No Charges For Man Who Killed Burglars

By markwolfe
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Source: CBS news

A suburban Houston homeowner was cleared by a grand jury Monday for shooting to death two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home.

Joe Horn, 62, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena, carrying bags of the neighbor's possessions.

Horn, a retired grandfather, called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill them. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters at the courthouse.

Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said his client was relieved by the grand jury's decision and never wanted to hurt anyone.

"He wasn't trying to take matters into his own hands," Lambright said. "He was scared. He was not playing cowboy."

Horn did not speak with reporters on Monday.

A large red sign with the words "No Trespass" on it blocked the path to his front door and a handwritten sign on the door said "Please no media" "No Trespassing" and "Do not knock or ring bell." A couple of neighbors also had signs on their doors asking media to leave them alone.

A few police cars patrolled the area near Horn's home.

Lambright reiterated to reporters that Horn believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them out of fear for his life when they came into his yard and threatened him.

"He wasn't acting like a vigilante," Lambright said. "He was well within his rights to do what he was doing."

The two suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The incident touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

The city of Pasadena, where protesters and defenders of Horn engaged in counter-demonstrations, pledged to keep its police force staffed enough to protect its citizens.

"The obvious lessons that can be drawn from (the Horn case) are that criminal activities are inherently a dangerous lifestyle, and the prevention and pursuit of those involved in criminal actions are best left to the police," said the statement issued by city spokeswoman Jennifer Banks.

Magidson said nine of the 12 grand jurors would have had to vote in favor of an indictment in order for Horn to be charged.

Grand jurors had to consider two issues: the intentional killing of another person and whether the killing was justified either by self defense or the defense of property, Magidson said.

Horn testified before the grand jury for about 1? hours last week, Lambright said.

Keith Hampton, a Houston attorney not connected with the case, said he didn't expect Horn to be indicted.

"This is a real conservative county," he said. "A lot of folks in Houston and Harris County are saying this man was doing a good thing."

In the 911 call, a dispatcher urges Horn to stay inside his house and not risk lives

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

"You wanna make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm gonna kill 'em."

After the shooting, he redialed 911.

"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."

Lambright said the 911 call gave the public the wrong impression about Horn and what happened that day.

"It's a very sad thing that occurred," Lambright said of the shootings.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

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

Not being part of the jury, I don't have the full story here, but a few things just don't jive to me.

  • Horn, a retired grandfather, called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill them.
  • Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said his client was relieved by the grand jury's decision and never wanted to hurt anyone.

Sounds like he announced hisexact> intentions, which were recorded, to the dispatcher. Then he went out and did it.

  • but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.
  • and that he shot them out of fear for his life when they came into his yard and threatened him.

Somehow, it seems that the suspects were fleeing from him, not attacking and threatening.

Like I said, maybe the evidence in court told a different story. :ermm::

Grand Master

Cara Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I only can hope my neighbors would do the same for my home and property...no, I don't think they would either but if people actually watched out for each other like this those who would seek to do harm would give it a lot more thought.

Veteran

Beastage

Posted
Posted

This is murder of the 1st degree, he had prior intention and commited the act...

It was commited outside his house with shots to the back.

Anyone actually has doubt if these were americans citizens and not illegal immigrants the results would be diffrent?

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

I think he was exaggerating when he said he was going to "kill them", personally, as is evidenced by his call back afterwords. He was just emphasizing that he could defend himself.

That said, I don't think we need to start killing people for burglary. I think he just felt threatened as it appears they approached him with what he viewed as a harmful intent when he went outside.

Community Regular

KnightWolf

Posted
Posted

well, ppl can turn around pretty quick when confronted by a 12-gauge. sucks ppl died, but maybe it'll send a message to other idiots who want to be two bit no good thieves. think everyone should be issued a simple 6 shooter at birth, gun control classes in high school and ammo when they turn 18. everyone has a gun, crime goes down cause criminals know ppl are armed and are to chicken ****

Proficient

BigDaddy5

Posted
Posted

Man, so much misinformation in this thread.

Here's the complete unabridged 911 call he made:

A few times he does say he is going to kill them. He also appears distraught afterward, and says they came on his property. The "artist" of this movie makes note how many times the 911 operator tells Joe not to go outside, but that doesn't make a bit of difference, not in the eyes of the law. If you've done something legal, it doesn't matter how many times someone has told you not to. And a 911 operator is not a legal authority, their word is not a lawful order.

On face value, the 911 call does seem to convict him. But I would be willing to place money that A) only one robber was shot in the back, probably after the first one was shot, and B) his lawyer was able to successfully show that he violated no laws in shooting people on his own property, especially people who had just committed a crime.

Remember, this is a grand jury. All this is, simply, is a hearing to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to even go to trial. The grand jury determined there was not enough evidence to even send this man to trial, so the evidence must have been pretty overwhelming that Joe did not commit a crime. Since there has been overwhelming evidence that he did not commit a crime, I would be willing to bet that Joe did indeed kill two criminals on his own property.

Grand Master

Dysphoria

Posted
Posted
Hell yeah! Texas country baby! (Can you tell I live in Texas?) Ditto @ Cara; I hope my neighbors would do the same thing for me too.

Yeah , and I hope it's not your kid sneaking out of the house with his buddy or with his girlfriend, while you are sleeping.

Now that would be an interesting case....

Grand Master

Cara Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Yeah , and I hope it's not your kid sneaking out of the house with his buddy or with his girlfriend, while you are sleeping.

Now that would be an interesting case....

Then wouldn't you be thankful...? JOKING!!!!

Grand Master

majortom1981

Posted
Posted
Yeah , and I hope it's not your kid sneaking out of the house with his buddy or with his girlfriend, while you are sleeping.

Now that would be an interesting case....

They would not be coming out of your neighbors house with sacks of stoeln items though would they?

Veteran

megamanXplosion

Posted
Posted
Somehow, it seems that the suspects were fleeing from him, not attacking and threatening.

They were fleeing when he shot them, as you said. (If they were approaching a man with a shotgun and taunting him, the last thing they would do is turn away from him. That scenario makes no sense at all.) The article says Taxes law allows people to use deadly force when it's reasonable to believe they're in mortal danger. In this case the people were fleeing from the crime scene when they were shot, so it was unreasonable for him to believe he was in mortal danger, and therefore his actions were against the law.

Proficient

Mekun

Posted
Posted

Something like this happened in a town next to mine. Some guy was rifling through some truck in front of a house when the owner came out and confronted him, the guy proceeded to run down the street and was shoot in the back 3 times. I could see if he was in your house but damn.

Proficient

BigDaddy5

Posted
Posted
In this case the people were fleeing from the crime scene when they were shot, so it was unreasonable for him to believe he was in mortal danger, and therefore his actions were against the law.

Not according to Mr. Horn, and the grand jury. According to the grand jury, there wasn't even enough evidence to support a claim that he broke the law. The grand jury is a hearing to determine if there's evidence to support the claim that he broke the law, not to determine if he's guilty or not. It's much more broad than that. In this case, there was not enough evidence to say he broke he broke any law. Even if you listen to his 911 tape, it seems pretty open and shut. Yet the grand jury still didn't indict him, so the other evidence must have been able to show, overwhelmingly, that what he did was not illegal.

I'm glad we have such astute lawyers on this forum.

Veteran

trashpickinman

Posted
Posted

Portion of news report from the Houston Chronicle:

Detective was on scene

Pasadena police have said a detective in plainclothes had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call, and saw the two men before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

Police believe that neither Horn nor the burglars knew an officer was present.

When Horn confronted the men in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, police have said. However, the men ignored his order to freeze.

Authorities have said one man ran toward Horn but had angled away toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house.

A news release from the city of Pasadena read, in part, "We hope that the decision of the grand jury, while difficult for some to accept, will be respected as the product of a careful weighing of all the facts by an impartial panel of citizens."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

What I never heard from the media before this article was the fact that one of the suspects was running towards the homeowner when he shot. That fact right there changes a lot of things. Would I have shot? I sure would have.

Proficient

BigDaddy5

Posted
Posted
Portion of news report from the Houston Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

What I never heard from the media before this article was the fact that one of the suspects was running towards the homeowner when he shot. That fact right there changes a lot of things. Would I have shot? I sure would have.

Just like I suspected. Good find, got to love how blindly people follow the media instead of doing some minor critical thinking...

Grand Master

Dysphoria

Posted
Posted
They would not be coming out of your neighbors house with sacks of stoeln items though would they?

Let me rephrase it for you. So it's dark at night, low visibility. Your neighbour has a shotgun and he is watching someone coming out of your home's window. He goes out and shoots the suspect in the back, now if that suspect happens to be your kid sneaking out of the house at night, how would you react than?

Grand Master

spenser.d

Posted
Posted
Let me rephrase it for you. So it's dark at night, low visibility. Your neighbour has a shotgun and he is watching someone coming out of your home's window. He goes out and shoots the suspect in the back, now if that suspect happens to be your kid sneaking out of the house at night, how would you react than?

Except that's not even close to what happened in this case so your analogy is null.

-Spenser

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.