I’d defer to someone more familiar with Texas than I… but I’d point out in the Horn case the police sought an arrest – the charges were brought before the grand jury, which declined to indict.
Maybe I’m reading too much between the lines here, so I’ll just ask: do you believe we (as a society) should kill criminals to reduce crime?
That’s why I have such mixed feelings about this case. I heard about it around the same time that I first heard about the John White case in Long Island, NY. White, who is black, was convicted of second-degree manslaughter for fatally shooting a white teenager in the summer of 2006, after a mob of white teenagers came to his house in the middle of the night threatening to kill his son over a perceived insult. White said it looked like a lynch mob, and he was defending his home and his family, but prosecutors said White could have stayed inside, locked the door, and called the police.
I know these cases were in different states with different law, but White’s actions seem much more defensible to me, and I’m bothered that he has to go to jail while Horn won’t even be indicted.
That’s not the problem: according to the article, the cop sat there and did nothing. If he’d got off his arse, he might well have arrested the burglars and saved them from getting shot.
Get that everybody? If you disagree with Frank, you’re a sociopath.
If this is the best argument you’ve got, then why even bother?
Sorry to keep asking questions of you but perhaps you can help me on what, exactly, an “indictment” is.
My understanding was a Grand Jury did not really do much in the way of interpreting the law (I thought that is what the actual trial is supposed to consider…did X violate law Y). An indictment I thought were generally simple documents. Basically something like “The state has good reason to believe X shot Y at location Z in violation of statutes A, B & C.” The Grand Jury looks at it and think there is sufficient evidence to merit a trial and that is that.
Indeed, I thought Grand Juries were nearly rubber stamps for the DA. The quote below is a bit dated but unless things have changed much illustrate the point. Certainly Horn seemed to be pushing into gray areas here which I think would have merited at least a trial to examine it all in detail.
The guys that Joe Horn shot in the back were “Hispanic” because they were from Colombia. However, anyone seeing them would assume they were African-American.
Pasadena is a working class community in the Greater Houston Area; refineries have historically been the biggest employers. When I attended the Pasadena School District many years ago, Blacks were not allowed in the area; Mexicans were the Designated Minority. I left for Big Houston as soon as I could, but diversity eventually came to Pasadena, including African-Americans, Asians, etc.
The demonstrators (as seen on Houston TV) who showed up to support Joe Horn obviously wished for the Good Old Days. You’ve never seen a more disgusting group of doughy, pasty-faced inbreds.
I’ve been burglarized & angry. But I don’t support Capital Punishment for any crime.
Shooting them on sight would discourage burglars more than the usual risk of prison if caught; so would chopping off their hands. So would dismembering their children while they were forced to watch. But the question was, would it be a better world if we did X to discourage burglars?
Wow.
This is a prefect example of why there ought to be more gun control. This wild west mentality of shoot robbers who cause you no bodily danger doesn’t need to exist anymore because there are police. When there were no police I can understand it’s importance because there would have been no deterrence.
So we have a guy legally shooting two robbers in the back. That’s just wrong. Look the robbers weren’t in the right for stealing something, but the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. It really pisses me off that there’s the Joe Horns of the world out there.
The grand jury reviews the evidence and decides whether probable cause exists to believe a crime was committed, and that the accused committed it. Probable cause exists when the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that a crime was committed and the accused committed it.
Grand juries are often considered “rubber stamps” for the prosecution because the defense cannot present evidence of their own; the prosecutor alone calls witnesses and questions them. A grand jury target is not even permitted a lawyer in the proceeding, although he is allowed to leave the grand jury room to consult with his lawyer as necessary.
A couple of years ago, Gfactor and I collaborated on a Staff Report that discussed grand juries.
Agreed. But hey, we have 50 states, all with different opinions on the way things should be. There’s bound to be one that suits you. Your example is one of the reasons that I wouldn’t be caught dead living in New York.
The Wiki link mentions a plainclothes cop, probably in an unmarked vehicle, being on the scene. There’s a very good chance he was waiting for uniformed backup, especially considering that otherwise he’d have to be dealing with two rather volatile situations by himself: two fleeing burglars and an apparent lunatic with a shotgun. At that point, there was nothing particuarly critical about apprehending the pair right then and there. Sorry, but without more data your criticism of the plainclothes officer’s actions appear to be off the mark.
According to the news, the only officer wha had arrived on scene (and who testified in front of the grand jury) was alone and in plain clothes:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
He worried (quite reasonably IMO) that if he got out of the car to try to intervene he might be mistaken for a getaway driver and been shot as well. So he decided to be a good witness until uniformed backup arrived.
As I understand it from following the case, the police and the prosecutor decided to refer the case to the grand jury without a recommendation as to whether to indict. That seems to be pretty standard around here for cases that seem to law enforcement to be justified unde the law.
I’ll try to take a shot at this question, even though IANAL.
The job of a grand jury as I understand it is to determine if there is sufficient evidence that a crime occured, and if there is sufficient evidence to refer that case to trial.
In this case the facts were not disputed. Mr. Horn observed 2 men who he reasonably believed to be stealing from his neighbor’s house. He went outside, confronted the men, and shot them. However, that is not a crime under Texas law:
The Texas Penal code is online here; Sections 9.41-43 are the relevant sections for this case. One does not need to have been asked by the other person to use deadly force to defend their property. Additionally, deadly force can be used to stop someone who is fleeing after committing burglary if they reasonably believe the property cannot be recovered any other way (TPC § 9.42).
Once again, IANAL, just a Texas gun owner who has taken the Concealed Handgun License (CHL) class, which has several hours of classroom instruction covering the lawful use of deadly force under Texas law. FWIW, I don’t think I would do what happened in this case (ie go outside to confront two criminals when nobody’s life is in danger). The aftermath of a confrontation if I had to shoot somebody to defend my or someone else’s life would be bad enough, and I don’t think it is worth going through that after shooting somebody over property.
Heh. 
So I guess Joe Horn did nothing illegal. But I am appalled at the responses of people congratulating him for what he did, and wishing *more *people could shoot each other. OK, so you don’t like the scumbag robbing your stuff…your reaction is to kill them?? What the fuck? Wierddave says it’s a matter of cost benefit analysis–gee, how about we substitute a strong tranquilizer gun for the shotgun? Voila, all the benefits of stopping bad guys without any of the costs of, you know, dead people. Oh wait, a sad old fart down in Texas doesn’t get to experience his greatest thrill since his dick went limp. I don’t think I’ll ever understand this American fixation with guns (and wanting to use em on people they dislike).
Nonsense. Joe Horn, an untrained civilian computer program manager / hunter managed to contain the situation on his own. The two men were “unarmed” at least as far as guns are concerned, so on officer with his weapon drawn would have been able to approach the scene, verbally ID himself, hold everyone at gunpoint until backup arrived to take alll three into custody. If the article is correct, the cop needs to go back to crossing guard duty.
According to the news, the only officer who had arrived on scene (and who testified in front of the grand jury) was alone and in plain clothes:
He worried (quite reasonably IMO) that if he got out of the car to try to intervene he might be mistaken for a getaway driver and been shot as well. So he decided to be a good witness until uniformed backup arrived.
As I understand it from following the case, the police and the prosecutor decided to refer the case to the grand jury without a recommendation as to whether to indict. That seems to be pretty standard around here for cases that seem to law enforcement to be justified under the law.
And since I haven’t seen the link posted yet, the Texas Penal code can be found online here; Sections 9.41-43 (especially 9.43) are the relevant ones for this case.
One point that stands out when looking over the statutes is that, in contrast to what so many of the news outlets, at least locally, have reported is that Mr. Horn did not need to have been asked by his neighbor to take care of his property to be justified in using deadly force:
Does it piss you off more or less than that there are people in the country illegally that break into peoples houses and steal from them?
I haven’t read of Joe Horn having any past problems with the police or committing any crimes, which surprises me. This guy was clearly a loose cannon. Does anybody know if he had any past indicators that he would do something like this? From what I’ve read he isn’t even a military veteran (not saying they’re prone to shoot trespassers, but are trained to handle guns and would be more likely than AT&T retirees to have shot somebody before) but is just an ex hunter. Is that area of Pasadena/Houston a high crime area?
I’m trying to figure out why an evidently law abiding 61 year old suddenly one day decides to go outside and shoot two men in the back for a property crime when he’s never done anything remotely like this before. Most people- I think- honestly hope that they never have to shoot or kill another person, and for someone to wait until they’re a senior citizen and then shoot two he didn’t have to- there’s info missing.
Something’s not quite making sense. (I’ve heard the 911 calls and he’s as sane and lucid and calculating as you could want to be when basically telling the operator 'I’m gonna go shoot ‘em’).
The info that the two burglars were black as well as Colombian adds perspective to the racism allegations of it, but I still think this guy wanted to shoot somebody and race probably wasn’t important. (He knew his neighbors were Vietnamese and from that probably that they didn’t have black immediate family members who’d go through their window and come out with a sack of valuables.)
The answer isn’t gun control, it’s criminal control.
And anyway, it’s not like the police never kill innocent people. Being from New York, I assume you’re pretty well acquainted with the cops shooting the wrong guy by accident. Where’s your outrage over that?