Joe Horn in Pasadena, TX, shoots Burglars

[Doc_Jude]

From Texas Penal Code
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.

*******************************************

There ya go. The neighbor already said that he asked Joe Horn to watch his home when he was out of town, & the burglars were stealing valuables (cash, etc). Case closed.

 

[jks9199]

From Texas Penal Code
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:
...

There ya go. The neighbor already said that he asked Joe Horn to watch his home when he was out of town, & the burglars were stealing valuables (cash, etc). Case closed.

It's not so cut and dried... The code you cite made reference to justification under sections 9.41 and 9.42. I'm not copying the entire code sections; the amount to saying that the use of force, up to and including deadly force, to defend property is justified under some circumstances. The most relevant portion, I think, is this:
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.
from section 9.42.

The question is simple; was it reasonable for Horn to feel that no other level of force but lethal force was sufficient to protect the property, or did he have reasonable belief that using less force would have exposed himself or someone else to serious harm.

The police were on the way, and based on the dispatcher's statements, perhaps even in the area. (Despite what you see on TV, cops rarely -- and are advised not to! -- respond to the actual scene of a burglary with lights and sirens screaming; they shut them off before they arrive.) I think it's quite arguable that he had no reasonable belief that lesser means would be unsuccessful to either apprehend the suspects or protect the property. Even then, they posed him, and no one else, an immediate threat of bodily harm. He was safe inside. Apparently, no one else was around, and the neighbor was gone. So, the argument of protecting someone from harm won't carry forward. Yes, they possessed a crowbar. Perhaps they possessed guns that weren't seen. With no potential victim, there's no threat. This is why I stated that the legality of Horn's actions is a question for a Texas prosecutor and grand jury. If they don't indict, his actions were legal. If they do -- there' some question.

But this is exactly why I've advised repeatedly that each person take the time to learn their state's laws on self defense and defense of property -- and how the laws are applied. The laws are almost always more complicated than one might expect... and we don't get to pick and choose among the clauses.

 

[Doc_Jude]

It's not so cut and dried... The code you cite made reference to justification under sections 9.41 and 9.42. I'm not copying the entire code sections; the amount to saying that the use of force, up to and including deadly force, to defend property is justified under some circumstances. The most relevant portion, I think, is this...

We hear on the 911 recording that he voiced a warning loud enough for his phone to pick it up even though he had left it in the house. 2-3 seconds had passed from his warning to when he first fired, & they entered his property after he had just witnessed them commit Burglary upon his neighbor's home. If they just robbed the neighbor and then entered his property, it's more than reasonable that they were going to rob HIS HOME. Why else would they enter HIS property? Also, if his intent was simply to kill them, no need for a warning, just pull the trigger. That isn't what he did. He gave them a chance with the warning.
According to Texas Penal Code, if he shouted a warning, and they kept coming, he's justified in his actions. Two guys half his age, with crowbars & who knows what else... this old man grabbed the best force multiplier that he had ready, being his shotgun.

 

[grydth]

He didn't say "Boom, you're dead!". He said "Move & you're dead!"

He might not have done the smartest thing, in relation to his own continued existence or that of others. He was, however, within his legal rights.

One can be "within his legal rights" and still be wrong. Remember the infamous quote, "no controlling legal authority" ?

Legal codes are one thing - Now, who is in a martial art that would teach one to behave this way? Don't most teach avoidance unless necessary?

Had Horn needlessly shot a plain clothes cop or hit a neighbor - which provisions of any legal code would make the nightmares go away?

This firmly falls within the 'Do not try this at home' category. Do this in left leaning Peoples Republics like New York and Massachusetts and you'll likely be punished worse than the original criminals would have been.

Just my opinions, worth no more than anybody else's. Change a couple facts and I'd be on Horn's side. But here I think he killed people that he didn't have to.

 

[Doc_Jude]

One can be "within his legal rights" and still be wrong. Remember the infamous quote, "no controlling legal authority" ?

Legal codes are one thing - Now, who is in a martial art that would teach one to behave this way? Don't most teach avoidance unless necessary?

I don't know, I do Silat. All I ever hear is "Now, if you really want to be mean, do this..."
I hear some of the hairiest stories from my Silat teachers. Brawls, stabbings, maimings, etc. I never went to a martial arts school expecting to learn a moral code, I got that from my parents.

Had Horn needlessly shot a plain clothes cop or hit a neighbor - which provisions of any legal code would make the nightmares go away?

None. Of course, he didn't, so why are you talking about it?

This firmly falls within the 'Do not try this at home' category. Do this in left leaning Peoples Republics like New York and Massachusetts and you'll likely be punished worse than the original criminals would have been.

Yep. God Bless Texas!

Just my opinions, worth no more than anybody else's. Change a couple facts and I'd be on Horn's side. But here I think he killed people that he didn't have to.

You're right, but the fact is he did shoot them. Legally. Hence, no charges...

 

[grydth]

I am "talking about it" because you asked! Review your own stuff.

I will consider myself disinvited after this post.

Mr Horn's needless actions endangered both police and neighbors. The fact that neither actually was shot does not resolve whether the action posed a needless danger.

One could go tap dancing in a minefield..... if one comes out with both legs still attached, does that make the action safe or smart?

Yeah, God Bless Texas and all that...... go ahead and try to re-enact Mr Horn's actions in California.... or New York.... or Massachusetts.... or other places where about 99% of this Forum's denizens reside - - - and you will go directly to jail without passing GO.

 

[Carol]

[playnice]Carol Kaur[/playnice]

 

[Carol]

Moderator Note:

Threads Merged.

- Carol Kaur
- MT Moderator

 

[Doc_Jude]

I am "talking about it" because you asked! Review your own stuff.

I asked about hypothetical injuries to police and neighbors? Huh, I'll go back & check.

Yeah, God Bless Texas and all that...... go ahead and try to re-enact Mr Horn's actions in California.... or New York.... or Massachusetts.... or other places where about 99% of this Forum's denizens reside - - - and you will go directly to jail without passing GO.

Yes, it's unfortunate, isn't it?