The Illinois felony murder rule is (more or less) if someone dies while you are committing a felony, you can be charged with murder. Thus, homeowner tackles the burglar in the front yard; while defending himself, the burglar kills the homeowner - it was while committing a felony, so murder.
FOR THE MOST PART, this law is used to scare defendants into plea bargons. There was a case a couple of years ago where 4 “inner city youths” drove an hour into the exurbs of Chicago and were in the process of stealing a man’s car. Man comes out of the house; claims he was firing a warning shot; kills one. The other three were charged with murder; plead down to … I don’t remember, but there was a whole lot of hue and cry. Homeowner may have been charged with illegal discharge of a weapon in village limits, but I don’t remember anything worse.
As I remember the story, the key fact was that the homicide occurred at night. The woman who was shot was in a car driven by someone else and driving away when the man fired. That stretched even the Texas definition of self defense. But the defense attorney found this law that made exceptions for shooting at night. Note that in Texas the break-in doesn’t have to be into your own property. There was a case where a neighbor saw two men break into a house, called the police who said they would be right there. The man decided the men might run away and in spite of the 911 operator asking him not to shot and killed both men. Since they were killed while inside the house, no charges were filed.
The Illustrated Guide to Law, Self-Defense: (NB does not cover special Texas law, where apparently you may shoot someone just to keep him from taking your stuff…)
IIRC, the law was the same in DC, so the question was raised for the Jan. 6 riot/insurrection - since someone was shot by police during the riot, there was the possibility that anyone participating in the riot should be charged with felony murder for participating in a crime that caused someone to die.
Careful, there: IANAL but per your own quote, the crime has to occur during the nighttime and then, you’re free to defend your property, making it not murder. My imagination says that since Texas is so huge and phones didn’t exist and there weren’t enough law enforcement anyway…besides, someone stealing your cattle meant you couldn’t eat, so stealing them might be like pointing a gun at your head.
IIRC one Texas guy shot some kids stealing hubcaps off his car and another Texas guy shot someone repossessing his vehicle. Both walked.
But the OP asks if it’s murder or self-defense. In Texas during the nighttime it’s neither, apparently. It’s justifiable homicide or something along those lines.
A self-defense case here could turn on the smallest of details. Did the intruder move his hand toward his waistband? Reach toward a backpack? Was he slowing his flight, possibly preparing to stand his ground?
Once the homeowner “catches” him, what happens? Does the homeowner yell, “Don’t move” or immediately commence to stabbing? Does the thief lie unmoving on the ground yelling “I surrender” or does he fight?
And how do you establish any of this? Presumably the only witness is the home owner. Maybe you stipulate that there was a security camera that caught the altercation, but the footage is likely to be of limited value in establishing the minute details that could make the difference between self defense and a murder charge.
All very interesting, I thank everyone for their contributions.
It seems to me it SHOULD be murder ( or at least manslaughter), but apparently in some places it is not. And I agree with the above comment… the disposition of the prosecutor and the competence of the defending lawyer are going to be big factors on whether or not there is a conviction.
Generally, it does not matter what the homeowner actually believed. The test is what an objectively reasonable person standing in the homeowner’s place would believe.
Some states recognize the concept of “imperfect self defense” wherein the homeowner believed that he/she was in danger of death or serious bodily injury however such fear was unreasonable based upon the circumstances. IIRC, this mitigates murder down to manslaughter.
Another poster linked to this story. The burglars ran from the next door house and made the fatal mistake of running onto the shooters front lawn. In Texas, that is a capital offense and the shooter was not charged. To be clear, the burglars were on the front lawn in the process of committing felony burglary. Just cutting across someone’s front lawn is not, as far as I know, grounds for getting shot in Texas. But I could be wrong.
In England you can use force, even deadly force, to protect yourself inside your home.
But note when a 78 year old man defended himself against two much younger burglars who were drugged up career criminals and armed with a screwdriver, he killed one after (in response) arming himself with a kitchen knife (improvised weapon) and was immediately arrested when the police arrived.
The pensioner was eventually released but that wasn’t always the certain outcome. If he had stabbed the burglar outside the property (or even inside the property but stabbed the burglar in the back) it is very likely the pensioner would have been prosecuted.
I don’t know the point you are trying to make. It is pretty well established that Texas is unique in that it allows deadly force to protect property, and there was some question as to whether when Horn tried to stop them from burglarizing his neighbor if they tried to run or attack him. I’m not sure how that requires a re-explanation of what I wrote.
When you are assessing Joe Horn’s actions in determining whether he was acting in self defense, you put an objectively reasonable person in Joe Horn’s shoes. If a reasonable person confronted two guys stealing from his neighbor (which certainly everyone has the right to do–whether it is advisable or not is not a GQ answer) would this reasonable person have been in fear of death or serious bodily harm given the situation?
The question is not whether Joe Horn felt that fear, but an objectively reasonable person in that exact situation.
He was in his home. He was advised multiple times by 911 to not confront the robbers (burglars?..I forget which is which) because law enforcement was there/on the way. IIRC there was a law enforcement officer on the scene waiting for backup.
Horn ignored that, went after them and shot them in the back. Both of them.
I would bet you know this. So, please explain the “reasonable person” here.
First, the 911 dispatcher does not create law or deny you of freedoms you otherwise have. You seriously believe that if you see two strangers ransacking your neighbor’s house that it is illegal to walk over there and ask them what they are doing??
And this is GQ, so I have no interest in a debate. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether they were shot in the back, and Texas again has a unique law that allows a person to use deadly force to protect property, so this may not be a self-defense case at all, but a protection of property case under state law. Whether Texas has a good or bad law is not an issue for GQ.
911 is presumably in contact with police responding. Taking matters into your own hands complicates the situation for law enforcement.
Someone ransacking your neighbor’s house is not ransacking your house. That is not a castle doctrine issue. Not. Your. House.
Can you walk over and talk to them? Sure.
Can you shoot them in the back? No. At least you should not be allowed to. You just made yourself judge, jury and executioner on the spot.
That Texas felt this was all legal is a travesty of law. Nothing about it is arguably, in GQ rules, legal except in the broadaest and weirdest interpretation of the law.
We all know the DA threw the case before the Grand Jury so there was no indictment. We all know that nearly every DA ever succeeds before a Grand Jury.
The “stand your ground” law allows you to use deadly force any place you have a legal right to be. Not just in your house.
You’ve said this three times now, but the evidence is not clear if they were shot in the back. Texas does allow deadly force to protect property. Because you feel it is a “travesty” and not worthy of argument does not make it a factual GQ answer.