will be a long time before another house in that area is robbed.
Skibble-bibble
July 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Murderer, if you want to use that title. Vigilante would be better. He took the law into his own hands and killed two people over it. Yes, they were thieves, but that doesn't give anyone the right to go out and kill. His life wasn't in any danger, the thieves didn't have the means or the motive. He should be locked away before he hurts someone else and tries to "justify" it.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
If someone is robbing my neighbor's house, then my neighbor could very well be in danger of losing his life... and the same robbers could easily be coming to my house next to rob, rape, kill, or whatever. I have to question Horne's judgment in shooting to kill at someone who was apparently running away from him, but in the same position I would definitely pick up my gun and go over to the neighbor's place to stop what was going on and hopefully detain the perpetrators for the police.

Depending on the police to protect us is foolish, as witness the Virginia Tech shootings recently. How many people would have been killed that day if citizens were encouraged to defend themselves, and allowed to carry the weapons necessary to do so?

The demonization of guns is ridiculous and goes counter to all statistics on the subject, which show time after time after time that violent crime goes UP when you take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Hand-wringing, "thinking of the children" and other forms of decision-making that rely on emotions rather than intellect are erosive of freedom. Today's anti-gun movement is a perfect example of what Benjamin Franklin was talking about when he said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve either and will get neither.

However, what's also ridiculous is the pigheadedness of organizations like the NRA, who insist on rights without responsibilities. I'm all for virtually eliminating gun control, as long as buying a gun means you are obligated to (1) get some training to go with it; and (2) use a trigger lock or a gun safe.

Both sides of the gun control debate in America have their heads up their asses, but if I have to take sides I'll side with the pro-gun lobby. Their position is incomplete, since it ignores personal responsibility for gun owners, but at least in supporting their position they aren't just MAKING SHIT UP out of pure overwrought emotion.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! All Praise the one true God of Heston, in the Church of the NRA.

Look, I'm all for home protection, and when i was a kid my dad almost killed a man coming in a window. The man was armed, coming through my sisters window. That is Castle Doctrine. Not running outside after making 2 statements over the phone to a police dispatcher about you are going to kill.

Once in the home, take your shot. Once outside and away from you, your loved ones and property, sit your ass down and wait for the cops.
sarah4759
July 4th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
definitely self-defense.

have any of the 'he's a murderer' set actually been burglarized? do you know the pain, frustration and anguish of coming home to a house that has been ransacked? the disgust at your most valuable possessions taken by lazy, shiftless, or desperate scum? indifferent police officers who wearily, dutifully ask for figures and serial numbers, promise to follow up and never do? children growing who will never receive that heirloom ruby ring or fifth-generation gold pocketwatch?

well, i have, and if i'd had a clear shot at the backsides of my robbers, i would have delighted in taking it. thank God i live in alaska, where you have the right to protect your life and property and that of your neighbors whenever it, not you, is threatened.

and i have not heard of a single case of children, friends, or spouses being mistaken for burglars and shot. plenty of actualy, nasty burglers taken down, though
sarah4759
July 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
actual*
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
No life is worth an item of property no matter how much petty value you assign in sarah.

And you obviously don't read. Loved ones are killed all the time mistaken as intruders by over reacting other loved ones.
stonecoldcleric
July 4th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Morally, ethically, biblically? Murder. But I bet crooks think twice in TX 'bout robbing anyone... definitely serves the purpose as a deterrent.
Terry
July 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
In the social network and culture I belong to, we have a saying "All property is theft". I'm fairly confident most Americans wouldn't be able to fathom such a concept. Also, what an ugly looking man. He's photo radiates psycho-christian-redneck culture. YUK!
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Tim Giachetti, could I have your address please? I could really use some new furniture and stuff. Well, new to me, anyway.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Sure, once you're in the house though i do start shooting.
chet
July 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Morally, ethically, biblically? Murder. But I bet crooks think twice in TX ’bout robbing anyone… definitely serves the purpose as a deterrent.

I guess that explains how Texas has such a low crime rate. Oh wait...
Thomas
July 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
He shot them in the back. That sounds like murder to me, even if they're petty thieves. At the end of the day, I'd rather be a thief than a murderer.
waty
July 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
moral of the story: don't be a piece of shit criminal.
nifrek
July 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Wow.

Oh, sure, those dudes stole some cash and jewelery, OF COURSE they deserved to die!

Sorry, this feels completely wrong to me, killing is killing. It was nowhere near to be self defense, the guy saw some UNARMED dudes who stole stuff and took on his own to make justice. In my opinion he should go to jail, he had no business doing what he did.

I guess it's "cultural differences" but people saying "I would've done the same thing" sounds insane to me. Why would you shoot unarmed burglars in the back, especially if they did nothing to you AND after you already called the cops on them? It's not like you know for a fact that they're murderers/rapists/child molesters and they actually deserve to die, all you know is that they stole cash and jewelery. you'd shoot them in the back, just in case? Scary.
Jeannette
July 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
My house was broken into last year. Granted, I wasn't home at the time, but I was shaken. Terrified they'd come back. Thankful I wasn't there, curious if the guy was armed (in Canada, probably he wasn't). Disappointed at the "loss of stuff" - jewelry, electronics, etc.

Would I kill the guy over it? Hell no. Does someone deserve to die because my stuff is gone? No way.

These guys were LEAVING the house they'd broken into - not on their way in. No one's life was in anymore danger. No way did they deserve to die in that moment, at that man's hand.

I mean, come on, it's STUFF. Just stuff. No matter how much it 'means to you' or how hard you worked for it, it's stuff. Does someone deserve to lose their life over stuff?

One of the most valuable lessons I learned through being broken into was forgiveness. The person who intruded on my property obviously need the stuff, or the money for the value of it more than me. Somehow in their life, they were more desperate, more unstable, more drug addicted, more unemployable, more lonely. Something was very wrong in their life, and that is very sad. I would NEVER wish death on the person who took my crap (no matter how valuable). Instead, I wish them the best of luck at turning their lives around.

For the record, the police were able to recover some of my missing items.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Terry, "all property is theft" isn't some trendy catchphrase made up by someone in your social circle, and in fact it was from something written by Ralph Waldo Emerson ("In the final analysis, all property is theft"), who was -- surprise! -- an American.

(Note that Emerson may have come up with this on his own, and may have been paraphrasing from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who simply said "Property is theft.")

It's all very nice to have ideals and take the high moral ground on such issues, but it's also a mark of immaturity and naivety. Someday you'll be older and wiser, and you'll realize that Communist and Anarchist ideals are exactly that and nothing more: ideals. Unfortunately, such ideals do not work well in the real world with real humans and their very real failure to adhere to the assumptions made by people like Karl Marx. Give us an Anarchist or Communist revolution today, and we will have a strongman as dictator tomorrow. Anarchy fails because human nature abhors a power vacuum... Communism fails because people who have power do not simply give it up for the greater good, no matter what Marx had to say about it.

Obviously you CARE, or you wouldn't even be interested in ideas like "all property is theft." The thing is, your efforts are needed -- everyone's efforts are needed -- in fighting the good fight realistically and effectively. You're not going to bring about Communism or Anarchism any more than Christianity is ever going to make its adherents behave in a Christ-like way. Give it up. Grow up. Put your effort into fighting a fight you can win. Fight within the limits of the system we have; forget your childish 2-dimensional pipe dreams about everyone sharing everything equally, and get busy doing what you can to defend the Constitution against the Fascist neocon pigs who are so busy dismantling it. For an American citizen, anything less is dereliction of duty.
ak
July 4th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Wow, i have to say that some comments i read here would be kinda funny if they weren't that scary. I can pass on the "cultural" gun thing (which is f*cked up but anyhoo), but come one i share nifrek's opinion here. The guys were running away, what good would it do to kill them ? What good killing someone could do anyway ? Damn, this is really insane.

"Damn, those guys are running away, if i wait longer i won't be able to kill them properly." Wow.

I especialy love the sentence "How many times do you let you and your neighbors get robbed?", as if robbers kept track of every crazy armed guy in town they plan to rob :
- Hey, what about this house ? Should we rob it ?
- Let me check... Oh no, see, the database say the guy in this house would come out and kill us. Let's go somewhere else.

Great arguments guys, brilliant.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Terry, I forgot to say: your comment about the man's looks is really out of line. I'm referring to this:

"Also, what an ugly looking man. He’s photo radiates psycho-christian-redneck culture. YUK!"

I fail to see the difference between your statement and some psycho-Christian redneck looking at a photo of a black guy and saying "Look how ugly he is! His photo radiates nigger-rapist-looter-gangster culture. YUK!"

Judging people by their skin color is just one form of judging people by the way they look.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Well put ak. And with that, may the next retard redneck speak up.
Craig Miller
July 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
For those who advocate unfettered vigilantism: fear of reprisal is a deterrance to crime, but not the only one. The most effective deterrent is empathy: the ability to identify with another human being.

This form of deterrence does not start with the criminal, but must be imbedded in the fabric of society. Where there are too many walls - black|white, rich|poor, red state|blue state, us|them - a siege mentality is the default mindset. How can you love your neighbour when you don't even know them? How can you know them when you reduce them to an abstract distillate of their observable behaviours?

Protect your loved ones by all means. Protect your property, at any cost? What would Jesus do? I don't expect any of us can realistically measure up to that standard, but we can at least be mindful of it.
geoff
July 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I think that if you're planning on robbing someone you should know there's a risk of someone killing you and you should think twice about doing it.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Ak:

First of all, gun rights in America aren't just a matter of culture, they're a matter of our most fundamental laws, which are spelled out in the Constitution.

As for what good it does to kill someone, it certainly acts as a deterrent to them as individuals. If you kill the guy who broke into your house, he definitely won't be breaking into your (or anyone's) house ever again. Hopefully other like-minded individuals will hear about his death, and will think twice before breaking into ANYONE'S house.

No, criminals don't have a database of houses that are safe or unsafe to rob... but the more freedom we have to defend ourselves from robbery, the more criminals will be shot while committing their crimes. This both reduces the sheer number of robbers, and makes robbery in general a less attractive career choice. Your hypothetical database-checking robbers would be more likely to simply decide to do something less risky than breaking into a home if they lived in a world where the shooting of robbers by homeowners was more common.

Note that I still don't support shooting people in the back as they run away from you, but I personally would have no problem shooting to disable rather than kill in the same situation. Letting the robbers go means someone else may get robbed tomorrow, and the robbers might take more than property next time. Like your database of gun owners, the database of houses where nobody is home is also mythical. Burglars break into houses prepared to do SOMETHING if someone turns out to be home, so burglary is quite a bit scarier than a simple matter of someone running off with your stuff.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Tim Giachetti:

Ad hominem attacks are a retarded way to convince someone that your argument is valid, and are also evidence that you don't really have an argument at all, just an emotion. Ad hominem attacks that call the opposition retarded are themselves severely retarded.

Would you like cake now?
Thomas
July 4th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Sorry, I just can't look at murder and not see murder.
ak
July 4th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I can't wait for the time when all robbers will be killed so there are only robber-killers left, life will be so much better.
CheeseDuck
July 4th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Woo! Guns for everybody!
Effervex
July 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Criminals are scum and are better off dead anyway. I applaud him for making the human gene pool that much cleaner. Sure he dirtied his name somewhat, but the end result is better.
kew
July 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Why, EXACTLY, did they deserve to live (and leave unaharmed)?

Give me ONE good reason.

"Murder is murder" is not a reason - scum is scum, overpopulation is overpopulation.
Pudifoot
July 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Holy cow, you guys on the "he's a murderer" side of this argument are scary!

The two guys were both illegal aliens with a long criminal records. But thanks to Joe Horn they won't break into any more houses, or commit any more criminal acts.

As for "ak", neighborhoods that get a reputation for killing burglars are less likely to be robbed. You don't think criminals are smart enough to know a good place to rob vs. a bad one? Then you are a bloody idiot.

We have the right not to live in fear. We have the right to keep our hard earned stuff.

Chet: you don't think that crime rate in texas might have something to do with it being on an unsecured border with mexico? oh wait... you don't think
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Ak wrote:

"I can’t wait for the time when all robbers will be killed so there are only robber-killers left, life will be so much better."

I can't wait for the time when all homes will be burgled by robbers who have no fear of anything but the police. Life will be so much better when only criminals have any property, and the rest of us live in empty houses.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
And there is nothing emotional about murdering a person?
You speak as if you have. Bully for you. As far as calling a redneck a retard, you obviously have never been around them.
Might over right is their motto.
And if you in fact read anything I typed here you would see I'm all for shooting while they are in my home.
Also, the color of a persons skin doesn't keep them from being a redneck.
I guess Florida is just special with the amount of gun related deaths that aren't related to violent robberies or breaking and entering.
Try killing a thief outside your house here and you go to jail.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Kew:

The question can never be "why did they deserve to live?". A person does not need to justify their existence in order to avoid being legally killed. The question under rule of law must always be "why did they deserve to die?".

For many people, there are ample reasons why these two deserved to die. Not everyone agrees with those reasons, however. Generally speaking, in the eyes of the law, they did not deserve to die, as they were running away and no longer an imminent physical threat to any person. For some reason, the judge in this case found some extenuating circumstances that prompted him to excuse that fact and judge it justifiable homicide. Maybe the judge just doesn't want to see an otherwise law-abiding citizen punished for being tired of his neighborhood being victimized, or maybe there are facts about this case that we are not privy to.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Tim Giachetti:

Way to stereotype rednecks. I know they're annoying, but some of them actually are pretty nice people, and a few of them are even in favor of gun control.

How far down are you going to dig before you decide you're deep enough in the hole? So far your debating skills seem to be limited to ad hominem attacks, and broad generalizations of huge groups of people. The terrible irony here is that the very worst variety of rednecks, the kind you so cavalierly lump ALL rednecks in with, are in the habit of using exactly the same retarded tactics. You're no different than that mullet-headed guy in the famous picture holding his sign reading "GET A BRAIN, MORANS."
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Very well put rocket. That makes it very understandable.
Each state has different laws on this due to just that.
What the rate of those type crimes are (breaking and entering, robbery). How many innocents die in these crimes... etc....
None of us know what that area is like or how many times the people were preyed upon.

Again, in the house is ok with me. Take a life for threatening mine.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Rocket, on your idea of my broad generalizations of people. Come to Florida, or texas where this guy lives and you will know why I generalize.
Kevin
July 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I do not believe that this is "murder" in Texas since that is "their" state law. It probably would be some level of murder / manslaughter in some other state
with different laws. If folks object to him shooting these burglars, then the law should be changed. America is (or was at one time) a nation of laws.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Tim, I've been to both Florida and Texas many times. Your generalizations are still nothing but bigotry, just like all generalizations that assign a particular attitude or thought process to large groups of people predicated on things like skin color, regional accent, hair length, fashion sense, or age.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Well then, that makes me an old long haired hippy italian bigot.

Thanks for pointing that out. Fact of the matter is this topic is about why he shot 2 men in the back while running away. Not weather you agree with my understanding of people. As if you lived here, visiting is not living here so you know shit about the color of rednecks or rednecks at all.
Just 2 days ago a dear friend of mines house was broken into while at work. They didn't break or take anything. They sold crack out of her house all day.
If she were a redneck and home at the time they would be dead, but she isn't so she got video security and alarms.
Gee, wonder why rednecks don't think of that alternative?
ak
July 4th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Wow. I think i like Neatorama better when it's about six-legged puppies and video games.
dj
July 4th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
YEEE HAWWWW This is why we should have better gun control in this country. Big Texan with a gun - a big hero in his neighborhood now. I wouldn't call him a murderer, but I would call him a hot headed dumb ass!!
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Here are some interesting statistics from JustFacts.com on guns and crime. Note that I haven't cherry-picked anything here; I've left in statistics that SEEM to indicate that gun control is a good thing even though I strongly disagree on that point.

=================================
* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)

* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:

Murder 10.0 years

Rape 7.6 years

Aggravated Assault 3.4 years

(63)

* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)
======================================
Ola Amigo
July 4th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
He was cleared, so in the eyes of that grand jury it's not illegal. Personally I'm not going to lose any sleep of the guys who got capped.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Ola Amigo:

That's pretty much my attitude as well. We obviously don't have as much information on the case as the judge did, and it's the judge's job to figure these things out for us anyway. I fail to see why so many people think it's OK to let the police have sole authority and responsibility for their defense, yet want to question every decision made by a judge.
CheeseDuck
July 4th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
But seriously. WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Murder is murder. You all can argue "blah.. blah.. blah.. they were criminals! they deserved to die!"
This man still killed two living, breathing human beings. For what? They took a few trinkets and a few pieces of green paper from his NEIGHBOR. Not him.
Hell. The dispatcher even told him not to shoot, and then he was like FUCK YOU COP. I KILL WHO I WANT TO KILL.
*Blam* *Blam* Two dead kids coming up!
ted
July 4th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Wow.

He killed those people, plain and simple. He didn't have to. Their lives may not have meant anything to anybody, but you shouldn't equate the value of human life with someone's stereo.

I wouldn't lose sleep, either, but vigilante justice can be just as dangerous as crime.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
"Property isn't worth someone's life" is an overly-simplistic argument against killing burglars. The lack of some forms of property will kill you, for one thing... and there's more to the issue than just property. Criminals who break into a home don't know if you're home or not, and they wouldn't break in if they didn't have some kind of contingency plan in case you're there. Some of the sicker ones are hoping you are!

"It wasn't his stuff he was protecting" is just a selfish argument. Where people don't look out for each other to some extent, there is no community... and where there is no community, there is only raw competition for resources. I don't want to live in that world, and too many of us already do.

Note once again that I still don't advocate shooting to kill when someone is running away from you... but in the case of a criminal fleeing with stolen goods I'm OK with shooting to disable.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I see a lot of people making extremely simple statements followed by phrases like "plain and simple".

Nothing is that simple, and when you go for the cut-and-dried approach like that, you simply set yourself up as judge and jury in your very own kangaroo court.

You don't know anything about this guy who shot the two burglars, or about the facts of what happened that night, aside from what little you've gleaned from the Internet or the newspapers, two notoriously unreliable and incomplete sources of information. You're not in any way qualified to decide the right and wrong of the case. Even listening to the 911 recording doesn't put you at the scene or in the courtroom, where the facts were either evident or thoroughly and painstakingly gone over.
Pudifoot
July 4th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Ted: A tip, don't take my stereo. It's nice, and I am willing to kill any thug that attempts to take it. You are right, my stereo is equal to a robber's life.... my stereo is worth more.

If a person is willing to break into my neighbor's house, they are willing to break into mine. If we don't stop them, they will continue to break into break into peoples house.

And did he know the these guys were not going to go back into the house? Did he know that no-one was inside? did he know that they were unarmed? No-one here knows for sure what was going through this guy's head, but you are all willing to call him a murderer.

Do not forget, that these were illegal aliens with long criminal records. And now these worthless scumbags will not ruin anymore lives.
secret asian man
July 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
"Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen." - Halifax

This is why I believe in federalism. I like living in a state where thieves are shot. Thieves like living in states where they are not. You can have the thieves, and I can have the rednecks, and we can see who does better.
ADKPersephone
July 4th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Absolutely not.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
CheeseDuck said:

"*Blam* *Blam* Two dead kids coming up!"

Um, no. One was 38, the other was 30. Were you trying to push some emotional buttons there, or did you just not acquaint yourself with the case before commenting?

If some kid is out raising hell the way kids do, then I grant you that a certain amount of extra tolerance should be exercised. Once you're not a kid anymore, you're expected to behave yourself... and if you're in your THIRTIES and burglarizing houses, you're a career criminal. At that point, you're not some kind of victim or misunderstood youth, even if you get hurt or killed by the people you're preying on.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Rocket, you seem to be the most vocal here. My answer to you calling me a bigot will post soon, just waiting moderation.
Just keep in mind, Opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one. You being the most opinionated is making you the biggest ass hole.
What a waste of your fathers money for that degree.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Tim,

So now your crappy little ad hominem attacks are directed at me?

If you have no argument beyond ad hominem attacks, be quiet and let the adults talk.
ted
July 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Sad, really.

My own thought is: I see no harm in him shooting to disable the two burglars. He deliberately shot to kill them. And glib comments about "my stereo is worth their lives" are pointless.

Plain and simple is a matter of fact. He killed those two men. He didn't have to. You can't debate that. He shot them dead. He ended their lives. He wanted to. He didn't know if they were your or old, if they were career criminals, if they were illegal immigrants, or if their lives meant anything to anyone else.

He just decided to kill them. I didn't call him a murderer, but what else could you possibly label it?

In a way, it is justice. Criminals don't care about how you feel violated when they steal your stuff. And in Texas, they probably knew the dangers. As I said, I don't feel any loss for them, but vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I'm probably twice your age kid. And you love that "ad hominem" phrase so much.
Again, this is an area for all to comment and your comments really have marked you as a total ass.
Now when you live as long as I have, and seen the riots on Capital Hill in the 60s and the wars that need not be fought, you can be a better judge of people.
You have a problem with having to be right.
This is not a place for being right, it's for expressing your opinion.
We have heard yours over and over. Move on kid and grow the feck up.

I am absolutely right about you wasting a college education trying to have a bigger phallus than every one else. Bye Bye have a nice life if you can live that long.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I have noticed though, the ones who won't use their real names are the biggest wimps when it comes to "being" a person in a situation like this. Be a man Rocket, use your real name so we can ridicule you of the internet as well.
Something to hide?
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Ted,

You said:

"He killed those two men."

Yes, we do know that much.

"He didn’t have to. You can't debate that."

Of course we can debate it. You don't know he didn't have to. He says he did have to, and the grand jury agreed with him. You and I simply do not know.

"He shot them dead. He ended their lives."

Yes he did.

"He wanted to."

You don't know that.

"He didn’t know if they were your or old, if they were career criminals,"

You don't that either... and if he was close enough to shoot and kill with a shotgun (which is a relatively short-range weapon), he was probably close enough to see approximately how old they were. This happened in daylight, after all... and as I mentioned earlier, if you're in your thirties and burglarizing houses, you're clearly a career criminal.

"...if they were illegal immigrants, or if their lives meant anything to anyone else."

This is the only part I can agree with you on: he had no way of knowing their citizenship or what their relationships with others might be. I don't see why that's relevant, though.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Seriously Rocket. Give it a break, we could give a shit about what you believe. Move on!
Pudifoot
July 4th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Ted: You haven't seen my stereo.

He did know they were criminals. He did know they did obey him when he told them to freeze. He is not a trained cop, nor is he a trained soldier. Maybe he was, he would have reacted differently. Personally I think if I am pointing a gun at someone and they don't do what I say, then they are dangerous.

I would never shoot someone to disable. I will never point a gun at someone that I am not willing to kill. A "disabling" shot is just asking for trouble. You shoot you the main body mass, you are most likely going to stop them, and they will stop being a danger. Besides, dead people can't sue you.

My stuff,and my neighbor's stuff IS worth protecting. We work so that we can work hard, and have nice stuff, and if we are not willing to protect that, then we might as well just give it away.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
There goes Rocket again insisting his view is the only view. Go republicans!
What a joke.

Just cut to the chase rocket, make all of us measure pee pees with you and get it over with. Damn you're a sorry human being.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
It might be relevant to point out that, on the 911 call, you can clearly hear not just the reports of the three shotgun blasts, but also the two recockings of the shotgun between them. Horn could not have been very far from the telephone when he opened fire. Assuming the telephone was in the house and that he put it down before going outside, the man must have been (as he stated) in his own yard. He claims they came into his yard too before he shot them; since we know they were shot in the back, though, they must have changed their minds and turned tail.

What are the possibilities here?

Maybe they came into his yard to attack him, then fled when they saw the shotgun. Maybe they came into his yard as part of their escape route, and fled when they saw him and the shotgun. I find it very unlikely that he was able to remain close enough to his own house that the telephone picked up the cocking of his gun, yet was still able to shoot two people dead with a shotgun while they were running away from him and were NOT in close proximity, hence not on his property.

There are assumptions built into this, of course... I wasn't there and I don't know. But that very clear sound of the gun cocking between being fired seems like good circumstantial evidence that the man was in his own yard, shooting people in his yard. I'm not making a moral judgment on that, just pointing out that it's likely to be the case.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Tim,

You're clearly some kind of angry dullard and I'm not going to bother to respond to your laughably childish attempts to make me angry... but why on Earth do you think I'm a Republican?
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Move on idiot boy. I've seen your kind for 5 decades. You feel what you say is important, and it is to a certain extent. But, you have challenged every comment on here as if you were protecting your view of this.
We don't care what you feel about what we say, so there is no need for you to challenge everyones comments.
I'm the dullard? And your the one pushing his point to exhaustion.

Again, grow up and move on. You're a tiresome youngster who seems the need to prove himself and this isn't the place to do it. Night night, have mummy powder yer butt before you hit your crib.
Matty
July 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
(sorry if this is a double post) I don't feel bad for the robbers. Of course I guess I really wouldn't feel bad for Joe Horn if the robbers' relatives were to come and blast him in the back as he was walking into his house. Neither party in this incident demonstrated a modicum of respect or compassion for fellow humanity so f@#k 'em all I guess.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Wow, you're in your 50s, and still not grown up enough for civil discourse? You have to sling insults and call people names, make all kinds of assumptions and jump to all kinds of conclusions about them? That's the behavior of a 'kid', regardless of your age.

I'm sorry, this will be my last reply to you. If you're not deliberately trolling, then you're just not worth talking to.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
We have all tried civil recourse with you boy. And you just won't shut up. That's why I called you a republican on a danged filibuster. Shut up and move on for crying out loud.
You rattle on like you're a slimey politician with a plan to change the world when you haven't even managed to change one persons view here. That is just pathetic.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Pudifoot:

You make an excellent point regarding disabling shots, and I would agree with you 100% except that these two were shot in the back. If someone is coming AT me and I want to stop them, I'm like you: I'll go for the center of mass every time... given a gun with adequate stopping power, that's the best way to prevent them from reaching you. It also typically turns them into a corpse.

If I thought I was justified in shooting someone who was fleeing from me, I'd go for the disabling shot and be prepared to deliver a coup de grace in case he pulls out a gun of his own. I know a lot of gun enthusiasts would disagree with me there, as it's an added risk, but I just couldn't bring myself to deliberately kill a man who was running away from me.

(Well, OK, maybe if his name was Cheney.)

When I load my .45 for home defense, I alternate between cheap target ammo and Hydra-Shok rounds for this very reason.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Hey, Rockets hero died today.
Sen. Jesse Helms finally kicked the bucket.
He shared many of your views that you have stated here tonight.
So similar it makes me want to shoot you just to shut you the feck up.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Now you know the dif between trolling and trying to reason with an overly opinionated snot nosed twat.
Frankie B.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
hey tim giachetti, if you are so exhausted why are you still here? quit trying to shut people up and move on yourself. Troll.
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Fair enuff Frankie, I'm cool with that. You can dealwith this idiot.Nite nite folks.
Frankie B.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
http://www.imeem.com/people/O6_njaO/friends/

why doesnt this surprise me
Tim Giachetti
July 4th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
It's because i don't mix with any online communities. Nothing wrong with that.
Lloyd
July 4th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Who cares if they were illegal immigrants or not, they were theives. A thief is not tollerated by any culture, they are despised. These men did not simply steal things, they stole time. Time spent away from the family, house, and things that made the owner of said property happy in life, in order to legitamately earn the money that was used to buy those things.

If we are going to ban things that kill people, then let us ban cars. Cars afterall, kill more Americans every year than guns do. (41,000 a year on average)

Lives of people who die of car accidents are not morned like others are, we simply say oh well. Maybe Stalin had a point when he said that a single death is a tragedy and a million is a statistic.

We as humans have insticts to survive, we have insticts that make us feel bad when a member of our species is lost. These emotions have kept us alive, but they are not always reasonable.

How long was it before we learned how to prevent common diseases via sanitation? How many people had to die before we learned that? How many people need to die before we learn how to drive safely? How many criminals will have to die before they learn that they should not Rape, Kill, or Steal?

Almost every culture in the world regaurds theft as an offense. Most people are in favor of the death penalty in one way or another. Some people want it fast and others want it to come naturally via life in prison. Not too many people are willing to parole a known murderer. We should also give the death penalty to thieves either life in prison or instant death their choice.

Ok, so maybe that does go too far. But these people stole time from the property owners, they stole things that the owner had to spend a large amount of time earning, maintaining, and finding those items that gave him or her satisfaction, comfort, and peace.

To me, it is sick to live in a Capitalist society where there are plenty of legitamate jobs availiable that will allow you to trade your time formoney in order to buy things that make you feel good, these men were too lazy to do that and wanted to steal someonelse's time. These were Sick Sick men.

Do I think that they desrve to die? Yeah they deserve to die and I hope that they burn in Hell!

It is too bad that I am an atheist and that I don't believe in Hell. If only it was true.
C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
If Mr. Horn was in danger when he was 10-15 feet away from the two criminals in his front yard, then his use of deadly force would be justified and he should not have been indicted.

If the two men that Mr. Horn had just witnessed commit a felony were not a danger to Mr. Horn, then he should have been indicted.

Personally I believe that he was in grave danger because in 1 or 2 seconds, those guys could have been all over him. I think that he is darned lucky to have survived that day. He should have stayed inside until he was sure that the guys were far enough away that they couldn't jump him.
Thomas
July 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
From Tim's 11th comment, "You have a problem with having to be right." Also from that comment, "I am absolutely right about you..." Pot. Kettle. Black.
Ola Amigo
July 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
The idiots would still be alive if they hadn't chose to steal. Simple proposition folks.
Terry
July 4th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Shprocket
Thanks, I haven't had a good belly laugh like that for a while. My culture is 60 thousand years + old. We share! Your assumptions about me are just plain wrong.
But jeez, aren't you going off like a frog in a sock on this thread. LOL!!!
ted
July 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Holy cow.

I was going to reply to Shprocket's comment, but that seems way in the past now, after all those comments.

You can debate any point you wish, such as "Is the sky blue?". He said on the 911 call he was going to kill the two. Did he have to? No. He made the choice to. He went outside. They were headed in the opposite direction. He wanted to kill them - yes, he said he was going to. That is intent. He wanted to kill them.

You agree that he really didn't know anything about them, yet I see those reasons being thrown out here as good reasons for him to kill the men. That is how it's relevant. It's justifying his actions after he's committed the deed.

Plain and simple. There's no debate. The court decided in his favour. Fine. I've got no big qualms over what happened, but let's not pretend he did something wonderful. He did a bad thing. It's like when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in jail: nobody wept, but it's still vigilante justice.
Thebes
July 4th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
It seems to me there are two less thieves in the world, and it seems to me that he gave them the chance to give it up. There were steeling property he had been asked to watch out for. It might seem harsh in these days of coddling real criminals, but I don't find Mr. Horn to have done anything worthy of imprisonment.

I don't know all the laws of Texas, but here in New Mexico one can do what is necessary to defend one's property or to apprehend a criminal who has committed a felony in one's presence. I suppose what is necessary depends on the circumstances, but pointing a gun at a burglar and telling them to freeze.... well, that criminal needs to freeze or they might get shot.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hi Ted,

You said:

"You agree that he really didn’t know anything about them, yet I see those reasons being thrown out here as good reasons for him to kill the men. That is how it’s relevant. It’s justifying his actions after he’s committed the deed."

Maybe you've mistaken me for someone else. I never said he was justified in killing them... I only said that you don't know that he wasn't. The people who think that he was justified also don't know if he was or not.

Presumably, he knows if it was justified or not... and he's the only one. Since you're innocent until proven guilty in this country, the grand jury has apparently decided that there's no way to prove he wasn't justified, and that's an end to the case. Personally, I'd rather see a thousand guilty Joe Horns get away with murdering criminals than see one innocent Joe Horn get put in prison for a justifiable homicide.

You said:

"Plain and simple. There’s no debate. The court decided in his favour. Fine. I’ve got no big qualms over what happened, but let’s not pretend he did something wonderful. He did a bad thing. It’s like when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in jail: nobody wept, but it’s still vigilante justice."

Again, maybe you've mistaken me for someone else, or maybe you're addressing others as well as me. I took your post to be specifically aimed at me, maybe I'm wrong about that. In any case, I don't think Joe Horn did something wonderful. I wasn't there and I'm not sure at all what Joe Horn did... YOU are the one who is convinced that the man did something bad, so taking people to task for thinking he did something good seems a little on the hypocritical side, since neither of you really know what happened on Joe Horn's lawn that day.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Hi Terry,

Sorry if I made some assumptions about you that were off... we don't see many Yanamamo, Australian aborigines, or New Guinean hobbit-people on the Internet, so I naturally assumed you were part of a culture much younger than 60,000 years.

Unfortunately, whatever cultural mores regarding property your 60,000-year-old tribe subscribes to, they're apparently not workable in even a newly industrialized civilization like China.

I still stand by what I said about your comments being bigoted. The way the man's face looks to you has nothing to do with anything.
Terry
July 4th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Shprocket,
No wucka's.
To clarify, I was commenting on reading his facial expression, eyes in particular. I'm good at reading faces. Also, you shouldn't think the present state of affairs is fixed and will never change. Things aren't like they were in the past and things wont be like they are now in the future. It's always changing. An invent in the future may occur that could collapse our present system of thought. It's happened plenty of times in the past, it will certainly happen again.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Terry:

Try telling a judge and jury that you're good at reading faces, and see how far you get with that as evidence of anything.

Maybe Joe Horn was good at reading faces too. Maybe what he saw was a couple of dangerous career criminals who were a threat to him and his neighbors, and who needed killing in his estimation. If you can judge people by their faces, shouldn't he be able to as well? You saw a "psycho-christian-redneck" when you looked at Horn's photograph... maybe he saw psycho killer Colombians.

I'm being facetious, of course. I don't care how good you think you are at reading faces, it's no proper basis for judging a person.
m.a.d
July 4th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
im sure there wouldnt be as much accusation against Mr. Horn if he was a handsome thirty-something with a beautiful wife and baby
Greg
July 4th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
It could set an interesting precedent for the future.
Ola Amigo
July 4th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
"Fine. I’ve got no big qualms over what happened, but let’s not pretend he did something wonderful. He did a bad thing."

I'd imagine this type of activity discourages other theives. I'm against thievery so my thanks and congratulations to this guy.
Texan
July 4th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
If that was my stuff getting stolen, and the men stealing it got shot in the back and died, I would never be able to live with myself - even if it was my neighbor that killed them. No possession is worth taking a life. And how far do you think they would have gotten? Shouldn't we really be wondering why we are putting material before life (Any life)? I'm sure Jesus is real proud of Mr. Horn. As, apparently, some of my fellow Texans and Americans are. Happy 4th guys, I'm sure this is what the founding fathers meant by the second amendment. Along with all the other shit we and our government do, I'm sure they are just pleased as punch.
violet
July 4th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Ugh. People are actually justifying killing a couple of petty thieves who posed no physical threat.

I find some of the voices here shocking and sad. It seems the notion that these two dead men were PEOPLE, who didn't try to hurt anyone physically, is being lost. I guess none of the hard-liners has ever known or been related to someone who was on the wrong path and made mistakes like stealing. If not, allow me: they're PEOPLE. They don't deserve to be annihilated. Get a clue, and some humanity if there's any left.
Shprocket
July 4th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Violet, anyone who breaks into a stranger's home knows that someone might be inside, and that the encounter could lead to violence. By the very fact that they broke into a house, we have to assume that they are prepared to hurt or kill anyone who happens to be there. Burglary is not to be equated with stealing bread from the supermarket. The only question is: how far do our rights go in defending our (and each other's) homes?
PK
July 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
On the lighter side, I am secretly waiting for an ironic twist when some neighbors of Mr. Horn shoot Mr. Horn at his back because they saw him dangerously carrying a gun outside the boundary of his house angrily trying to shoot somebody three times in their backs.
Crudely Wrott
July 4th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Along with the rights and privileges of citizenship comes the responsibility of good citizenship. Good citizenship is simply behaving in such a manner, and arranging ones priorities in a way that promotes and protects the ideals of our society and that set an example for others.

Promoting the security of self and of one's neighbors would fall under this definition. So would resisting attempts to violate the general security of one's own home and community.

The only problem I have with Horn's action is that he didn't get the attention of the thieves first. He could have given them a chance to yield to force of arms, to put down their loot and surrender like the gutless little bastards they were. They could have had the privilege of going to jail with wet pants and their lives. For Horn to have hailed them and given them the opportunity to fully appreciate their situation would have been a boon, a ticket to tomorrow. But the thieves, by choosing their course of action, which was precisely to violate the peace and security of their fellow citizen's lives, have put their own peace and security in jeopardy, as their actions were clearly against the law. They narrowed their own chances. Had the run into someone else, someone who would hesitate to shoot, they might be alive. But the ran into Mr. Horn. And he shot them dead.

Thieves should therefore be advised. Just as there are crooks and fools who think nothing of stealing and assaulting the law abiding and gentle, there exists among the law abiding and gentle those who would think nothing of stopping a crook or a fool cold, suddenly and terminally. And it's always been so. A sharp claw sheathed in the notions of personal responsibility and power vested in the common population.

E Pluribus Unum
ted
July 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Hey, Shprocket.

I'm not taking anybody to task for their opinions here. I'm just putting my own two cents in. I've replied to a number of different people in my comments, so maybe it's a little paranoid of you to assume that I've been directing every comment of mine specifically towards you.

You've made a few assumptions yourself based on what you hear on the 911 tape, so it's a little hypocritical of you to take others to task for any conclusions they've drawn based on what they've read and listened to.

Anyways, have fun with the topic. Your posts are starting to make me suspect you may be trolling, and I have no wish to be drawn into any pointless debate. No hard feelings. I said my two cents, and it's up to you to interpret or misinterpret my words as you like.

That's the fun of the blog.
Terry
July 4th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Shprocket
I had a pretty interesting rave with our State Ombudsman (family friend) about Jungian Typology or MBTI and it's use in organisational structures (team building). Indeed, reading faces (also posture, gait etc) is a crucial component of identifying type. The State Ombudsman's office Human Resource Manager (as many organisations do) used MBTI to structure their departmental teams. I admit that the use of MBTI is fairly controversial, but when our Governments watch dog uses it, I think it has a bit more merit than you propose. Some people can read faces accurately others cant.
Pudifoot
July 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Well said, Crudely Wrott.

Violet: Where do you draw the line? Do you are the raper was lonely and just wanted a little sex? Do you also say that the child molester was confused, and after all he is human?

When a person's house is robbed, it is not only the objects in the house that were stolen that whey are upset about. They feel violated. Betrayed. They feel unsafe. No-one has the right to make people feel this way. And when you do, you should be ready to face the consequences, whether that is jail time or death.
Ola Amigo
July 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am
"I guess none of the hard-liners has ever known or been related to someone who was on the wrong path and made mistakes like stealing."

I dont' know what you mean by these guys being 'on the wrong path'. They showed initiative. They weren't passive in this situation. They were all too active. Stealing is not an innocent or incidental act.
Ola Amigo
July 5th, 2008 at 12:09 am
"anyone who breaks into a stranger’s home knows that someone might be inside, and that the encounter could lead to violence."

completely true rocket. Very Good point.
Shprocket
July 5th, 2008 at 12:11 am
No hard feelings here either, Ted... but I wasn't talking about ALL your posts, just that one. And no, I'm not trolling. I feel strongly about truth, and just as strongly about the idea that you don't get truth from reading a brief synopsis of something that happened elsewhere between people you don't know. I'm kind of tired of seeing people jump to whatever lurid conclusions please them when they read about something like this. I'd like to encourage the open-minded to realize that forming such strong opinions about people like Joe Horn based solely on what can be gleaned from the Intarwebz is not only unfair and foolish, it's also counter to the very principles ("innocent until proven guilty") that our legal system and our society are based on.

I pointed out myself that I was making some assumptions about what I heard on the tape. Meanwhile, sound bites on the news make many more (and much wilder) assumptions without mentioning that assumptions are what they are. This is the nature of TV journalism: if it bleeds, it leads. News outlets aren't interested in truth, they're interested in ratings and market share.
Shprocket
July 5th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Has anyone noticed the comments of the police officer who told the news that Joe Horn shot the two Colombian burglars in the back? He qualified it by saying that they weren't hit at the same angle, but both were hit in the back.

If the gunshots were at an angle, then the two men were very likely not running away from Joe when he fired. We heard him yell a warning to them before he opened fire, and we know he used a shotgun, so they had to have been close to him and they must have known he was there.

It is possible to sidle or even back towards someone. It's also very possible to reflexively turn away from someone you are running directly at when it looks like gunfire in your direction is imminent. The burglars could have been attempting to get close enough to take the gun away and use it on Horn when he shot them.

I'm not saying this is what happened, I just want to cast some reasonable doubt on the minds of those of you who are so flat-out sure about what did happen that you're ready to condemn Joe Horn as a murderer even after a grand jury acquitted him.
Christophe
July 5th, 2008 at 12:33 am
"the case of Joe Horn sparked a furious debate"
Yes! 111 heavy posts and counting

My opinion? just shoot the d*mn guy, he shouldn't have been there the first place. Sound a little bit fascist, but when you live in a country where they let those people loose, you don't feel like engaging in a furious debate...
Shprocket
July 5th, 2008 at 12:37 am
He shouldn't have been where in the first place? In his own yard?
Celeste
July 5th, 2008 at 1:20 am
He was absolutely not justified. The dispatcher specifically told him to do nothing, yet he did anyway (and by that I don't just mean he was "disobeying," but that he premeditated and made a deliberate decision). It was certainly not self-defense, as he was at no personal risk. If he was going to shoot them, there's no reason he had to kill them. Shoot them in the knee (if he's a good shot) or the butt to disable them until the cops get there, but the back? Come on. So not necessary.
Xerloq
July 5th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Let's clear a couple of things up. In Texas, Castle Doctrine applies to you or your neighbors person or property. The law is on his side.

Second, our founding fathers based the ideals in the Declaration of Independence on the works of John Locke, who said that everyone has a right to Life, Liberty and Property.

Normally the rights take priority in that order - except when an individual seeks to deprive another of one of those three rights. Those two criminals who sought to deprive someone of one of their right to property, they lost the right (actually and philosophically) to their life, their liberty and their property.

We as humans have a fundamental duty to protect those rights - our own and our neighbors.

He was certainly justified.
Ned
July 5th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Horn is a numnut.
Terry, love the 'frog in a sock' imagery.
Shprocket
July 5th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Celeste, I really don't think it's that simple.

The 911 call is pretty confusing. The media, along with people who like to make snap judgments using insufficient data, emphasize the bits that make him sound like a cold-blooded premeditated killer, and de-emphasize the things he said that seem to contradict that.

I really don't know what this man's intentions were... maybe he was deliberately trying to mislead the 911 operator so as to provide himself with some kind of phony justification to kill two people with no consequences. It's just as possible that he felt a responsibility to go out there, not a desire. If so, he put himself at risk in order to fulfill his perceived obligation to his neighbors, and he doesn't deserve to be treated as if he charged out there in a frenzy of bloodlust. Note that he did shout a warning telling the burglars not to move before opening fire... and as someone else pointed out earlier, when you're pointing a gun at someone and they aren't obeying you, that's reasonable cause for serious alarm.

As for shooting to disable, I quite agree with you in principle, assuming they were really running away from him. Based on the police statements, I'm not so sure they were. Also, it's not such an easy thing to do with a shotgun.

I think you already know what I think of the 911 operator's admonitions for him to stay in the house, and I think I agree with Horn himself on that one: The 911 operator doesn't have any authority to give such an order, and Horn had no obligation to obey.
Shprocket
July 5th, 2008 at 2:58 am
I guess the trickle of totally inane ad hominem comments with no point to them is just going to continue until this thread drops off the radar altogether. Personally, I'm sick of it.

"HUR HUR HUR, HE AM A NUMNUT!" <--Oh yeah, there's a cogent argument that didn't come from a damaged, substandard brain.
R
July 5th, 2008 at 3:23 am
I had cats pooping on my lawn, so now I put cat pheromones on my lawn and wait for them in my rocker with a 12-gauge in my lap. I also built a bear-trap at the bus-stop, it's only a matter of time before I catch myself a pedophile.
Oh, and sometimes I knee-cap people who look at me strangely.
That man is an American hero.
Tim Giachetti
July 5th, 2008 at 3:34 am
Did anyone drown from the foaming drool that formed from Rockets mouth during his madman rant last night?

Jesus, staying up till 3 A.M. to prove your an idiot is just pathetic.
Me I just got up and am enjoying my coffee just to see Rocket went on like the raving looney in the Monty Python sketch.

Retirement is one thing as far as having a life. But this is just sad.
Ola Amigo
July 5th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Tim, glad your enjoying your coffee. You might want to look in the mirror though. LOL.
alice
July 5th, 2008 at 3:57 am
This case, and some of the comments have put me off ever visiting the States. Which is a shame.
Ola Amigo
July 5th, 2008 at 4:00 am
No shame Alice. We'll get by without you.
Terry
July 5th, 2008 at 4:56 am
I'm glad I live in a country where this Horn bloke would have been charged with 2 murders and locked up for decades. I wouldn't want a nutcase like him roaming free in my society.
X-Shark
July 5th, 2008 at 5:23 am
WTF??? He is not the one doing wrong in this situation. A risk you run by stealing property of another is getting caught and getting shot. Please do not protect people who do wrong to others. If I was away from my house and someone was taking my stuff I sure hope that a neighbor would protect my belongings.
Terry
July 5th, 2008 at 6:04 am
I have a thing called home contents insurance, it costs $100 a year. If I get robbed, things get replaced under this insurance policy. Then, I'd let the police track down the thieves in due course. This taking of peoples lives for burglary (a few replaceable material objects) is unacceptable and abhorrent. Surely any persons life, even if they are a burglar, is worth $100. Condoning killing them by shooting them in the back??? What sort of society are you Americans living in? Get contents insurance for your houses, it's probably cheaper than a gun and the thieves get a chance to turn their lives around in the future instead of being shoot in the back.

If my neighbours murdered a thief leaving my property, I'd want them charged and locked up for life.
hearsetrax
July 5th, 2008 at 6:10 am
just my .02

shoot them all and let thar " " god of choice figgure it out
Pudifoot
July 5th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Terry: I am glad you live in that country too.
yoda's wrinkled head
July 5th, 2008 at 7:11 am
In most places in America, you are expected to carry no weapons and have little to nothing to protect yourself with, while pit bulls and gang members run free.

"The American Dream.. you have to be asleep to believe in it."
Parker
July 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
This may be outside of the current thread of argument, but I agreed with something Ted wrote earlier on:

"...vigilante justice can be just as dangerous as crime."

Whether or not we agree on Joe Horn's actions or if we would do the same thing, it seems clear that we all have a responsibility to be careful about our decisions under pressure, regardless of our intentions.
mr elrayes
July 5th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Ide be glad to have Mr Horn as my neighbor. He wasn't out shooting people, he was sitting in his house and saw two assholes breaking into his neighbors house.
Snerd
July 5th, 2008 at 8:59 am
He wasn't that smart telling the dispatcher that he was going to shoot them, but with the way these criminals are today, I certainly think that it was justified. The burglars were trespassing to commit a crime, and were shot. That's the risk they take. If they didn't take the risk, they wouldn't have been shot. I hope I'm never in that situation, but if anyone enters my house illegally, I have the firearms to PROTECT myself, my family, and my property.
Kiki
July 5th, 2008 at 9:35 am
He shot to KILL, not to STOP.

And what's more, he shot them in the back. It is murder, plain and simple.
nevrdull
July 5th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I'm an avid supporter of gun owner rights and yet some of what i'd heard on the tape made me uncomfortable. He reminded me of the fact that there are plenty of people who legally own firearms and are just waiting to get a chance to use them.

an interesting insight into the story here:http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/2008/07/guns-and- people-who-shoot-them.html
Snerd
July 5th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Shprocket - so, the criteria for being a "good" redneck is that they are nice and they FAVOR GUN CONTROL? I know people that are decent human beings that favor gun control, and some that are against gun control. That's not a criteria I use when assessing whether someone is "good" or "bad".
Neron
July 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Guilty of MURDER !

Neron
Pudifoot
July 5th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Kiki: Wow! Thank you! Lots of people tried to make this complicated, but you managed to cut through all the muck.... it is murder plain and simple. We don't know what was going on in his head... we don't know if he feared for his life... we don't know if he meant to shoot them in the back or if they turned around at the last moment. But he shot them in the back, so it murder plain and simple.

You are an idiot. A dangerous idiot.

Maybe you wouldn't have felt the same if it was your house. Maybe you wouldn't have felt the same if you were in the house that they robbed. We have the right, as humans, to protect our property. We have the duties as neighbors to watch out for each other. They scumbags were trying to steal someone's hard earned stuff. Have you ever been robbed? You feel victimized. violated. ashamed. scared. NO-ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE OTHERS FEEL THIS WAY.
CJ
July 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am
this is very simple.
he murdered them legally.
should he have shot them to kill?
no.
he should have shot them in the legs.
very simple.
alright
July 5th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Apparently, if someone is stealing from you or your neighbor, you have to just let them.

What's the point allowing a gun if no one can use it when needed?
Pudifoot
July 5th, 2008 at 10:35 am
CJ: you don't typically wound with a shotgun. Wounded people tend to sue. When you aim to wound, you are more likely to miss. One missed shot could cost you your life... shot guns aren't the fastest gun to reload. This isn't a movie. You aim to kill. Aim for the body mass, and take them down... it is the smartest thing to do all around.
Snerd
July 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
CJ: You've apparently never shot a gun. Shoot for the LEGS? Are you kidding me? Do you realize how difficult that is?

You shoot for the torso, which gives you the maximum chance of hitting the intended target, as well as the maximum chance of disabling the target.
Thomas
July 5th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I know I've done my share of arguing on this thread, as well as others, but I'd like to put things in perspective. I'm sure everyone's heard this, but I feel it bears repeating.

Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded.
Jack Mclellan
July 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Sh(it)procket said: "Give us an Anarchist or Communist revolution today, and we will have a strongman as dictator tomorrow. "

You mean a bit like Bush/Cheney's doctrine? "Terrorist" "Islamofascist" and all the rest of that empty rhetoric the far right (which will always mean far wrong) spew off from their vacuous pie-hole heads (how do you know a Republican is lying... his lips are moving).

Basically where your arguments falls flat, and into "pot calling kettle" and your hypocrisy showing but you were too thick to know it and lack a soul or conscience to get it anyways was how you were trying to denounce anarchy (which, BTW, is what built the US, and thanks to the GOP, it's what's ruining it) and communism (a system only as flawed as those want to make it, just like capitalism, republicanism, etc.), so it's too bad when you look in the mirror that, to misquote, "you have seen the enemy, and it is you."

I hope you leave your house Shprocket one day and someone mistakes you for a burglar and blows a hole through the back of your head. One less waste of a lifeform on the planet.
FetishForPerception
July 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I can't believe some people. You actually think this man is justified in killing someone over property? Fair enough, the robbers were wrong in their actions, and should be stopped if possible, but unless your life's in danger, shooting to kill is ridiculous, and by the sounds of it, this man wasn't in danger, he just sounds like some typical trigger happy American.

It's just sick that material possesions are valued higher than human life.
Celeste
July 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
FetishForPerception, I agree. It's very disheartening to see that the majority of people (Americans, at least) seem to feel this way.

I love my stuff, but I can't even imagine in my wildest dreams taking someone's life for it. I would miss the [large] piece of my soul I'd have to give up much more than any material objects I might lose.
Kiki
July 5th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Pudifoot: Wow! Are you familiar with the term psychopath? Because statements like, "You don’t typically wound with a shotgun. Wounded people tend to sue," pretty much qualify you as one. And given your many posts on this subject (made at all hours of the day), I have a sneaking suspicion that you're a psychopath who doesn't get out of the house very often.

But in response to your rather idiotic argument, we DO happen to know what was going in his head. He told the dispatcher. He said "I'm going to kill them. They're getting away." Which means a) he intended to kill them and b) that they were "getting away" and therefore posed no threat to him.
Patrick Henry
July 5th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
When I'm faced with a difficult question or problem, I have to boil it down to its bare minimal structure to grasp a clear understanding of the situation. Everyone knows what happened right now, so let's boil it down:

1.) Two people were fleeing with stolen property, and did not respond to his command to stop, with a gun. They instead fled.
2.) He shot them.
3.) They died.

Without all the moral implications of "they were turned away", or "unarmed", or "not his personal property", I have to take his side. They were perpetrating a crime, and he had the means to stop them. He did.

Wouldn't you want the same thing to happen if you were the victim? Like what other people said, what if it was your stuff that was being robbed? What if you were being raped or killed? The lines would be blurred if it was a more serious crime, and that's the problem with people today.

People still see some crimes to a lesser degree. Who's to say these two men wouldn't go out and DO a larger crime once they got away with this one? Who's to say they would've gone on to be productive citizens? (Given their crime history, the latter is less possible and the previous more probable.)

Just because it was a "lesser" crime they were committing doesn't change the fact that they had STOLEN property and were BREAKING THE LAW. Obviously, there are distinctions, I don't think Jaywalkers should be shot. But someone who breaks into cars, grand theft auto, robbing a house, holding up people etc and has a long history of it, I feel no sympathy when someone does something like this.

If they had my stuff and he was my neighbor, do you know how much I would be thanking him? If they had gotten away and sold the stuff, I never would have gotten it back.

All this man is guilty of is stopping a crime by the means he had, and he should be given a hero's welcome.

If anyone does that to me, you can bet I will shoot to kill. Otherwise the robber and a slimey lawyer will slap you with this:
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2006/06/12/robber_sues_victims _after_they_beat_him/

I hate living in a Country where I'm afraid to protect myself because the evil have the right to legally have their way with me in court.
Someone said this, and its perfect: “anyone who breaks into a stranger’s home knows that someone might be inside, and that the encounter could lead to violence.”

Then there's the other side: Let them rob your house and do nothing. If you're not in danger, why should you do anything? The Government will take care of you. The police will get it back. It would be MURDER if you were to do anything!

For people reading this in Europe and Canada, you need to understand what its like to live in the USA. There are many laws in many parts that won't let you carry a gun, so law abiding people don't. Gangs carry guns because they break the law, and shoot people who do. Los Angeles is notorious for its gun fights, and Philadelphia has some of the highest crime in the country. Two of my relatives in NYC have been mugged. Tacoma, near where I live, and Seattle have gang violence and robberies constantly.

I live in my small town near the poorest section which is raided monthly by the cops. Americans often live in fear.

My biggest fear though, is the legal system. The 50 Million Dollar Pants lawsuit should have been stopped years ago, but went on forever costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Robbers sue homeowners for attacking them while they trespass and steal property.

Through it all, one man got mad and tried to stop him. Now he's being called a criminal. An otherwise law abiding citizen with no record did something to try and put a stop to the madness, and now the world wants to string him up.

For people saying they wouldn't want this freak walking around their neighborhood, I would say you had nothing to fear unless you were breaking into his house.
Bubba
July 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I'm not so worried about the guy who shot the burglars. Don't rob houses, and don't mess with Texas. I'm a lot more concerned about some other trigger happy idiot shooting the kids playing a prank on the neighbor, or the gas man "snooping" around the property, or the drunk guy who wanders into the wrong house.

I don't trust my neighbors to make good calls about whether or not to shoot. Sure, this guy got it right, but next time he might not.
Snerd
July 5th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Thomas: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win, you’re still retarded."

That's where we differ; you consider it argument, and I consider it debate. I'm not likely to change your opinion, and you're not likely to change mine.
Dave
July 5th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Wow; cannot believe the level of discourse here, or lack thereof. All I can say is that we are not the judge and jury, and did not see all of the evidence in the case. Those who did see it exonerated him. Case closed. All the rest is, as someone said earlier, Special Olympics time.

The one thing I'm glad for is that the people spouting off "Joe Horn is a murderer!" on forums like this feel they are contributing to society as much as someone who votes, and are much less likely to vote.
JC
July 5th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Happy triggers should be locked.
Matty
July 5th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
That must have been some homecoming for the homeowners:

Neighbor: Hey there, folks. While you were out I saw two men stealing your VCR.

homeowners: Oh, dear.

Neighbor: Oh no, don't worry. I confronted them with a fully-loaded shotgun and then mercilessly blasted them in their backs as they tried to leave. They writhed in agony, full of burning hot lead, as they bled to death on your front lawn...No need to thank me!

homeowners: Um.....okaaaay...that was one way to go...
grolaw
July 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Robbery is a face-to-face crime where the criminal seeks their gain from one or more individual victims, but burglary is entry into a structure/vehicle to take goods- this pair are burglars. Just want to get the terms down.

Would Mr. Horn have had the same result if he were a Black Man?
Would Mr. Horn have had the same result if he were black and the burglars white?
Would Mr. Horn have had the same result if he was Hispanic?
Would Mr. Horn have had the same result if he was had shot two women?

Would Mr. Horn have had the same result if he was had shot two minors?

The prosecutor put Horn before a Grand Jury and that Grand Jury refused to issue an indictment. No judge heard a word - only the prosecutor, Grand Jury, the witnesses and Mr. Horn. Even Mr. Horn can't have his attorney present when giving testimony to a Grand Jury. (OH, and by the way- a decent prosecutor can get a Ham Sandwich indicted by a Grand Jury... I've been an assistant county prosecutor.)

I think race is the reason Mr. Horn is free today. His race and the race of the majority on that Grand Jury.
dj
July 5th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Arguing on the internet....special olympics...God that sounds like something George Carlin would have said!!!! God, I miss him already. Thomas, you're the man!
Chris
July 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Joe Horn is a model American.
i wish more people were like him.
I know i wouldn't bend over and take it like the liberals want us to when confronted with trouble and he sure as hell didn't.

if i could shake this man's hand i would.

He is a dying breed of American, willing to fight for whats right.

Nothing to do with RACE....
some black man dies by the hands of a white man you blackies gotta pull the race card.
GIVE IT A REST!!!

Its not Mr. Horns fault that most criminals are black.
Chojiro
July 5th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
What would you say if the two burglars got into a car parked in front, Horn got out of his house despite orders from a 911 dispatcher, followed then for 13 miles until they stopped at a motel, then shot them as they left their car. An obvious lunitic, right? Well guess what. Aside from Castle Doctrine not applying to the motel parking lot, there's not a damn difference between 13 miles and 13 feet from his front door. Either way you look at it, he was perfectly safe INSIDE his home, but made a decision to both disobey a 911 dispatcher, and put himself in potential harm. That alone should obliterate any chance of a Castle Doctrine ruling.

As for the actual deaths, he said himself "I’m gonna kill him". He made a decision, while he was perfectly safe and not at all worried for his life or property, to kill someone. That is premeditated murder in the very definition of the word.

With these two points combined, any county prosecutor worth his socks should have easly been able to take this to criminal court.
brittany
July 5th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
location causes reaction... end of story....

this is a suburb of houston, can you not blame the man... things like that happen all the time there... i think that if people were more aware of the area and crime information, they would likely sympathize with the the alleged murderer...

any logical human being would probably react the same, given living in an area where crimes like that happen daily.. how often can things like that happen around you without wanting to do something about it....

sit back pacifists, this man probably did you a favor
brittany
July 5th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
oh... Neatoramawontsendmeapassword ...your name says enough, your so funny yet such an idiot...

from your very first comment, here let me remind you of it: "I don’t think it was justified. If he’d gone after a couple of child rapists or kidnappers, he’d have more of an argument. As it is, he killed two men over someone else’s property. They didn’t break into his house or threaten his life. But hey, they were illegal immigrants. So who cares, right?"

it seems that what you are saying is that people may have some sense of good/bad people radar going on....its just funny because, you know we can all tell by looking at someone what type of person they are...so this man was supposed to instinctively know that this man was one of those pedophile people that would have been ok to shoot? furthermore, who are you to judge whether that type of person deserves to be shot?
Matt M
July 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Just another redneck with an itchy trigger finger. And it doesn't surprise me that the two guys he killed were hispanics. If they were white guys he would not have shot, especially in the back. Yes, you have the right to protect YOUR home but nobody has the right to murder. The guy is a racist murderer, bottom line and should have been convicted of Murder 1. It really is a shame that he will have the oppurtunity to kill again.

Here is another intersting "protection" story, from the great redneck state of Georgia (we are not all rednecks by the way).

http://www.times-herald.com/local/Worker-disputes-builder-s-account-of -fatal-shooting--497446
lightning87
July 6th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Wow, I can't believe people here are actually defending this guy for killing two people over mere objects. Self defense is one thing; I have no problem if people kill others if they think their lives are in danger. However, as far as this story indicates, these men were running away from him, not trying to kill him.

Some of you keep saying, what if you were the victim? I assure you, if I learned my neighbor shot and killed two people over my personal belongings, I'd want the neighbor in jail. I certainly wouldn't want to live next to the person. Luckily, I live in a state where protection of material things doesn't count as self defense.

Do you guys really believe that your personal property is worth the life of another person? If your stuff is worth that much to you, get some insurance. Also, please reorganize your priorities a bit, and raise 'human life' up a couple notches.
dacian
July 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am
"No way did they deserve to die in that moment, at that man’s hand.

I mean, come on, it’s STUFF. Just stuff. No matter how much it ‘means to you’ or how hard you worked for it, it’s stuff. Does someone deserve to lose their life over stuff?"

Well the stuff sure meant a lot to those two thieves, if robbing that house was worth it. They'd be in another house tonight if they weren't dead, maybe strangling an old lady and saying they didn't mean it, but the bitch fought back, when she could have just let them leave.
Joe
July 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
These vermin would likely have killed Horn or anyone else that got in their way. These are not human beings we are talking about...they are animals. Anyone that enters someones home and robs it like this is a filthy animal...They may look like humans, but they are monkeys. I wish every state "allowed" citizens to protect themselves from these low-life apes. They cant be rehabilitated or turned into productive members of society...throw them in jail or kill them before they kill you or your family members so they can buy a glass of KoolAid and a pair of Nikes.
CheeseDuck
July 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
These comments sicken me.
Thomas
July 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Yeah, it takes a special kind of person to call thieves "filthy animals" and advocate their death. Clearly we should just cut off their hands to prevent further thievery.
Matt M
July 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
In response to Joe:

Those "monkeys" as you call them broke into an empty home, attacked no one and were running away from the crazed Texan with a shotgun. In no way did they try to harm ANYONE and in no way does this crime call for a sentance of death.

You clearly are a racist but prove your ignorance even further by providing the wrong sterotypes for illegal immagrants.

Maybe these guys were forced to steal so that they may feed their families. What would you do in a situation like that? Would you "do all you can do" to provide for your family or would just give up and become a homeless alcoholic?
CheeseDuck
July 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Why do you think there is a post on Neatorama about illegal immigrants running away back to Mexico to find jobs?
Chojiro
July 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
In before "cause they're scared of real americans like this guy".
Jeremy
July 6th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Um, is there no homeowners insurance in Texas? Or is it just cheaper to buy ammo instead of paying your deductable?

All of the comments of "this is America" really makes me ashamed. Yes, this is America, but its 2008 and not the wild west anymore. No one should have the right to step off their porch and kill someone they suspect is a criminal. Horn was in no mortal danger, he effectively circumvented our entire judicial system and executed people.

Its not like they were coming out of that house covered in blood, wielding knives, or dragging kicking bloody sacks behind them. Lets get real here for an instant before we praise a man for "protecting his neighbors".
Celeste
July 6th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Joe: The fact that you think it's A-OK to go around shooting monkeys (or any other animal) pretty much speaks for itself.
Lenore
July 7th, 2008 at 1:39 am
I usually LOVE the castle doctrine, but in this case it was misused. They were fleeing, they were stealing stuff, and he should have shot them in the leg.

You don't aim to kill.
davedonelson
July 7th, 2008 at 7:06 am
How did he know they weren't helping his neighbor move?

Dave Donelson, author of Heart of Diamonds
amdela
July 7th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Absolutely a murderer. He shot them in the back as they were leaving, he was no longer in direct danger, and shot them only to retaliate, not to save himself for harm. Texas got it very very wrong.
Tiny Dancer
July 7th, 2008 at 8:17 am
How can it not be murder? He shot two unarmed men in the back, that's murder in my book. He has the perfect right to protect his "castle", sure, but that doesn't include chasing unarmed burglars down the street and killing them in cold blood. His life was not threatened. I think the dispatcher had it right, is it really worth killing someone over property? Threaten me or my family, I'll grab the closest weapon (which would be a kitchen knife or something, no guns in this Canadian's home) and take you out. Steal my stereo and I'm calling the cops.
Tim Giachetti
July 7th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Dave, go spam some other site you underhanded twat.
the lord
July 7th, 2008 at 11:50 am
the question is what did the homeowners think?
U know the poeple who's house was being robed
did anybody ask them what was their opinion on the matter......i havnt heard anything

well i did here on of the homeowners say "their just things"

from waht i remeber they where on vacation and in no harm
24Slashing
July 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
If you don't want to get shot, don't commit crimes. Pretty simple to me. I have the utmost faith that Mr. Horn would not have killed those 2 men if they had not been robbing his neighbour and society. Fewer criminals means fewer crimes. Maybe he was aiming for their legs and is a really bad shot. Maybe criminal illegal immigrants will stay and rob their own people.
Jitterbuggery
July 7th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
By living under the protections and benefits of a society we are tacitly agreeing to do one of two things: live by its rules (as outlined in constitutional law all the way down to city ordinance), or try to change it through accepted channels. Re: The Crito, Sophocles.

This man was doing neither. The accepted legal route for dealing with criminals is apprehension, either through citizen's arrest (which does not cover lethal force) or by calling the authorities, which he did. This man accepted all the benefits of our society and then turned around and abandoned his responsibility to control his emotions in a situation when he was not protecting anyone's life.

I agree with many of the above posters, it does not matter if it was his stuff or his neighbor's, his moral responsibility was the same. However, that moral responsibility did not cover superseding the established justice system with the clear intent to kill, rather than stop, the criminals.

Would we be ok with this if it was a 16 year old 4.0 GPA student with no prior criminal record who was stealing money to pay for his sister's brain operation? In this admittedly unlikely scenario, the fact that the shooter overstepped his legal and moral rights would be a tragedy rather than a controversy. If this same do gooder kid had held someone up at knifepoint for the money, then deadly force would be warranted. As average citizens we are granted the right to use deadly force only to protect our safety, not to shoot fleeing criminals in the back.

The fact that it was not the 4.0 student who was killed is inconsequential because the shooter could not possibly have known who it was that he was so eager to kill.

Long story short, we cannot live in a society where the punishment for theft is death. As much as we might want to get revenge on those who steal our treasured and hard earned belongings, we value the freedom to make mistakes, and to forgive the very human errors of others. And if the justice system, congress, and the executive branch (military courts) all agree that killing to protect property, rather than safety, is unacceptable then we have no right to go above their decisions. To do otherwise is criminal.

The jury was wrong, both on moral and legal grounds.
thenight_1
July 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I've heard the 'stuff is not worth a life' argument before and my response is this: In this country, a criminal knows that they may meet armed resistance during their crime. THEY make the decision that stuff is worth more than their life.

As I understand this case, the criminals moved into HIS yard and toward him. That is when he felt threatened. There were police offers who witnessed the shooting and still there was not enough evidence to convict Mr Horn. That means under our laws he is not a murderer.

I'd be happy to have him as my neighbor.
bruce
July 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
exactly, why the hell are people weeping for the criminals? They knew the risk, when they decided to break they law.
And did the 911 operator ever say, 'the police are almost there'? "did she ask which way they were headed?" Hell no, they knew the police wouldn't be there in time to do anything but take a report, and tell him that that stuff is as good as gone.

The guy definitely needs to be punished, don't get me wrong. But if a few criminals think twice now, and people in the area fell safer, that can't be bad
Chojiro
July 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
That is utter twaddle thenight_1. The two burglars were in ANOTHER YARD,(or perhaps you didnt see the two-dozen times they mentioned that?) running AWAY from him(that lawyer of his needs a good blow to the head with a blunt object). But that dosent really matter considering HE WAS ALREADY SAFE IN HIS HOUSE BEHIND A LOCKED DOOR! And that whole bit about a cop witnessing it is BULLSHIT! Last time I checked, cops don't go through three months of training just so they can stand around and witness crimes.

This is how I choose most of my opinions. By siding against the people who never actually read anything.
Just James
July 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
1 not all Americans are gun toting vigilante's
2 They guys 'running from a man with a gun' were also running from the scene of a crime. He warned them to stop, and they kept going (granted he shot the only other witnesses)
If I come out of a 7-11 with a slurpee I know I paid for, and I hear "Move and your dead" I stop, just in case.
3 all the people who say it's just stuff, aren't really thinking that statement through. It's not just stuff, if it was just stuff, people wouldn't own it. Maybe it's someone's first DVD player, or a gift from a loved one, or something left to you by someone that passed away, or maybe you just work hard to buy the things you want/need. Either way it sucks to have someone just decide it's easier to take it from you, NO MATTER what their reason is.
fireflicker
July 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I think this ol' man has been listening to too much gangster rap music. Now he's going to jail 'cause he a gangster n' G to the U to the ILTY.
Tod
July 7th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I've seen a lot of postings about leaving the thieves fate up to the police after they left, that the homeowner wasn't justified in his actions.

Just keep in mind the burglars intentions aren't known. All we know about them is that they were desperate men, willing to commit a felony. I have female friends whose domiciles were burgled, and private things like underwear were taken. We know how well the rehabilitation system works.

To me, a person who steps on my property with felonious intent IS taking his life in his hands, since I'm not willing to take chances on his good nature to keep me and mine from harm.
Terry
July 7th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I don't think Joe Horn thought it through, now he's got to worry about the friends and family of the 2 he shot taking revenge. I bet every time he hears a car go by or a bump in the night he has to reach for his shot gun. Every time he go's out he'd be looking over his shoulder. He's also have to worry about the safety of his family.

He'll have a life of paranoia and worry after what he did. Anyone that does what Horn did would end up with the same set of concerns.

I'd rather just fill in a claim form and get new for old under my insurance policy than having to spend years worrying about revenge attacks for shooting unarmed men leaving a scene in the back.
DOJ
July 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
In this case, "Castle Doctrine" refers to Frank Castle
Hans Persson
July 8th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Only an American would even pose the question about whether this is murder or not. Of course it is.
JivesTheButler
July 8th, 2008 at 3:30 am
DOJ, you win many internets! 10/10 for a perfect post.
Granturista
July 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must
master it as I master my life. My rifle, without me is
useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my
rifle true. I must shoot straighter than any enemy who
is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots
me. I will....

God bless America and Mr Horn, who will not surely
gain admission into Heaven..
Just James
July 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
actually, he could still get into heaven.
roadnate
July 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
It seems that a lot of people are having trouble with the difference between murder and homicide. Homicide is the killing of a person. Murder is a subset of homicide usually defined as the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought. This varies slightly from nation to nation, but that is basically the definition of murder in the US.
This case meets neither of those definitions. He warned them to stop before shooting, and he was found not guilty in a court of law. He killed two men, he didn't murder anyone.
He stopped two people from robbing his neighbor, and I would do the same for my neighbors. I am certainly glad that I do not live next to many of the people posting here. God forbid people stand up and defend innocent people from thugs.
Granturista
July 8th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
"I’m gonna kill him".
Oh sure, Jesus is doing thumbs up, since Joe Horn
stood up and defended innocent..stuff.
The world is not made of "the good ones" and
"the evil ones", it's made of people making good or
bad choices, and some of the latter are caused by
desperation.
Joe Horn himself made a bad choice, he made his own
justice, and his blurry sense of justice took two lives.
A quite high price for a good neighbourhood.
Jeremy
July 9th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
To Roadnate:
"This case meets neither of those definitions"?? He told the operator "I'm gonna kill him"; we're not talking a homicide here. He had intent to kill those men and ignored repeated instructions to not do so. You can't tell me he was going to get off the phone, step off the porch, and fire warning shots into after telling the operator those four words.

"He warned them to stop...", even police officiers can't just fire their weapons willy-nilly with just a warning. They need to be in mortal danger, or mortal danger has to be presented to others. Both victims were unarmed. Does Mr. Horn have some kind of "license to kill" like James Bond?

He wasn't defending innocent PEOPLE from thugs, he was defending a TV set from thugs. I'd hate to think I can't give my brother-in-law the keys to my house to pick something up for me in, in fears of my crazy neighbor whose never seen him possibly shooting him fatally.
BB
August 8th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I say good job!!! If more people did this, there would be less burglars.
shootTHErupublicunts
August 11th, 2008 at 7:50 am
It was Defense and the crooks took that chance and lost shoot them.
lionheart
August 14th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Absolutely not justified. How is a life worth some jewelry? What the burglars were doing were wrong, but it was obviously not self defense.
Hektor
December 28th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Joe Horn did the right thing. The creatures calling him "murderer" are pathetic. The burglars first broke into his neighbors and Horn did get them in the act and I think they were even on his premises, when they got think.

"Property isn't worth killing for", says who? The crooks obviously didn't think "property isn't worth getting killed for."
BUBBAJOE
January 5th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
WAY TO GO JOE!!! thats what you get for being a scumbag criminal and taking what is not yours. its just too bad he didnt get a good headshot or anything in. i would love mr. horn to live next to me so i new my belongings would be safe even when i wasnt howm. if there were more people like him we would have a lot less criminals in the world. keep it up joe!
Dr. John R. Wright
January 12th, 2009 at 8:44 am
My grandson was shot to death, unarmed (neither gun nor knife nor club) out in Oklahoma, in mid-December of 2007. Although this happened just five days before his court date as a prosecution witness, the District Attorney - a woman - called it self defense as defined under the Oklahoma Castle Law (Statute 1289.25)! The DA refuses to consider that the one who killed my grandson also stalked him at his own home beforehand, and there are eyewitnesses who can testify about those situations. The killer opened the door to my grandson. Moreover, the Oklahoma law is not supposed to cover cases where a "child or grandchild" is in the home where the shooting took place, and that was the exact situation - my grandson's own one year old daughter was present when he was shot (she had to be pulled off of his dying body!). This was just ignored. After reviewing the transcripts in those drug-related trials that my grandson was to testify in, I can see that one of the defendants benefited from his death - he'll probably get off. Put this in the record of the possible ways for the defense laws to be misapplied: lawyers, including district attorneys, will find ways to pervert them. Our loss of a grandson is just one example of how the poorly written and thought out "Castle Laws" will fail, and this kind of thing plays right into the hands of the anti-gun proponents.

I'm not some wild-eyed liberal, and I even have a carry permit. I grew up in Arkansas, where I hunted small game from a very young age. I also served a military tour of duty, and I still practice to keep my marksmanship at an acceptable level. But having a gun should not be an excuse to go looking for a fight. As for my reaction to all of this, I prefer the original laws, and an assailant will have to break my door down or crash through a window before I start shooting. And I might die for hesitating, but I intend to voice a warning before I pull the trigger.
software development london
August 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Hmmm, difficult one! I dont agree with killing people anyway!

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Stay updated on the comments with

Comment RSS


NEATORAMA EXCLUSIVES Bent Objects: Interview with Terry Border 50 Facts About the 50 United States Furry Logic: Don't Worry by Jane Seabrook and Ashleigh Brilliant Neatorama Update - November 2009 Brainier Than The Average Bear	MENTAL_FLOSS ARTICLES Brilliant Ideas Inspired by Mundane Tasks Hail to the Thieves: Famous Heists We Love They're Alive: Real Scientific Reasons to Believe in Vampires, Werewolves, and Zombies 4 Holy Women Transformed by Cheese Go Directly to Jail: 4 Brilliantly Bungled Crimes	BATHROOM READER ARTICLES Bottom 10 Records: The Worst Albums Ever Recorded Joey Skaggs, The Ultimate Hoax Meister Peru's Pooper Scooper The Evolution of Space Food Cracking Kryptos	CLUEBERT Best Online Coupon Websites 10 Most Useful Online Tools Ever! Using Your Hand as a Ruler Unusual Uses for Ketchup The No Sacrifice Money Saving Tips For Washer and Dryer
See more Neatorama Exclusives	See more Mental_Floss articles	See more Bathroom Reader posts	See more from our online store
NEATORAMA STUFF Contact Us Privacy Policy Suggest a Link » Please use the Upcoming Queue \| FAQ \| Tips	GET NEATORAMA BY EMAIL Email: RSS \| +Technorati Favorite Show Comments	ACTIVE AUTHORS' BLOGS GeekAlerts, I met a possum, Miss Cellania, Rue the Day, Super Punch, Zeray Gazette List of Active Authors	FRIENDS Art of Manliness, Bathroom Reader, Bizarro, Dark Roasted Blend, Dornob, Gajitz, Hobotopia, mental_floss, popurls, Tokyoflash, VideoSift, What is it?, WebEcoist, WebUrbanist

- Your purchase helps support the blog - Thank you!
Road Mice Wireless Mouse	I Love Science T-Shirts \| Onesies	Science T-Shirt (Geektastic!)	Fun Ice Trays \| Kitchen Gadgets	By Artist Mike Jacobsen	Bacon Store \| Offbeat Candies

Was It Self Defense or Murder?

Sponsored Links