# Joe Horn in Pasadena, TX, shoots Burglars



## newGuy12 (Nov 20, 2007)

911 tape records man shooting robbers:

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/11/20/open-thread-justifiable-homicide-or-murder/

You can hear the recording by looking at the "More from YouTube:" link.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm listening to the radio now, and a LEO is saying that this is what happens when the court system ends up just letting people out before the paperwork is even done.

I for one tend to agree with him.  Criminals aren't punished, so ordinary people tend to think that they have to rely on these measures, shooting them themselves!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 20, 2007)

Hmmm..on the fence here. While if they were really burglars, I have no sympathy for them getting shot. Sounds like a neighbor Id like watching my place LOL. And if the guy was trying to detain these guys for the cops and they really did come at him then I think he was justified. The way he spoke to 911 and the "Boom! Your dead!" thing though.... Goes to show just how important details like that can be when it comes to these situations.

BUT. How can a person be really sure that the guys going through the neighbors window are burglars? I saw the cops pull up to a neighbors house and grab up 2 guys a few years ago. Turned out that they were the owners brother and his friend who had permission to be there and pick up some property. The brother forgot his key but knew that the back window was open. The owner was contacted and everybody went their way. What would have happened here if this guy was the neighbor? While this wasnt the case here, its better to watch these guys and tell the cops details, or at the most safely follow them and relay data to the cops.

Reading some more about this situation. Those guys were druggies and burglars, so I think they got what was coming to them. Thats a different issue from if this shooter was right or wrong though. It sounds like his intent was to go out there and shoot these guys, not apprehend them and I dont think thats something society wants to endorse.


----------



## Guardian (Nov 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Hmmm..on the fence here. While if they were really burglars, I have no sympathy for them getting shot. Sounds like a neighbor Id like watching my place LOL. And if the guy was trying to detain these guys for the cops and they really did come at him then I think he was justified. The way he spoke to 911 and the "Boom! Your dead!" thing though.... Goes to show just how important details like that can be when it comes to these situations.
> 
> BUT. How can a person be really sure that the guys going through the neighbors window are burglars? I saw the cops pull up to a neighbors house and grab up 2 guys a few years ago. Turned out that they were the owners brother and his friend who had permission to be there and pick up some property. The brother forgot his key but knew that the back window was open. The owner was contacted and everybody went their way. What would have happened here if this guy was the neighbor? While this wasnt the case here, its better to watch these guys and tell the cops details, or at the most safely follow them and relay data to the cops.
> 
> Reading some more about this situation. Those guys were druggies and burglars, so I think they got what was coming to them. Thats a different issue from if this shooter was right or wrong though. It sounds like his intent was to go out there and shoot these guys, not apprehend them and I dont think thats something society wants to endorse.


 
While every fiber in my body tells me to disagree with you, thinking logically, I have to concur with you no matter how my gut says to heck with them.  You have brought up a couple of good points.

While I find no problem with crooks being punished in the act, I do have a problem like you obviously with citizens taking their Wyatt Earp style of law and shooting first instead of just hold the suspects (if possible now) for the police or calling the cops.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 20, 2007)

I've got serious problems with Joe Horn's choice to ignore the directions of the dispatcher, and go out and confront the burglars.  The fact that they were burglars & druggies makes them unsympathetic... but doesn't change the fact that this guy went out and confronted them.  I don't think he was justified in either confronting the burglars, or using force against them.  

To see part of why, let's make one small change in the scenario.  Recently, in furtherance of an investigation, one of my partners and I engaged in a lovely ritual known as a "trash run."  In other words...  We went by the house of the target in the wee hours of the night, while the trash was at the curb for pickup, and we collected the trash.  We weren't in uniform.  We were moving quickly and surrepticiously.  Let's say this well meaning neighber looked out, saw us, and called 911.  Leave the rest of the event pretty much unchanged; the guy ignores the 911 call taker's directions to stay in the house while uniformed officers are coming.  He comes out, and confronts us.  He points a shotgun at us, and fires.  Thing is...  we were armed.  Now, we've got a gunfight in a bedroom community.  Not good under any circumstances.  And the real event could have gone down almost the same; the 911 operator said more than once that there were plainclothes officers responding.

I've got no problem with private citizens using lethal force to defend themselves.  I'm not in favor of using lethal force to defend property, with a few very narrow exceptions (like nuclear warheads) where the risk involved with that property justifies lethal force.  In this case, the  Joe Horn defied the directions of the 911 dispatcher, left a position of safety, and aggressively confronted the burglars, killing one of them.  Imagine the hue & cry had a responding cop shot in the same circumstances; the cops would be accused of excessive force, and the burglars would be painted as lost choirboys and altar servers.  I just can't see where either his actions or the level of force he used were justified.  In fact, I truly suspect that a thorough survey of the community and his associates will reveal that he'd made some statements about how he'd handle someone trying to steal from him or his neighbors... and those words'll haunt him.


----------



## grydth (Nov 21, 2007)

Irrespective of whether his state allows this type of behavior, Mr Horn should have listened to the first things the dispatcher told him:

A)  Stay inside his house.

B)  "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over."

This was a needless violent encounter..... never minding the legalisms, what do your arts teach you about those?

The shootees were even dumber. It appears at the actual moment of demise they were coming at Horn on his land. I think it is called natural selection.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 21, 2007)

Just for fun, this thread is a discussion of the incident on a law enforcement forum.  One caveat -- that site permits some profanity that MT doesn't, and tends to play a little less "genteel."


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 23, 2007)

Part of me (the part that's disgusted with our F'ed up "justice" system)says the bad guys deserved what they got.

The part of me that doesn't like the idea of going to jail says that he should have stayed in his house.  That said, if he was standing in his front yard and they came after him, he could have a case for justified use of force.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 25, 2007)

There has been a lot of talk about this online. Most folks don't really get the situation.
Here's a link to a few YouTube Vids.

Link One

Link Two 

Link Three


Despite what's been said, I found this here:
CNN Link
DAN PATRICK, TEXAS STATE SENATOR (from CNN Transcript): The law in Texas under Penal Code Section 943 definitely gives any citizen the right to protect another person`s property if there`s a certain series of crimes that are taking place. Burglary is one of those crimes... So this citizen had the right, Glenn, to go out and protect his neighbor`s property, which I think all neighbors would appreciate someone protecting our property.

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

What do you guys think about this? Right or Wrong, & which way do you think it will go?


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 25, 2007)

CNN LINK

DAN PATRICK, TEXAS STATE SENATOR (from CNN Transcript): The law in Texas under Penal Code Section 943 definitely gives any citizen the right to protect another person`s property if there`s a certain series of crimes that are taking place. Burglary is one of those crimes... So this citizen had the right, Glenn, to go out and protect his neighbor`s property, which I think all neighbors would appreciate someone protecting our property.


----------



## grydth (Nov 25, 2007)

There's already a thread on this here..... the guy should've stayed in his own house and let the police handle it.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 25, 2007)

In here? I just found another thread in The Firing Range.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 25, 2007)

grydth said:


> ...the guy should've stayed in his own house and let the police handle it.



Why?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 25, 2007)

grydth said:


> There's already a thread on this here..... the guy should've stayed in his own house and let the police handle it.



Yeah, this is always good advice when viable. Of course, one never knows how things'll play out.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 25, 2007)

grydth said:


> Irrespective of whether his state allows this type of behavior, Mr Horn should have listened to the first things the dispatcher told him:
> 
> A)  Stay inside his house.
> 
> ...




While I think this is a good idea in general. I have experience otherwise. As long as they think they can drive by and knock your mail box over and get away with it they will. (* Cemented a poll into the ground and then build a wood frame around it so guy totaled car when he drunk hit it like he did every Saturday night. Side note before laws about drinking were tough so he got ride home and given ticket for damage to property only. Other than cut he was ok. But our family thought 25 polls and mail boxes were enough. *)  The fact that people think they can intimidate others and get away with it bully them into staying in their home in fear. One Neighbor threatened to shoot me if he caught me outside on our property. So, I placed messages in his gas gap, and in his door of his car that he never locked and under his hood and indie his door, and other places. He came apologized and asked me to stop as his wife could not longer sleep in the house, for fear that she did not know if I had been there. I used his fear tactics back and it stopped. I have had neighbors who would call and comnplaign to management about noise. So I did the same I also compalined about the staff who lived in the place and I complained and when they told me to call the police I did. When the police told me the management had to call and not me, I recorded and played for the management. I explained that the letter of my lease was not be up held by them, and they I could leave and take their actions as forcible eviction. 

I know that some will say in none of these cases did I shoot someone. But in none of these cases did I admit to having a weapon or not. It does not matter. What matters is the state of mind of the person. The supreme court ruled for sexual harassment that is is not the intent but the impact of the actions. This can and is used for other cases as well. Can one show they were in fear of their life. How does one believe that? If they are in my yard and been there before to the point I have called 911 and still on line with them, what will happen next time? Will I have the chance to call 911? Will 911 respond in time or will they sit on the call (* As they ahve with me before *) and not dispatch an officer? Fear is agreat thing and once it is there, it enters into the mind and grows. It continues to grow until it is an all consuming thing. Some get angry others have the flight response either physically or mentally. 

So  I respect the law and I respect that people want others to behave well and act civilized, but it does not stop those who choose to act outside of acceptable behaviour and break the laws. It does not stop those who choose to abuse a system and know the laws and not take a weapon into the house but first visit the kitchen and take the knives and places one in each room where he knows where it is. This does two things one confirms the house is empty and also places weapons where he can reach them. But if caught by the police he did not take a weapon into the premise so no intent was there for him and he used a weapon of opportunity for self defense. EXCUSE ME!?! He can claim self defense while breaking into someone else's house? YEP! And so knowing this limits his exposure and increases his odds of being successful in some manner. 

But, if the person who wants to break into my house knows, I have weapons all through the house where I know they are and I know how to use them and am willing to use them, then they will look for other easier places to get their stuff. For now they have fear or respect for what could happen to them. 

Now that being said, I did walk out of my own house when the ex's BF showed up with pipes to "KILL" me as he stated on the phone to me jsut minutes before. I called 911, and they did not reply. I called again when he showed up, and they told me not to open the house, but I could not stop her from opening the house to him. So, I went out the back. Why? Not because I was defending anything but myself there. I was not worried about property other than myself and not giving her satisfaction of seeing me go to jail over beating up her boyfriend. (* Note: We were still married, I filed as she had the boyfriend and she would not move out. *) But if the guy would have followed me in the back yard and side yard, (* I staid close enough so the cordless phone would still work *) I would have defended myself, but at that point I would still be spending the night in jail and him in the hospital but I could try to show he chased me down.  So yes there are stages and guns may not be the first choice, but once fear is in the heart and the mind it has a way of making small things seem really big. That is why I will not comment on the shooting other than to say I can see a possible reason for it. I did not say it was the right reason, but I can put myself in "his" shoes and see how that could happen. 

No disrespect meant to the quoted post. It was just quoted as the thought starter. No disrespect to those who have different views,  as the great thing about this country is you can have a different view and that is ok. Just please acknowledge that it is ok for me to have one different from you. (* You being the general second person here. *)

Peace


----------



## grydth (Nov 25, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Why?



I pretty much agree with the views others already stated: the danger of accidentally hitting uniformed or plain clothes cops responding to the burglary; the danger of pellets/slugs (who knew what he had that loaded with) striking innocents in the neighborhood; maybe even hitting the occupants - I have locked my keys in the house more than once, and ended up pulling a second story job on my own house.... bad enough day already, without having Mr Horn shoot me!


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 25, 2007)

It's real simple. 

By definition, he's not in a real calm place if he's calling a reporting a burglary.  On the other hand, the dispatcher is -- and has probably handled similar situations before.  In other words, Horn wasn't thinking straight.

He escalated a non-violent situation to lethal violence when he left a position of safety and confronted the burglars.  As I've said repeatedly -- he got lucky that they weren't particularly sympathetic.  But the heart of it is he disregarded the repeated directions of the 911 operator and he, by his actions, created the violent confrontation.  On top of that, I'd argue that he pretty much went out there with the intent to shoot them.  Not to use force to defend himself, but to shoot them.  "*Boom, you're dead*."  Not "Don't move; I've called the cops!" Not "FREEZE!"  He pretty much seems to have intended to execute them if the cops weren't there that instant. 

As I've said elsewhere; I don't have a problem with someone defending himself or another person.  Had they broken into his house, or even been on his property, or if they'd threatened someone in the street, I'd be much more sympathetic to him.  But he went out there, armed with a shotgun, and he created the situation.  I'd even give him the benefit of the doubt had he made some sort of direct challenge, instead of "Boom, you're dead" followed by shots a few seconds later.  (Could the burglars even hear him?)

I've said it before -- the least you owe your fellow man is to call the cops if you see him being victimized by criminals, whether it's direct assault, or his home being burglarized.  And that may be ALL you should do, as well.  You should't create greater danger by your actions.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 25, 2007)

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.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 25, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> 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.


I'll grant that it's not totally clear, but I've listened several times.  I hear "boom" more than "move".  That's also what a couple of transcriptions have; it's possible that different networks are using the same transcription, I suppose.

Whether or not he was within Texas law is an issue for the prosecutor and grand jury there.  It doesn't change the simple fact that he created the confrontation and escalated it, directly contrary to the advice and directions of the 911 operator.


----------



## Skip Cooper (Nov 25, 2007)

Never thought I'd see a discussion about Pasadena, TX on this site  

I have lived in or around Pasadena since 1992.

I agree, lethal force was not needed in this situation.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 25, 2007)

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 (Nov 26, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> 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,
> ...


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 (Nov 26, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> 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 (Nov 26, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> 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 (Nov 26, 2007)

grydth said:


> 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.



grydth said:


> 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?



grydth said:


> 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!



grydth said:


> 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 (Nov 26, 2007)

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 (Nov 27, 2007)

[playnice]Carol Kaur[/playnice]


----------



## Carol (Nov 27, 2007)

Moderator Note:

Threads Merged.

- Carol Kaur 
- MT Moderator


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 27, 2007)

grydth said:


> 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.



grydth said:


> 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?


----------

