1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,526 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Wow....
you are dead!
Click on the audio link:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780


{from a different link but more of a legal analysis from legal "experts", this link doesn't have the full 911 audio clip though}
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5309288.html
Nov. 18, 2007, 1:34AM
Pasadena man remorseful about killings captured on 911 call, attorney says

By ALLAN TURNER and DALE LEZON
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


The Pasadena man who killed two suspected burglars as they left his next-door neighbor's home did not intend to kill them when he stepped outside with his 12-gauge shotgun, his lawyer said Friday.

In portraying Joe Horn as a victim of circumstances, lawyer and longtime friend Tom Lambright called the 61-year-old computer consultant "a good family man" who has been devastated by the Wednesday afternoon burglary and shooting.

Killed in the incident in the 7400 block of Timberline were Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston.

Each had a minor previous brush with the law. Records show DeJesus was charged with failure to identify himself to a police officer in July 2004. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 days in jail. Ortiz was charged with possession of marijuana in July 2005, but it was later dismissed.

"He (Horn) was just doing what everyone is supposed to do," Lambright said at a news conference in front of the Houston police memorial near downtown. "He called the police. He was cooperating with them as best he could, trying to give the police the direction of the burglars. He knew there was danger going outside."

Horn ignored repeated instructions from a 911 dispatcher to remain in his home. He told the dispatcher, "I'm not going to let them get away with it. I can't take a chance in getting killed over this. OK? I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."

While lawyers and legal experts across the city continued to debate the legality of Horn's actions, he has left town with his family, Lambright said.

"Hopefully he will see a doctor and maybe get a sedative," he said. "He is not well mentally. This has devastated him. Not in his wildest dreams could he fathom this event."

Lambright said Horn, whom he has considered a friend for 41 years, wept inconsolably during their conversations.

"Joe is the absolute opposite of what everyone thinks he is," Lambright said. "He is not a cowboy. He is not physical. He's 61 years old and overweight. He's not confrontational. He's just a good guy."

Lambright read a written statement in which Horn said the killings would "weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."

Lambright said Horn was a hunter, but kept the shotgun in his pickup "for security."

No firearms in house
Horn lives with his daughter and granddaughter and does not keep firearms in the house, his lawyer said.

Lambright said Horn was upstairs working at a computer about 2 p.m. when he heard the sound of breaking glass next door. Horn called 911, engaging in a protracted conversation with the dispatcher, who repeatedly advised him to wait inside until police arrived.

"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun," the dispatcher told Horn at one point.

"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

Legal opinions conflict
Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. "He was petrified at that point," the lawyer said. "You hear him say, 'I'll shoot. Stop!' They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It's a self-defense issue."

Attorneys and legal experts said Horn's defense probably will be based on state law that allows people to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property.

"If you see someone stealing your neighbor's property, you can get involved and help to stop it," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Others disagreed.

The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett, a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.

"It can't be during the day," Jett said.

Experts said that a grand jury may sympathize with Horn. Some people believe that you should be able to protect your neighborhood, said Anthony Osso, a Houston criminal defense attorney.

Osso said that Horn's defense might be that he wanted to prevent the robbers from leaving until police arrived, but they tried to flee and he shot them.

"His best scenario is that he went out to use the threat of deadly force," Osso said. "But they came at him on his own property."

Osso said Horn's 911 call does not tell the whole story about the shooting. Investigators will need information about where the suspects were shot and if they had stopped when Horn ordered them not to move.

"Some people on the grand jury will sympathize with him," said Adam Gershowitz, a law professor at South Texas College of Law. "Maybe he shouldn't have done this, but he was acting in a way a lot of people feel."

But that does not mean he won't be charged, Gershowitz added.

"There's a reason we don't let people take the law into their own hands," he said. "We have a police force for that. As an established society, we believe we are better off with an authorized police force that has standards and training rather than untrained vigilantes."

A transcript of the 911 call suggests Horn intended to do what he felt necessary to stop the burglars. Despite a concerted effort by the dispatcher to persuade him to let police deal with the break-in, Horn was insistent on trying keep them from getting away.

"I don't want you going outside, Mr. Horn," the dispatcher said.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

Seconds later three shotgun blasts are heard.

Praise for dispatcher
Experts who reviewed a recording of the call at the Chronicle's request said the dispatcher handled the call professionally and did all he could to defuse the situation until police arrived.

"He was doing everything he could to 'normalize' the conversation and not agitate the caller any further," said Sue Pivetta, a training consultant from Sumner, Wash. "Trust me when I say that he was indeed showing professional control at the highest level."

Charles Carter, a former police executive in Atlanta who has trained dispatchers for two decades, said the officer who handled Horn's call used proven techniques to dissuade him from leaving his home.

"We teach a technique called repetitive persistence," Carter said. "It needs to be at a level lower than the person calling to try to get him to calm down and listen to you. ... He did an outstanding job and needs to be commended."

Chronicle reporters Mike Tolson and Ruth Rendon contributed to this report.

[email protected]

[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,937 Posts
Hey, the guy's going to walk. First, he's smart enough to live in Texas, and not some pansy state. Second, he's smart enough not to take legal advice from a 911 dispatcher. (kind of like being smart enough to take legal advice from real lawyers, not seminar-givers!):)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,412 Posts
Maybe in 1860 shooting a person for simple theft was OK. Maybe. Shooting an individual who has not threatened you and not in your home goes over the line. If one of the evil ones saw this guy on the phone and started to trespass or enter his home then I could see where he had a fear for his life.

Having the firearm as protection is not an issue. Leaving his home to confront is the issue.

Of course, things are a little different in Texas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
725 Posts
I can't say that I wouldn't have left my home and gone outside to try and detain the burglars or assailants in some manner then call the police and tell them what happened, what the present situation was

"Hello 911 dispatch. I have a situation at (address). I heard a noise outside - I didn't know what was going on, so I went into the yard to investigate, at which point I was confronted by 2 burglars 15 feet away from me exiting the house next door, coming towards me. I raised my gun and ordered them to stop."

.... and then from there - either ...

"I'm currently holding them both at gunpoint outside - please send a cruiser to this address immediately, etc."

.... or ....

"They rushed me and I was forced to shoot both men - please send a cruiser and paramedics ASAP, I'm currently checking to see if they're breathing."

I realize that's all hindsight, and being what it is. However, my own opinion of the situation is that -- if he wanted to be proactive in curbing crime within his community, this gentleman's life would be much smoother today if he'd gone out to investigate and try to take control of the situation prior to calling dispatch, then call the police once he had things resolved -- which hopefully would not include shooting the robbers.

I personally find that my own decision-making abilities are lessened when I try to do too much at once. In a crisis situation, trying to talk to someone on the phone - and be part of that ongoing conversation, possibly with one hand holding the phone to his ear, or trying to keep it on his shoulder, or any number of other things, while trying to hold onto his gun, and assume a command presence in front of two criminals - is a distraction, in a scenario where 100% of his concentration should be on reading the situation.

Personally, I think he had already decided to go outside and confront the men prior to dialing the phone -- and I don't find fault in that - it's his neighborhood, and I have trouble myself with the thought or risk of just letting criminals walk away, if there's a chance I can intervene to stop them. However, if he was going to do that - I think he would have done well to have focused on one thing at a time, and called 911 afterwards.


All of that's just after-the-fact stuff, and none of is has any bearing on what actually happened or how events transpired. I feel for the guy. He's been through a lot, and he continues to go through a lot. It's tough when so many people are out there second-guessing him, The New Black Panthers and other militant groups are threatening him, raising money to "tear him down" - and all sorts of other threats.

One way or another, his life's already ruined, and ther's a lot of folks that want to twist the knife even more, and/or think they haven't even begun to twist it yet - to see him "really punished" for this.

And I honestly feel that the man truly didn't want to let two thieves get away with robbery in his community. He was looking out for folks, or doing the best he could to do so. And it's truly sad at the negative folks that are trying to tear him apart for it.

The man didn't take a shotgun down to the local 7-11 and shoot two hispanics sitting out front minding their own business ... he was just a decent concerned citizen who shot two guys in the process of actively robbing the house next door. His biggest mistake as far as I can tell was picking up the phone. ..... But - he did pick up the phone, and I'm worried a lot that his phone call is going to hurt his case considerably.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,937 Posts
I believe the shooter did make a mistake when he told the 911 dispatcher that he intended to kill the perps. However, regardless of what he said to the dispatcher, unless somebody can disprove his side of the story (the dead guys won't) that the dead guys were in his yard and lunged at him, then he'll probably not be indicted. I don't know for a fact that Texas has a stand your ground law, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that they do.

I don't think that people who break into other folks' houses are "simple thieves." I'm for exterminating such parasites, when at all possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
I live right down the road from this and have close friends who are Horn's neighbors. He will most likely be no-billed by the grand jury. There are a number of things that the media is either lying about or telling half truths. The community strongly supports this guy. The entire incident was witnessed by a plainclothes police officer. Horn shot the guys in his own yard. These two were career criminals who had a history of violent, armed home invasion. The woman holding the baby claiming to be one bad guy's widow is not. The deceased is not the father of the baby as being reported. The so-called "distraught widow", initially told police that she couldn't remember the last time she saw the deceased and went on to say that he probably got what he deserved. The 911 dispatcher is not a police officer. I agree that he certainly could have done better on the 911 call. But, it was a heat of the moment thing on the phone. If anyone wants to make a donation to Joe Horn's legal defense fund, just contact any Chase Bank in the Houston area.

ranburr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,937 Posts
Joe won't need a legal defense fund. According to information I just got on another forum, it's already been no-billed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
ranburr said:
I live right down the road from this and have close friends who are Horn's neighbors. He will most likely be no-billed by the grand jury. There are a number of things that the media is either lying about or telling half truths. The community strongly supports this guy. The entire incident was witnessed by a plainclothes police officer. Horn shot the guys in his own yard. These two were career criminals who had a history of violent, armed home invasion.
Good deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Wow, I just listened to the 911 audio. I truly don't know if Joe Horn is a hero or a not. I don't know what the laws are in Texas. I do know that I would have handled this situation differently. I know without a shadow of a doubt that I would NOT have gone out the door and confronted those two criminals. Maybe that makes me a wuss in some eyes, I don't care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
WalterGC said:
Joe won't need a legal defense fund. According to information I just got on another forum, it's already been no-billed.
Unfortuneately, this is not the case. The investigation is still ongoing. It will be awhile before the grand jury hears this.

ranburr
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,526 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
Manan said:
Wow, I just listened to the 911 audio. I truly don't know if Joe Horn is a hero or a not. I don't know what the laws are in Texas. I do know that I would have handled this situation differently. I know without a shadow of a doubt that I would NOT have gone out the door and confronted those two criminals. Maybe that makes me a wuss in some eyes, I don't care.
I wouldn't have gone out the door either, my neighbors personal property is not worth risking my life over, sometimes the best thing to do is tyo be a good witness. I'm not condemning Mr. Horn's actions, I would just have handled things differently, now if my neighbor was being assaulted, raped, abducted, that would be a different thing.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I "Googled" Joe Horn legal defense fund to see how it is going, and ran across this:
http://rackjite.com/archives/920-Pasadena-Shotgun-Cowboy-Joe-Horn-Updated-Photos-and-Video.html
It appears that the idiots are blaming Gungoonery and racism instead of blaming the perps for being predators on society.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
44 Posts
So wait...according to his detractors....the only difference between a chargeable offense and a non-chargeable offense is the time on the clock? 2 AM it is okay to stop your neighbor's home from being burglarized but 2 PM is NOT? How governmentally assonine is that?

Max
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,526 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Maximus said:
So wait...according to his detractors....the only difference between a chargeable offense and a non-chargeable offense is the time on the clock? 2 AM it is okay to stop your neighbor's home from being burglarized but 2 PM is NOT? How governmentally assonine is that?

Max
I did a :scratch: over that one too...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,937 Posts
Im Neero said:
Walter, are you a lawyer?
No, but I have been exposed to a lot of legal discussions. My father was appointed Superior Court Judge when I was 5-yrs-old. My double-first cousin was one of our state's best litigators, valedictorian of his law school class. I've heard just about everything "legal" under the sun discussed at one time or another. My daughter is a lawyer, and my youngest son is doing very well in his second year of law school. Many of my close friends are judges and lawyers.

When a legal question arises (eg., modified weapons for s.d., etc.), I have plenty of reliable sources! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
I figured it was something like that. When legal issues arise you always seem to "know the business."

Do you mind if I ask what law school your son is at and if he likes it? I am going to start law school in a year and haven't decided which one yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
"The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett, a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.

"It can't be during the day," Jett said."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This guy is an idiot, obviously doesn't know the law (or apparently can't read and comprehend the material), and I certainly hope nobody hires him to defend them.

Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, subsections 9.41 and 9.42 specifically deal with the use of Force/Deadly Force to protect one's own property. 9.43 deals with the same, but in regard to protecting the property of a THIRD PARTY. ***See below***

1. The issue of Nighttime vs. Daytime ONLY applies to Theft or Criminal Mischief.

2. The article refers to "robbers" and "robbery". Neither is correct. This was Burglary. Robbery is basically "theft FROM A PERSON by the use of force or the threat of force." Burglary is basically "theft from a building or residence." Although section 9.42 states that to use deadly force, the theft or criminal mischief must be occuring at nighttime, don't let that confuse you. While Theft is an element of the offense of Burglary (and a lesser included offense), this was not simply Theft. It was Burglary and the nighttime qualification does not apply.

3. These guys broke into someone's HOME, their REFUGE, to steal property that someone else worked for, earned, bled for, inherited, etc. Back in the old days, if you stole a horse, you were hung from the nearest tree. If you called a man a liar or a cheat, he could legally shoot you dead. If you messed with a woman, you could be killed. Guys back then thought twice before stealing, raping, assaulting, etc. These two pieces of scum get ZERO sympathy from me. None.

4. To anyone who says "property isn't important enough to take a person's life over", let me clarify something for you. These guys weren't shot because Mr. Horn didn't want them to get away with the neighbor's baseball cards. They were shot because they BROKE INTO SOMEONE'S HOME (see #3). Burglars aren't the same as pickpockets. They come into YOUR HOME, while YOU ARE THERE, violating YOUR safety and refuge. And they don't always stop at stealing. Many times, they are surprised by a homeowner (or child) and they turn into Murderers, Rapists, etc. These two are no longer able to prey on society, and I'm thankful for it.

****{{{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.

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.}}}
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,354 Posts
I read about that in my local paper... The old guy was right to shoot! The paper said he didnt shoot till the guys came at him! If he had not shot they would have probaly killed him or crippled him... If the BG's had a brain in there head they would have givin up or ran away...
If all the people would do what that guy did it would if nothing else make them think twice about robbing or stealing... Not to get off the subject but isnt that why crime is or was so low somewhere in the Middle east? I think if you get caught stealing they cut your hand off, 2nd offence the other hand 3rd {as if you could still steal" death...
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top