Which means the failure to indict in the Horn case also tells us nothing.
Y’all can wiggle and dance around the issue all you like.
The fact remains almost all grand juries return indictments. By FAR almost all do. (see citations above)
Have some grand juries refused to indict? Sure.
But in the Joe Horn case you had something that was nowhere near a clearcut case that the state was going after some poor guy who didn’t have it coming.
A DA unable to get an indictment in such a case is almost unthinkable.
If the grand jury was nullifying what law were they nullifying? Murder?
The grand jury does not try the case. They should have sent it to trial. Let the jury there nullify if they want to.
Because the DA did not have the budget or political motivation to wade into it.
Two Columbians drive into a strange, upscale neighborhood, walk directly to an open window, climb in and quickly recover valuable items and cash that are conveniently waiting, then climb out under the waiting gaze of Joe Horn who calls the police and narrates the whole operation, right up to when he shoots both in the back while they are walking away on the neighbors property.
It was an obvious set up with the Columbians as an insurance scam. But, the real purpose was vigilante justice. The Columbians had to be killed so they couldn’t tell their story to the cops. The DA did not want to fund a circus for some old nut case on a second amendment crusade. He made it go away.
At least in my state trespass is a misdemeanor, and then only after an intruder has been told to leave. Now of course lots of other laws can apply such as breaking and entering, suspicion of burglary, etc. And if you do call the police, they tell the intruder to leave and the intruder doesn’t, then its disobeying a lawful police order, resisting arrest or assaulting an officer if they fight back, etc.
The underlying rule is “appropriate force”: As long as your life isn’t in imminent peril you’re supposed to try all lesser means first.
In fact, unless it’s a legal eviction, wouldn’t Castle Doctrine give the occupants a defense to shooting you?
IANAL, but I spent some time getting advice from one when considering a CC license.
First the relevant statute here in Texas (PC 9.42) regarding deadly force and property. [bolding mine]
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.
According to my attorney at the time, it’s technically legal to kill to protect your property, but in really, really limited situations. And anyone who shoots in any but the most dire self-protection scenario is a moron who’s about to be relieved of his money, and most likely his freedom. It can’t be used to prevent trespassing alone. He said there are always some odd corner cases of someone getting away with this, but most will end up in substantial legal trouble even in Texas.
I spent over an hour listening to his advice and recounting of actual cases, and also talked to someone who’d killed in a self-defense situation* as part of my personal CCW decision. It was eye-opening and (imo) should be done by anyone considering self-defense weapons.
To the OP: I realize it’s a fictional situation, but No – you can’t shoot a squatter. And the cost of legally removing him will pale next to the legal and criminal court processes you’d be subjected to afterwards.
*It was ruled as completely justified. No charges.
Magic phrase to justify homicide
For what it’s worth–
In Colorado, with our “Make my Day” law, shooting such a person would be perfectly legal.
Right. The statement that started all of this was something to the effect of that a homeowner returns and finds a squatter living in his basement that because of a “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” or whatever gun law, that you can simply execute the squatter if he refuses to leave. That is demonstrably untrue anywhere.
However, at some point in the thread, it becomes the squatter attacking you or acting aggressively. That changes things. So it seems that we are talking past each other because different facts are being given.
And nobody can point to an isolated case like Joe Horn and say that such a thing is universal. Maybe Joe Horn got away with murder. Maybe it was justifiable given the unique factual circumstances there. But it does no good to point to a case, draw your own possibly incorrection factual conclusions, and extrapolate that to come up with an incorrect principle of law that I can just target practice at people in my neighbor’s yard. Nobody, even those on Horn’s grand jury, is saying that.
Unfortunately, as we learned in the Trayvon Martin case, the only person saying what happened is the shooter who killed the other person. Say the magic words, “I was in fear for my life.” There is no one else to gainsay that. Add that a stranger is in your basement and that usually settles things in favor of the shooter.
Sometimes I get the feeling some among us actually wish such a situation were literally legally indefensible…
Which gets into the whole question of whether the state should have to prove that the legal elements of manslaughter or murder were present, or whether homicide should automatically be a crime in the absence of an affirmative defense.
The issue is with people saying the law does not say such shootings are ok.
While that is true, it ignores the reality.
We have seen “I was afraid for my life” used a lot. And it does seem like a magic get of of jail free card.
George Zimmerman used it and prevailed. Joe Horn used it and prevailed. It was used as a defense in the Ahmaud Arbery case and while those guys did get convicted it was due to their own idiocy. The DA initially bought that story and let them be.
What I think distinguishes the ones above is those people deliberately put themselves in those positions, escalated the problem and that defense still worked.
If you walked into your home and found someone in your basement I would think killing them and getting away with it would not be hard to pull off.
But it is an accurate answer to the question: You don’t want to bet your life, or 10-20 years of it, on the “magic words” defense (which usually just looks like that to those of us not in the jury room but we’re left wondering what we missed).
Right. The “reasonable person” standard doesn’t expect you to figure out in a split second if you could possibly shimmy out of your second floor window, or even that you could probably turn and run up the stairs faster than the guy in your basement could catch you. Its more like, if you pull up to your driveway and your front door is open, you need to reverse away and call 911, not go in gun drawn to investigate.
The OP asked if you could shoot the squatter in your basement. While not legal (depending on circumstances) I would be surprised if a person could not get away with doing that.
“I went there to talk to them. I took a gun just in case…self protection…2nd amendment. The squatter became enraged and rushed me. I shot them in self defense! I thought they were going to kill me! If they were alive they’d tell you that but, sadly, they are dead so just trust me.”
I am NOT advocating this! Far from it.
Of course if I find a squatter in my home I fear the unknown. And if I stumble into the unknown and shoot him/her I can honestly claim I feared for my life.
But I would equate that to stepping front of a bus and shooting the driver because I feared for my life. The basic issue is not that I feared for my life. The issue is whether or not my act was necessary. Just because I manage to get myself scared shitless, I don’t get to shoot somebody.
There is a better test. Was my life actually in danger? If so, did I put my life in danger? Did someone else die because I put your my life in danger? What were my alternatives?
We have an open range law in New Mexico. If a cow comes into my yard and I shoot it, even because I am afraid for my life, I am liable and can be sued. Might even get arrested for illegal use of a firearm in the city limits. But, a squatter, no problem. Just say “I feared for my life”.
More like 95%. But that still means “not 100%”.
But so?
Ever sat on one?
Not true at all.
You are getting your facts from a News article. The news often does not have all the facts. Did you sit on that GJ? Do you know what evidence they saw?
It depends on many factors. But yeah, we don’t know what evidence was presented.
Burglars were fleeing, yes? Thus, it appears under Texas law, that dude was legally- if not morally- allowed to shoot them.
Quite so – although that example is more that of a potential intruder situation, not a squatter situation, that is an important thing to bear in mind, the originating question was not about a situation of a sudden unexpected encounter-in-the-street or home invasion or law enforcement confrontation. It was a situation of a known squatter, that was being a problem to dislodge, so we would then have to bring up whether a reasonable person should insist on a personal confrontation.
OTOH that would heavily depend on whether anyone else interviewed about it by the authorities (if they bothered to) were to express that this was a known squatter situation that had been going on for a while and where there had been confrontations before this event.
I provided a citation.
Can you do the same?