No Charges For Man Who Killed Burglars


Recommended Posts

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::

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.

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?

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.

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 ****

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.

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....

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!!!!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Yup, that's a doozy right there 😄
    • It's a bundle of tools created by a variety of people, so things can go wrong sometimes. It's a great addition to Windows, and I use a lot of the tools on a daily basis. Also, it's still a 0.**** release so quick updates are to be expected 😉
    • Oh, I did. And it's even worse than I was hoping! Besides a lot of techno-babble jargon (yes I understand 100% of it but it's still all just techno-babble) there's 2 key points that make me super-weary about even considering testing this out. -- By default, after installation, a relay is automatically set up, so you do not need to care about that. * Non-chatmail apps use email servers as a long-term message archive while chatmail clients use email servers for ephemeral instant message relay. * Supporting the full variety of classic email setups would require considerable development and maintenance efforts, and complicate making chatmail-based messaging more resilient, reliable and fast. -- Basically, the end-user device is the 'server' (relay) so there is NO ARCHIVING whatsoever because every message is necessarily ephemeral. Great for techno-paranoia (and for illicit activities preferring no tracks to cover) but terrible for everybody else. It's also ironically contradictory to engineering principles of redundancies besides the transport layers due to the explicit absence of any persistent storage. Instead of 'classic email address' retaining multi-GB messaging archives on its server, now every device must retain 100% of those storage demands. (Email messages were originally meant to be short correspondences, not the multi-MB attachments boondoggle that now exists with unlimited spam engines flooding every potential recipient.) Any device swap or reset (or loss) makes the entire message history go bye-bye forever... lest there's an off-device auto-archival "relay" mechanism that's really a separate server that holds onto all transported messages (an email server) that utilizes 'chatmail email address' identities (like an email server) and its own persistent storage archive (like an email server). But... this solution is hoping to exist alongside real-world email address identities (based on the email server relay pathway) but simply render messages in chat thread format in an ephemeral manner (with contents being encrypted, and messages auto-expiring) ... In the end, it's a chat app/experience for the Web3/P2P-at-all-costs zealots. (I have accts on all sorts of federated web3 services so I understand the technical and non-technical alike.) For any practical users, however, it's just another service to download/install, register, cross-share id cards/qr codes, but know that there's no history/archive whatsoever (by design) so no account/message recovery whatsoever... update the device, install a bummed update patch, or dare upgrade your device... all history, poof, gone. Ya gotta start everything over again like they're a brand new person.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!