Murder or Defense of Property?

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:59:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Texas goes farther than most states in authorizing the use of deadly force to prevent a thief from making off with property. The more common and sensible position recognizes that a thief should not suffer death at the discretion of a vigilante property owner, that human life has greater value than property. That is not the Texas view.

And so it is shocking to the sense of justice but not surprising to learn that a grand jury declined to indict Joe Horn, who made no secret of his intent to gun down two people who had burglarized his neighbor's house. During a 911 call (listen here), Horn asked if he should intercede to prevent burglars from escaping. (Horn misidentified the burglars as black men.) The dispatcher assured Horn that officers were on their way, warned him to stay inside and reminded him that "Property’s not worth killing someone over, OK?" After Horn saw the men climbing out of the window, Horn said "I'm gonna kill 'em." Horn told the dispatcher "here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going." Horn is soon heard yelling "Move, you’re dead!" followed by gunshots. Horn shot both men in the back, although he claimed he had no choice because they were running through his yard. [more ...]

Horn was aware that he was privileged to shoot thieves and he was itching to do it. He assured the dispatcher that the laws had changed in this country. The law changed for the worse when Texas authorized the use of deadly force under broad circumstances in defense of property. If Horn's actions don't warrant an indictment, it's fair to ask whether there's any law left in Texas at all.

Protesters complained on Thursday and Friday that the Harris County District Attorney made no serious effort to indict Horn. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee wants to hold hearings to investigate "the many downfalls" of the Harris County judicial system, the Horn case among them. Other Harris County scandals are discussed here.

< Newsweek Poll: Obama's Lead Drops | Brandeis v. Sullivan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Murder or Defense of Property? | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This is shocking (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by sassysenora on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:56:07 AM EST

When did Texas change its law to allow this?

he claimed he had no choice because they were running through his yard

yeah, that would do it. gotta keep people from running through your yard.

it's unbelievable.

: I think there needs to be a minimum standard (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:18:21 AM EST

Where you actually have to fear for your safety in order to be justified.
Now I can think of cases where shooting someone running through your yard might have been justifyable. A few years ago, there was this bizarre case in lower Hollywood. This crazed man entered a home and murdered the occupant. He then crossed over to the property in back of that home on the other street and murdered its occupant. Now the second murder victim (had he a gun and possibly time to see the man entereing his yard) would have had good reason to shoot the intruder. However, I think a standard like this has to be in place. Otherwise there is nothing but lawlessness, not to mention accidental shootings.

[ Parent ]

i think mr. horn should (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:14:59 AM EST

have been a better shot, because now he has at least two people who might just want to exact a bit of revenge for themselves. last time i checked, shooting someone in the back is prima facie evidence of a lack of need for self-defense.

of course, we're talking about texas, which prides itself on it's (sort of) cowboy heritage. i hope mr. horn enjoys spending the rest of his life looking over his shoulder.

i suspect he's too arrogant to even realize the position he's put himself in.

No need to worry (none / 0) (#13)
by CoralGables on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:54:21 AM EST

If my memory is correct, both men were dead before the police arrived and neither on his property. He won't be looking over his shoulder at all. Hell, in Texas they will probably make him the grandmaster of a parade.

[ Parent ]

: they have families. (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST

both men were dead before the police arrived

[ Parent ]
: It appears your memory is incorrect (none / 0) (#17)
by Rojas on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:32:23 AM EST

Detective was on scene

[ Parent ]

It's madness.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by kdog on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:15:08 AM EST

to kill somebody over stuff...it's just stuff.

Now if the intruders were in the home I'd be more inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt...anybody breaks into my crib they're getting Louisville Sluggered first, questions later. I don't want or expect the police to protect my home.

interesting. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:09:02 AM EST

so in FL, your right to have a gun in your car, on my property, outweighs my right to determine what is allowed on my property?

this should be an intriguing case, as the courts must decide who's constitutional rights trump whose.

i'm betting they decide the state has no business telling the owner's of private property they must allow employees, or anyone else, to bring guns on it.

I imagine Horn gets extra points (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by wasabi on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST

Police identified both as convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston. Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz while Torres had three identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and had been previously sent to prison for dealing cocaine and was deported in 1999.

This is Harris County we are talking about. It is the country's busiest capital punishment establishment, which has sent 100 convicted murderers to their deaths since 1976.

Long time DA Chuck Rosenthal resigned February 15th under the weight of a scandal involving the release of dozens of pornographic, racist and political e-mails on his office computer.

The Houston Police Department is infamous for poor control of evidence and has led to the suspension of DNA testing twice since 2002.
There have been recent exonerations for convictions based on faulty evidence.

Suprised that they didn't indict? No. In that neck of the woods, I'm sure he is being seen as a hero for removing just another illegal from the streets.

: crooks aren't dumb (none / 0) (#33)
by diogenes on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:21:27 PM EST

Maybe ORGANIZED burglary rings staffed by repeat offender, illegal aliens will move their operations to safer, liberal areas of the country instead. Maybe to one of those towns where they'll get "sanctuary" if arrested.

[ Parent ]

Texas used to have a law (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:39:11 AM EST

where 'hot pursuit', defined as three days of horseback riding, was the legal time in which you could catch up to a robber, shoot him/her, take back your property, no questions asked.

Go Sheila Jackson Lee! (none / 0) (#2)
by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:07:50 AM EST

Someone needs to stand up for the law in Harris County and she's the one to do it. There is a serious problem in this country when we allow lawlessness. I understand the need to defend oneself and I understand the fear of crime. Having faced paranoia in the past by an almost Dale Gribble level, I understand the fear of crime that people have. However, when we allow vigilantism, we are not stopping lawlessness, we are condoning it. We become the criminals.

It's also important to realize the standards we set. I'll give you an example, my freshman year of college, I was looking for a party in Georgetown. Well I accidentally walked into the wrong yard (which was the back of a restaurant). There was a woman there taking out trash from the restaurant and I asked her if I was at the right address. She very politely told I was at the wrong address and I was in the back of a restaurant. I apologized and immediately left (the house I was looking for was on the other side of the alley). Now if we applied the Texas standard, that woman would have had every right to shoot me, I had afterall trespassed on private property. Fortunately, she had no gun and no intent.

I think the problem in this case is that we are witnessing the justice system refusing to cross public opinion. I have a feeling in that guy's suburb, he's a hero for having defended his neighbor's home. No Harris County DA is going to prosecute a guy like that without fear of going against popular public opinion. Imagine that type of attacks that could come "it's 3 am, your daughter is being raped but there's nothing you can do because the Harris County DA believes that you're not allowed to defend yourself." That's the problem. I also think that because the men survived, there's not much of an outcry. Similarly because the men were not actually black, there's less outcry for the DA to prosecute this guy.

That's Texas (none / 0) (#5)
by arky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:42:29 AM EST

They've still got that gunslinger, shoot-em-up mentality. Ugh.

Not really. (none / 0) (#20)
by js991 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:22:47 AM EST

The problem is the word "still". Texas was a fairly progressive state in the 60s and 70s. After the Bush family decided to run for national offices on the cowboy image, they tried to use Texas by promoting it as a mecca for backwards conservatism of the type you describe. Remember, Bush isn't from Texas. We have a tremendous proportion of the population here who relocated from somewhere else in the U.S., partially in pursuit of the "Wyatt Earp/cowboy justice" image depicted in movies they watched as children. It is those people who do most of the "gunslinging" and "tuff talking". My family has been here for four generations, and we don't know anybody who acts that way. I don't own a gun. I don't even know anybody who wears a cowboy hat. There are lots of guns and hats around these days, but they are a relatively recent addition to the landscape. All of that stuff, for the most part, is the lifestyle of tourists and relatively recent transplants who are living some kind of fantasy. The problem is not the state. The problem was imported.

[ Parent ]

BS (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Rojas on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM EST

If a tolerance for home invasion is defined as some kind of progressive cause then the average Texan is going to figure you've flipped your lid.

Firearms are noting new. Half the pickup trucks in the high school parking lot had a gun rack and some kind of long gun when I was in school there in the seventys.

[ Parent ]

Home Invasion Is One Thing (4.00 / 1) (#28)
by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:50:42 PM EST

This was YARD invasion with the invasion apparently being done by two men running backwards toward the home.

[ Parent ]

This goes far beyond (none / 0) (#31)
by js991 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST

simple home invasion. I don't see anything in my post as promoting tolerance for home invasion. We have always had laws that allowed people to defend themselves if someone breaks in and threatens them. Even an expanded version of that wouldn't bother me.

What we have in this law is apparently entirely different. This apparently provides a broad defense for shooting anyone, anywhere, at any time, based solely on the belief that they have stolen something. That is absurd, and it likely will not stand. I don't see a lot of challenges when it involves catching someone in the act in your own home, or even the neighbor's home if they had a prior arrangement to protect each other's property and the shooter could be sure that the victims were burglars. I think shooting them outside the house while they are fleeing goes beyond justice, but you are welcome to your opinion, if you prefer summary death sentences with no deliberation of facts.

What this law seems to do is allow someone to pick me out on a street corner and blow me away if they "reasonably believe" I have stolen. That is a much different, and a much more dangerous, precedent. That kind of thing will get out of hand, and it will be abused. I don't think it will survive a good Federal challenge. Right to life, you know.

[ Parent ]

Not a new law (none / 0) (#38)
by Rojas on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:09:42 AM EST

The 1973 statutes are here. The particular article is on page 37. Warning this document is huge 28.5 meg.

There will be a deliberation of facts. Granted it's after the fact, but a grand jury is going to review the case, it's required.

[ Parent ]

I am confused about your (none / 0) (#40)
by js991 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:37:09 AM EST

logic here. You seem to be saying that the fact that a grand jury will review the case is somehow useful to a dead shooting victim, when the shooter is inspired by a law like this. I understand your point, in that you apparently believe justice and crime are very simple affairs. I disagree with you.

[ Parent ]

: Recognizing the right of self defense (none / 0) (#41)
by Rojas on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:14:11 AM EST

means that there can only be a review after the action. It's a closed loop in that if you cause someone's death in Texas a grand jury must be convened to review the facts.
The alternative to that algorithm, if rape is inevitable, you best lie back and enjoy it, is one you have already rejected up thread.
We have always had laws that allowed people to defend themselves if someone breaks in and threatens them. Even an expanded version of that wouldn't bother me.

One could very well ask how the fact that a grand jury will review the case is somehow useful to a dead shooting victim, when the shooter is inspired by a law like this.
It seems to me the real point of contention is not the logic or correctness of review after the fact, but threshold in which deadly force can be used. I don't disagree that the threshold is important and I can certainly understand and respect the moral implications of such arguments. You disagree with the statute that allows deadly force in defense of persons and property. And you have gone further to state
What this law seems to do is allow someone to pick me out on a street corner and blow me away if they "reasonably believe" I have stolen. That is a much different, and a much more dangerous, precedent. That kind of thing will get out of hand, and it will be abused.
You seem to be confused about the timing of the statute. I have pointed out to you is that this law has been on the books since the statutes were reorganized in the current form in 1973. That is the logic failure. Calling this a new process that will lead to a "different, and a much more dangerous, precedent" unless you think that forty years of testing such an algorithm is insufficient. I'm surprised that a forth generation Texan did not realize this was the law. Perhaps my father expected less of me, because he talked openly about the possible repercussions of going on someone's property to cause harm. Gave me a speech about the unwritten law of contempt of cop as well. I suppose he figured it was a coming of age thing.

[ Parent ]

Drop of crime rate (none / 0) (#6)
by StevenT on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:57:56 AM EST

If the effect of the shootings will cause the crime rate to drop dramastically in that area, do you think then maybe this law is justifiable?

: What kind of crime? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:17:11 AM EST

I lived in an area with high property crime. That didn't bother me so much even though I had my car broken into and items stolen from my porch. I remember the neighbor who told me who stole my pick axe. It was a ten year old local kid who lugged away my twenty pound pick axe. (Why? I have no idea. Maybe there was a demand for hot garden tools?)
I think I would have been branded an out of control nutcase for shooting a ten year old. Even if he was brandishing a potentially lethal weapon.

[ Parent ]
: Justifable? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST

Context, context, context.
When I hear about incidents like this, I always wonder about the variables in the story.
For example, if the trespassers in this case were young white guys from the neighborhood, maybe likkered up and loud and abusive (could be perceived as threatening) and he shot and killed them the same way, would the official response and outcome be the same?
I think we all know the answer to this. What part does age, race, citizenship, economic status play in how expendable people are, and how aggressively their killers are prosecuted?

[ Parent ]

it's murder (none / 0) (#7)
by Tim V on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:34:44 AM EST

Cold blooded murder.

Florida Law.... (none / 0) (#10)
by bmc on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:58:28 AM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Florida

As of October 1, 2005, Florida became a "Stand-your-ground" state. The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
In any other place where a person "has a right to be," that person has "no duty to retreat" if attacked and may "meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

As of July 1, 2008, Florida became a "Take your gun to work" state. A new statewide Florida law went into effect on this date prohibiting most businesses from firing any employee with a Concealed Weapon License for keeping a legal firearm locked in their car in the company parking lot. The purpose of the new law is to allow CWL holders to exercise their Second Amendment rights during their commutes to and from work. Notable exceptions include companies with a primary business involving the manufacture of fireworks, the operating of nuclear reactors, or at sites involving Government facilities and defense contractor facilities. Currently, a test case involving Walt Disney World Resort is going through the courts, involving a former Disney security guard who was fired, despite having a CWL, for having a firearm locked in his car on July 1st, in violation of Disney's pre-existing and strict no weapons allowed policy. Disney claims that they are exempt from the new state law, on the basis of their having a fireworks license for conducting nightly fireworks shows at Disney World.[35][36]

Florida law allows private firearm sales between residents without requiring any processing through an FFL. Florida law also permits larger municipalities to elect to require a concealed carry permit for a buyer to purchase a gun at a gun show from another private individual without any delay, but in practice, this applies only to a few of the largest municipalities (Miami, Orlando, etc.) where it has been invoked.

Currently, Florida's Concealed Weapon License is the most widely-recognized, state-issued concealed weapon permit. The resident Florida Concealed Weapon License is recognized in thirty different states, while the non-resident Florida Concealed Weapon License is recognized in twenty-seven states.[37]

You bet it's madness (none / 0) (#18)
by js991 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:55:08 AM EST

I live here in TX. This is bound to get a lot of people killed. I suppose there must be lawyers here. The first thing I don't understand about the law is "reasonably believes". Does this mean one of these maniacal idiots can just walk up to me in public and gun me down if he can prove he "reasonably believes" I have stolen something? I am not talking about burglary or the scenario described in this article. I am thinking something like the following scenario which is not exactly far fetched in the Lone Star state.

Let's suppose Bubba Badass is minding his own business, cruising around in his pickup, taking back the streets from liberals and criminals. He pulls his pickup up into one of those police-style 69 arrangements where he and his partner, Nosy Windbag, can chat through their driver's windows. Then Nosy gets a call on his cellphone. Nosy turns to Bubba and exclaims, "we got 'em! The Hippie in the Nissan [me] just stole a candy bar from Momma's store!" Then Bubba sees me drive by. Bubba takes off in hot pursuit, pulls up beside my little car on the road, and empties his 357 revolver into my car door. Bubba then tells the police he had a reasonable belief that I was making off with property.

Am I misreading, or is this what the law means?

Also,

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means;

Can anyone explain to me a situation in which land could not be recovered by some other means?

Well (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST

It's for the jury to decide whether his belief was reasonable.

[ Parent ]

Ask the Californians... (none / 0) (#19)
by Rojas on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST

I think deadly force to prevent arson could be a potential situation.

[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0) (#21)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:29:23 AM EST

Shoot those 9 year old boys playing with matches. That'll send a message.

[ Parent ]

Yea, we get alot of cases like that..... (none / 0) (#23)
by Rojas on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I Am Sure YOu Do (none / 0) (#24)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:09:49 PM EST

But just in case you missed this one here it is:

10-Year-Old With Matches Started a California Wildfire

Nice to know that you advocate execution w/o trial for the kid.

Are you from Saudi Arabia or just into killing suspects on the sport because it makes you feel good.

[ Parent ]

I believe the crime of arson requires intent.... (none / 0) (#25)
by Rojas on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:48:58 PM EST

Huh? (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:38:23 PM EST

Well how does that work with your idea of shooting alleged arsonists on sight? Mindreading?

[ Parent ]

Try to follow the thread (none / 0) (#34)
by Rojas on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:24:20 PM EST

The poster asked for a hypothetical situation in witch " land could not be recovered". I should have simply pointed out that the statute actually refers to land that cannot be protected or recovered and left it at that. Instead, I threw out the potential situation of an arsonist because even though the land area might remain intact, the land environment might never recover.

Contrary to your accusations, I have not advocated extrajudicial executions of kids playing with matches nor have I pitched sniping alleged arsonists on sight. It's pretty clear when the statute says "by any other means" it means deadly force as the last option.

[ Parent ]

BS (none / 0) (#35)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:39:51 AM EST

I have followed the thread and you have suggested that you are OK with deadly force being used in arson, because that would be a case where it was the only option, and you implied that the Californians would agree with you.

IOW you condone a gunman shooting the kid who started the California wildfires because it could be construed that deadly force was the only option.

Seems weak to me and an opinion calling for mob rule. Certainly a gunman could stop a child before shooting him, just as the texan in question did not have to use deadly force but because it was legal took pleasure in causing the burglars death.

[ Parent ]

BS squared (none / 0) (#36)
by Rojas on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:26:03 AM EST

The statute, an do try to remember we are talking about the statute here, is pretty clear.
§ 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.

So when you say "Certainly a gunman could stop a child before shooting him" I think a reasonable juror is going to agree. It seems your strawman goes up in smoke by your own admission.

Now you might note that the statute only provides an affimitive defense to "prevent the other's imminent commission of arson" so you best not shoot somone fleeing from the scene with a gas can and matches.

[ Parent ]

: Glad That You (none / 0) (#37)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM EST

Have retracted your absurd hypothetical as BS squared. The part were you argued that shooting arsonists first, but after intent was proved, was particularly twisted.

[ Parent ]

My grandmother used to sit and look out the window (none / 0) (#27)
by avahome on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:46:35 PM EST

watching neighbors just because she had time on her hands. Me thinks Joe Horn may have done the same...via neighborhood watch groups. There are a lot of bedroom communities (small residential)..I live in one. It is amazing how the place empties out in the morning.

Houston took in a whole lot of people with hurricane Katrina let alone the immigrants everywhere. Suddenly it's kinda crowded....schools, highways, and changed neighborhoods.

Fear makes you do stupid things. But I also fault law enforcement for not being more proactive and our government for cutting the funding for law enforcement, immigration...you name it. The DOJ is here in Houston this very week due to Ms.Lee and the conditions of the Harris county jail. Houston needs help...not neighborhoods policed by shotgun toting men.

: I guess neighborhood (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by js991 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:48:39 PM EST

watch groups are OK when they stick to legitimate business, but too often they simply become social groups for wannabee police who like violence and would never qualify to be police to begin with. The police have traditionally used them as eyes and ears, but they don't let them get involved, precisely because they are not trained and they often have a very twisted and incorrect view of the law. When all this "community policing" started, nobody in their right mind would have thought it wise to arm neighborhood busy bodies and let them shoot at will. That is apparently what this law does. These nutcases who are out looking for violent excitement will now be able to add a new toy to their collection of "imitation police gear". Along with their car search lights, their reflective stripe stickers, and all the other toy things that they display to imitate officials, they will get a new toy: A gun -- with full permission to use it. That is absurd. Absolutely absurd.

[ Parent ]