BOOM, YOU'RE DEAD! - Police say Horn shot 2 men in the back

[Catherine Vincent]

Dec. 7, 2007, 7:00PM
Police say Horn shot 2 men in the back

By CINDY HORSWELL
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Pasadena protests collide Two men suspected of burglarizing a neighbor's home were shot in the back by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn after the suspects ventured into his front yard, Pasadena police disclosed Friday.

Also, for the first time, investigators revealed the Nov. 14 shooting was witnessed by a plainclothes Pasadena detective, who had pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-guage shotgun.

The detective's name was not released as the new details emerged about the controversial shootings that have outraged minority activists but also brought an outpouring of support from others.

"We have now documented a summary of what we think happened. We will turn it over to the district attorney in a couple of weeks after we finish our extensive quality control review," said Pasadena Police Department Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett. The Harris County district attorney will then present the case to a grand jury to determine if any charges should be filed against Horn.

more....
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5359290.html

----------

He feared for his life eh?

[ManiacJoe]

1. As soon as they make up their minds....

Was it not the police who were originally saying the robbers were shot in the front and sides?

It will be interesting to see how the multiple testimonies compare to the coroner's report, which should already be available.

[Catherine Vincent]

I heard about being shot in the side and back. Didn't hear about the front.

But that's probably from the police that arrived after it happened and barely looked at the dead guys on the ground. The article says an undercover detective saw the whole thing. He was waiting there in his car and saw Horn shoot both guys in the back. That is why Horn is feeling guilty.

[ManiacJoe]

10. Horn is probably screwed at this point.

Assuming the undercover cop's version matches the forensics report....

Seems like the police and DA are playing games if we are now just hearing about the undercover cop witnessing the shots.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. Shot in the back? He didn't fear for his life, he just wanted to shoot them.

[bonito]

3. Yep n/t

[TommyO]

28. If you listened to the 911 call, he wanted to shoot them

That much is clear. He needs to spend the rest of his life in prison.

[AlCzervik]

4. were they attempting to run backwards onto his lawn?

thats fucked up and Joe Horn wanted to shoot someone, that castle law is for your castle, your neighbor can shoot the people robbing his place.

[H2O Man]

5. Years ago,

a "city hunter" shot a bear not far from my property. It was deer season, and it was illegal to kill bear then. When he got caught, he said the bear was attacking him. Once they found he shot the bear in the back, he was arrested. In that case, I could almost excuse the guy, because if you see a bear in the woods, if you aren't familiar with them, they can seem frightening. but in the case you speak of, it seems clear the guy left his house to hunt for human beings. Ugly case. I'm glad that you post on it.

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Thanks, Patrick.

I will continue to inform my DU mates of this case until it is closed (unless of course, someone beats me).

(you live where there are bears? please be careful out there!)

[AlCzervik]

8. i hope you will, i used to live in Texas and there was a case down there about some homeowner

killing a kid that came to his door by mistake on Halloween, wrong address.

[Catherine Vincent]

14. I've read about that.

But I think that was in Louisiana.

[H2O Man]

12. I like bears.

The only problem I ever had with them was when I used to raise pigs and poultry -- for pets -- and bears don't think of those creatures as pets. I can say that even a medium-sized bear looks huge when it rears up on its hind legs if it isn't in a zoo! But the ones in this area aren't dangerous.

[blues90]

7. Yeah , a real true american patriot , asshole murdering freak

[aikoaiko]

9. I thought it was "MOVE, YOU'RE DEAD"?

Either way, it will be interesting to see if the Grand Jury indicts and which defense he'll use.

I can honestly see and understand why people would make the case that horn murdered, but Texas law does allow one use to lethal force to stop a fleeing burglar under specific conditions, or, as most states do, in the case of self-defense.

[AlCzervik]

13. the problem for him is it was his neighbors house getting robbed and not his.

i'm sure the defense will say he was afraid for his life and maybe he was and he'll probably get off scott free but it will be an interesting case to watch for sure, that castle law will be dissected everyday possible if he is ever charged.

[aikoaiko]

15. Texas law allows one to use lethal force to stop a felony committed against a thirsd party

... as well as one's own. Again, there are conditions, but it is allowable. It is unrelated to the "stand your ground/castle doctrine" laws.

If any facts can be used to support it, a self-defense defense would probably fly better, but stopping a fleeing felon may be enough.

[LisaL]

16. I just don't see how self-defense is going to fly better, if the

men were shot in the back. If there is a law that allows someone to use deadly force to stop a felony, he might be better off sticking with it.

[BadgerLaw2010]

18. It's not fleeing felon. Read the statute. It's stopping the crime.

If he's already fleeing, there is no crime to stop. Either it's been aborted or it's been completed.

[LisaL]

21. If a burglar is fleeing with stolen goods, would that not be a crime

in progress?

[TommyO]

29. Have you listened to the 911 call?

This was a cold-blooded murder, nothing less.

[LisaL]

30. Yes, I listened to 911 call. But apparently under Texas law

someone is allowed to use deadly force to protect property even when the suspect is fleeing (if certain conditions are met).

[BadgerLaw2010]

31. Yes, but it's "theft during nighttime." Not theft. The burglary is completed.

[LisaL]

32. As far as I understand it, the burglary doesn't have to be

during nighttime. Only theft has to be during nighttime.

[BadgerLaw2010]

37. Yes, but the crime in progress at that point is not burglary.

If you were arrested, you would be charged with a completed burglary. Unless the Texas burglary statute is massively different from the common law crime, you complete a burglary as soon as you have entered the property of another with intent to steal or commit some other felony.

Burglary leads to theft, but the theft isn't part of the burglary.

Horn doesn't have an argument under 9.42(A).

[LisaL]

38. 9.42 B covers

"other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary..."
I have no idea if he meets other conditions to qualify for that.

[aikoaiko]

23. Well, here it is. 9.42.2.B "to prevent the other who is fleeing".....

The way I understand it is if he would have been justified with using lethal force is it was his own property under 9.41 and 9.42 (9.42 specifically mentions fleeing), and some conditions of 9.43, then it would justified when it was someone else's property.

I assume this is the statute you are talking about.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[LisaL]

25. Does it mean he could argue that he believed the property

wouldn't have been recovered (if he didn't use deadly force) since police didn't show up on time, and he could be off the hook?

[slackmaster]

26. That may be the tack his defense takes

If he is actually charged with something.

[BadgerLaw2010]

34. You need to read the entire statute together.

In order to use deadly force to protect the property of another:

(1) You have to satisfy 9.41.
(2) You have to reasonably believe that the deadly force is immediately necessary
(3) That you reasonably believe that you cannot recovery by any other means
(4) Under 9.43, that he reasonably believes that the third person has requested the protection of his property.

Those are not optional componants.

Based on his tape and the fact he shot them in the back, and the fact that he didn't even know his neighbors (a civilian has no legal duty to act), Horn fails even this test. He's not attempting to stop anyone; he's attempting to blow people away, and in this case, shot them in the back.

-
9.42(A) does not apply here. Burglary was completed and the theft was during the daytime.

9.42(B) would appear to be flatly unconstitutional as that's a police function and the police cannot use deadly force to apprehend burglars or thieves, absent some other violent threat.

And no, states can't write something like 9.42(B). That's the point of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

[LisaL]

36. Unconstitutional?

I imagine it would be kind of hard for a citizen who is trying to follow a law to know if it's unconstitutional or not, if it's on the books.

[BadgerLaw2010]

39. It doesn't matter if he knows it's unconstitutional or not.

The idea behind civil rights laws is that you don't put the garbage on the books in the first place.

This is one area where federal law absolutely supersedes anything that a state does. The Bill of Rights, as incorperated in the 14th Amendment, trumps anything a state does that deprives someone of rights, and the federal statutes enforcing this explicitly deal with you acting under the law.

Criminal punishment:

42 USCS § 242:

>>Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ........ and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section.....shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Civil Punishment:

42 USC § 1983:

>>Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress <<

You can't legislate something contrary to civil rights, period. Using deadly force to deal with non-violent crimes has been addressed before the Supreme Court, and the cops lost.

[LisaL]

49. It's already been pointed out that cops and civilians

could have different rights. I don't think your argument about this holds water.

[aikoaiko]

41. I think you are wrong. edited out my stutter ;-)

You wrote:
(1) You have to satisfy 9.41.
(2) You have to reasonably believe that the deadly force is immediately necessary
(3) That you reasonably believe that you cannot recovery by any other means
(4) Under 9.43, that he reasonably believes that the third person has requested the protection of his property.


1. Yes, and he does. See below.
2. A reasonable person could believe that deadly force was immediately necessary (see polls, even DU responses).
3. Horn clearly stated that he thought the burlglars were going to get away.
4. You are wrong, the are three criteria. He could have also believed that he had a duty, which the dispatcher tape supports.

You wrote:
9.42(A) does not apply here. Burglary was completed and the theft was during the daytime.

But its clear from the double use of "during the nighttime" that nighttime only applies to theft and criminal mischief.
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

You wrote: 9.42(B) would appear to be flatly unconstitutional as that's a police function and the police cannot use deadly force to apprehend burglars or thieves, absent some other violent threat.

Rules that apply to police routinely don't apply to civilians.
eta: I'll give you an example. Let's say I'm in your house and while you are busy I go snooping in your drawers and find a kiddie porn collection, I can grab it and run to the police to turn it in and report you. That kiddle porn collection would most likely still be used as evidence against you even though I didn't warrant which police would have needed so as not to violate your civil rights.

[LisaL]

48. Very true. You would not need a search warrant.

And police needs it.

[marmar]

11. When you listen to the audio tape, it definitely makes it hard to believe Horn was threatened...

... He certainly sounded like he was carrying out vigilante justice.


And yes, watching someone break into your neighbor's home is infuriating, but a license to shoot and kill? I just don't understand that mentality.

[LisaL]

35. Well, read some Texas law. Apparently one is allowed to

use deadly force to protect property under certain circumstances. I never knew, but apparently it could be perfectly legal in Texas to kill someone over property.

[Richard Steele]

17. So who is really suprised to learn this? Horn is a murdering piece of shit, and we all knew it. K&R

[Richard Steele]

19. Kick.

[sendero]

20. So much for all the JACKASSES here,....

.. trying to claim that the robbers came after Horn. No unarmed man lunges for someone with a freaking shotgun.

[SharkSquid]

44. "Jackass" here

"No unarmed man lunges for someone with a freaking shotgun."

Youd be suprised

I was one of those Jackasses, I never said it happened, I said that is what was claimed. If the DA and Grand Jury decide otherwise, than he will go to trial.

[sendero]

45. Pretty hard to make that case..

.... with shots to the back. And a witness. I'll bet ole murderer didn't count on a witness.

[SharkSquid]

47. Good job, how long did you and the jury deliberate?

Oh wait, you didnt sit on the jury because none has been convened.

[NorthernSpy]

22. so much for the "self-defense" argument...

It was a bad shoot. No point in trying to justify it.

[flvegan]

24. They were executed. Nothing more.

Horn deserves jail time.

[LisaL]

27. Maybe in some states, but reading Texas law-

it seems somebody might have a right to use deadly force even when the suspect is fleeing, under certain circumstances.

[SidDithers]

33. But I've read right here on this forum...

that Horn only shot the men once they approached him on his own property. You aren't saying that all those posters defending Horn are just plain wrong, are you? :)

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date on the case. Your efforts are much appreciated.

Sid

[tuckessee]

40. Too bad Horn wasn't a cop.

He'd simply be suspended with pay pending an investigation rigged to clear him.

[SharkSquid]

43. Yeah because cops never go to jail for shooting people.

[SharkSquid]

42. Sounds pretty incriminating

For all of you baying like lost sheep about why, OH WHY hasnt this man been charged yet, it simply MUST be , please read this again...

"We have now documented a summary of what we think happened. We will turn it over to the district attorney in a couple of weeks after we finish our extensive quality control review," said Pasadena Police Department Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett. The Harris County district attorney will then present the case to a grand jury to determine if any charges should be filed against Horn."

Thats right, there really is a procedure, we swear.

[blogslut]

46. Thanks for this

Been following the story. Looks bad for Joe Horn. Can't say I'm sorry for that gun happy buzzard.