Reply
Wed 21 May, 2008 06:53 pm
(CBS) The 911 call came from a Pasadena, Tex., resident, who alerted police to two burglary suspects on a neighbor's property. Before he hung up, two men were dead by his hand.
Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.
"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"
"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.
"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."
Shortly after, Horn said he sees one suspect was standing in front of his house, looking at it from the street.
"I don't know if they're armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."
He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."
"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"
"I don't want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?
"No, I don't want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."
The dispatcher asks if a vehicle could be seen; Horn said no. The dispatcher again says Horn should stay inside the house.
Almost five minutes into the call, police had not arrived.
"I can't see if [the suspects are] getting away or not," Horn said.
Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn't know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.
Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?"
Horn: "Yes?"
Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."
Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."
Dispatcher: "I understand."
Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."
Dispatcher: "I'm ..."
Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."
Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."
Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "
Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."
Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"
Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."
Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."
Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."
Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"
Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."
Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!
Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."
Horn: "They got a bag of loot."
Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.
Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."
Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."
Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."
On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.
"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.
Then Horn is back on the phone:
"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."
Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"
Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"
Dispatcher: "Did you shoot somebody?
Horn: "Yes, I did, the cops are here right now."
Dispatcher: "Where are you right now?"
Horn: "I'm inside the house. ..."
Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, put that gun down before you shoot an officer of mine. I've got several officers out there without uniforms on."
Horn: "I am in the front yard right now. I am ..."
Dispatcher: "Put that gun down! There's officers out there without uniforms on. Do not shoot anybody else, do you understand me? I've got police out there..."
Horn: "I understand, I understand. I am out in the front yard waving my hand right now."
Dispatcher: "You don't have a gun with you, do you?
Horn: "No, no, no."
Dispatcher: "You see a uniformed officer? Now lay down on the ground and don't do nothing else."
Yelling is heard.
Dispatcher: "Lay down on the ground, Mister Horn. Do what the officers tell you to do right now."
Two days later, Horn released a statement through an attorney.
"The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life," it said. "My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."
The identities of the men killed were released Friday.
They are Miguel Antonio Dejesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30. Official records show that each of them had a prior arrest in Harris County for drug offenses.
The men were reportedly shot at a distance of less than 15 feet.
A woman who lives nearby who asked not to be identified told CBS News affiliate KHOU correspondent Rucks Russell that she always saw Horn as a grandfather figure. "He is the guardian of the neighborhood," she said. "He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him."
But according to Tom Lambright, Horn's attorney and a friend for more than four decades, he's the one in need now. "He just needs everyone to know he's not a villain, he's not a bad guy," Lambright said.
He went on to say that Horn voluntarily gave an extensive video statement to police immediately following the shooting.
Horn was not taken into custody after the shooting. A Harris County grand jury will decide if charges are to be filed.
Lambright says Horn acted in complete and total self defense and has nothing to hide.
Local opinion has been passionate on both sides of the shooting.
One letter to the Houston Chronicle said, "He didn't shoot them in the legs, to make sure they did not run away, or hold them at gunpoint until police arrived. No, he was judge, jury and executioner."
Another letter writer praised Horn, saying, "Where does the line form to pin a medal on Joe Horn? I want to get in line." Another wrote, "Let's get rid of the police force and just hire Joe Horn!"
Support for Horn was also running about 2-1 in an online survey of readers on the KHOU Web site.
The incident may prove a test for a new law recently passed in Texas which expands the right of citizens to use deadly force.
Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.
But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."
Oh wow. I'm speechless.
Thinking on this one....
Edgar, this was a major news story six months ago. Why are you bringing it up now? Is it finally going to trial?
The grand jury is looking into it.
Joe Horn intentionally or knowingly caused the death of two human beings. I do not believe that his actions were justified. He should have stayed in his own house, which was not being threatened by the burglars, as he was instructed to do by the police dispatcher. The "castle doctrine" is not a license to kill and it was never intended to apply in a situtation such as this one. Joe Horn self-servingly expanded the law to include not only his own home as HIS castle, but everyone else's home in the neighborhood as HIS castle. He used the newly-enacted law as a means to excuse his own blood-thirst. He was adament that he was NOT going to let those criminals in the neighborhood get away--he wanted to shoot them--and he did. I believe that adds up to murder.
Quote:No, he was judge, jury and executioner."
That's exactly right. I'm glad the whole transcript is out there. This is no self-defense: nobody was threatening him. This was cold blooded murder.
Quote:Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.
Its legal to shoot someone for criminal mischief??????
My god!
It is very sad what is happening in your country.
i believe charles bronson said it best
Paul Kersey: Do you believe in Jesus?
Stomper: Yes I do.
Paul Kersey: Well, you're gonna meet him.
Good grief.
Of course it is murder.
Not so fast.
According to Wiki; He didn't yell "Boom, your dead"... he yelled "Move, and you're dead". This is not the same thing. The Wiki article also says both men were on Joe's property and that one ran at him, after the warning, before veering off and being shot in the back. This was apparently
witnessed by a plain clothes cop who hadn't yet left his car. This eyeball witness cop did not see fit to arrest Joe Horn for his actions.
Wiki wrote:As the burglars were exiting his neighbor's home, and approaching Horn's home, Horn exited his home with his shotgun, while the 911 Operator tried to dissuade him from that action. On the 911 tape, he is heard confronting the suspects, saying, "Move, and you're dead",[3] immediately followed by the sound of a shotgun blast, followed by two more.[4] Following the shootings Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!"
It is certainly appropriate for a Grand Jury to look in to it; but I wouldn't say it is cut and dry either way.
I don't see how anyone can be sure Joe Horn's motive was not Self Defense, from the evidence that we are privy to thus far. I think a
reasonable man could, in Joe's situation, step outside to say "Move and your dead" and then panic when the criminal ran in his direction. Ill advised as his exit may have been; I am not yet convinced leaving the house in and of itself was
unreasonable. The police officer on the scene apparently judged his next actions as
reasonable as well.
He correctly called the police first and cooperated with them afterwards. It is quite clear that Joe Horn did not believe before, during or after the event that he was committing murder. How then can the State prove intent?
I also don't really see where Joe Horn poses any threat to society at large, save those that are engaged in criminal activity in Joe's neighborhood and then approach the man himself. The chances of recidivism seem remote, were it not for the death threats he has already received. I would guess first degree murder is out, and would be a travesty if he were convicted of it. Perhaps aggravated manslaughter; but I wouldn't even go there based on the evidence I've seen thus far.
I do consider the incident tragic, insofar as I wouldn't support a death penalty for burglary, but I am not yet convinced that Joe Horn committed a crime, let alone murder.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Not so fast.
According to Wiki; He didn't yell "Boom, your dead"... he yelled "Move, and you're dead". This is not the same thing. The Wiki article also says both men were on Joe's property and that one ran at him, after the warning, before veering off and being shot in the back. This was apparently
witnessed by a plain clothes cop who hadn't yet left his car. This eyeball witness cop did not see fit to arrest Joe Horn for his actions.
Wiki wrote:As the burglars were exiting his neighbor's home, and approaching Horn's home, Horn exited his home with his shotgun, while the 911 Operator tried to dissuade him from that action. On the 911 tape, he is heard confronting the suspects, saying, "Move, and you're dead",[3] immediately followed by the sound of a shotgun blast, followed by two more.[4] Following the shootings Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!"
It is certainly appropriate for a Grand Jury to look in to it; but I wouldn't say it is cut and dry either way.
I don't see how anyone can be sure Joe Horn's motive was not Self Defense, from the evidence that we are privy to thus far. I think a
reasonable man could, in Joe's situation, step outside to say "Move and your dead" and then panic when the criminal ran in his direction. Ill advised as his exit may have been; I am not yet convinced leaving the house in and of itself was
unreasonable. The police officer on the scene apparently judged his next actions as
reasonable as well.
He correctly called the police first and cooperated with them afterwards. It is quite clear that Joe Horn did not believe before, during or after the event that he was committing murder. How then can the State prove intent?
I also don't really see where Joe Horn poses any threat to society at large, save those that are engaged in criminal activity in Joe's neighborhood and then approach the man himself. The chances of recidivism seem remote, were it not for the death threats he has already received. I would guess first degree murder is out, and would be a travesty if he were convicted of it. Perhaps aggravated manslaughter; but I wouldn’t even go there based on the evidence I’ve seen thus far.
I do consider the incident tragic, insofar as I wouldn’t support a death penalty for burglary, but I am not yet convinced that Joe Horn committed a crime, let alone murder.
This man was told to stay inside, that help was coming.
Had the deceased attempted to enter his home, you might have a point.
Treespassing is likely not properly punished by death, either.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't see how anyone can be sure Joe Horn's motive was not Self Defense, from the evidence that we are privy to thus far. I think a reasonable man could, in Joe's situation, step outside to say "Move and your dead" and then panic when the criminal ran in his direction.
He made abundantly clear, in the transcript above, that he wanted to go outside, with his gun, to stop the burglars in the neighbouring house.
The cop on the phone kept telling him to stay inside, but he just wouldnt have it: "I ain't letting them get away with this".
The motivation was
not self-defense; he did
not go outside because he considered himself in danger.
Here, let me quote his last words before going out again:
Quote:"They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!
I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy. [..] There, one of them's getting away! They got a bag of loot."
Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag? [..] Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't [see which way they are going] ... I'm going outside. I'll find out. Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going.
Sorry, but you cant get more clear-cut than this. He did not go out because he felt himself in danger; he just wanted to catch those thieves. That's not "Self Defense" no matter which way you cut it.
Quote:Ill advised as his exit may have been; I am not yet convinced leaving the house in and of itself was unreasonable. The police officer on the scene apparently judged his next actions as reasonable as well.
I think that cop might well have had other things on his mind right then, dont you think? To leap from the fact that the cop did not immediately arrest him to the conclusion that he therefore must have thought all his actions were reasonable is quite remarkable. All the more remarkable since we
know for a fact that another cop directly involved, the one on the phone, warned him time and time and time again that it was
not reasonable to go out with that gun.
You are making a logical leap to judge the intent by the result.
dlowan wrote: This man was told to stay inside, that help was coming.
He was told to stay inside by a dispatcher on a telephone. A dispatcher saying the cavalry is on the way, in this country, means they may be there in a minute, 5, an hour or never.
In this situation; I believe I would have stayed inside but I am not convinced that it was unreasonable to step outside of his home. You could feel the adrenaline pumping in Joe's veins just by reading the transcript. This isn't when people make their best decisions.
dlowan wrote:Had the deceased attempted to enter his home, you might have a point.
Treespassing is likely not properly punished by death, either.
No, it isn't. But a reactionary shoot isn't an execution either. I'm a pretty tough guy, Deb, and I don't scare easy, but the night someone attempted to break into my home I was plenty scared. This isn't the time that you rationalize what the would-be intruder may or may not be after. This is the time that natural instinct takes over. Mine told me to grab the nearest weapon and stand sentry while calling the police. The dispatcher told me I could use only
reasonable force, but precisely wtf is
that? I know that I would have done my damnedest to protect my girlfriend and myself and let the authorities sort me out later. Fortunately, my door held up so it didn't matter.
The point is; when confronted by criminals, adrenalin starts pumping through your body at ludicrous levels and a reasonable person may or may not make wise decisions. I assume this is why part of the criteria that prosecutors must meet; is to prove that a reasonable person could not have acted in the same fashion. Joe's decision to leave the house may have been stupid, but I don't believe it was necessarily
unreasonable. Same goes for his reaction when approached by the criminal. I really don't see how you can think you know otherwise.
nimh wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't see how anyone can be sure Joe Horn's motive was not Self Defense, from the evidence that we are privy to thus far. I think a reasonable man could, in Joe's situation, step outside to say "Move and your dead" and then panic when the criminal ran in his direction.
He made abundantly clear, in the transcript above, that he wanted to go outside, with his gun, to stop the burglars in the neighbouring house.
The cop on the phone kept telling him to stay inside, but he just wouldnt have it: "I ain't letting them get away with this".
The motivation was
not self-defense; he did
not go outside because he considered himself in danger.
Here, let me quote his last words before going out again:
Quote:"They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!
I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy. [..] There, one of them's getting away! They got a bag of loot."
Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag? [..] Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't [see which way they are going] ... I'm going outside. I'll find out. Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going.
Sorry, but you cant get more clear-cut than this. He did not go out because he felt himself in danger; he just wanted to catch those thieves. That's not "Self Defense" no matter which way you cut it.
Quote:Ill advised as his exit may have been; I am not yet convinced leaving the house in and of itself was unreasonable. The police officer on the scene apparently judged his next actions as reasonable as well.
I think that cop might well have had other things on his mind right then, dont you think? To leap from the fact that the cop did not immediately arrest him to the conclusion that he therefore must have thought all his actions were reasonable is quite remarkable. All the more remarkable since we
know for a fact that another cop directly involved, the one on the phone, warned him time and time and time again that it was
not reasonable to go out with that gun.
He may well have stepped outside with the intention of stopping the criminals. That doesn't prove he intended to kill the criminals when he left the house. That could still have been a reaction to being rushed by one of them. How do you
know otherwise?
OCCOM BILL wrote:You are making a logical leap to judge the intent by the result.
dlowan wrote: This man was told to stay inside, that help was coming.
He was told to stay inside by a dispatcher on a telephone. A dispatcher saying the cavalry is on the way, in this country, means they may be there in a minute, 5, an hour or never.
In this situation; I believe I would have stayed inside but I am not convinced that it was unreasonable to step outside of his home. You could feel the adrenaline pumping in Joe’s veins just by reading the transcript. This isn’t when people make their best decisions.
dlowan wrote:Had the deceased attempted to enter his home, you might have a point.
Treespassing is likely not properly punished by death, either.
No, it isn't. But a reactionary shoot isn't an execution either. I'm a pretty tough guy, Deb, and I don't scare easy, but the night someone attempted to break into my home I was plenty scared. This isn't the time that you rationalize what the would-be intruder may or may not be after. This is the time that natural instinct takes over. Mine told me to grab the nearest weapon and stand sentry while calling the police. The dispatcher told me I could use only
reasonable force, but precisely wtf is
that? I know that I would have done my damnedest to protect my girlfriend and myself and let the authorities sort me out later. Fortunately, my door held up so it didn't matter.
The point is; when confronted by criminals, adrenalin starts pumping through your body at ludicrous levels and a reasonable person may or may not make wise decisions. I assume this is why part of the criteria that prosecutors must meet; is to prove that a reasonable person could not have acted in the same fashion. Joe's decision to leave the house may have been stupid, but I don't believe it was necessarily
unreasonable. Same goes for his reaction when approached by the criminal. I really don’t see how you can think you know otherwise.
Adrenaline starts pumping in many situations.
Humans, nevertheless, are generally expected to refrain from killing other humans even in the presence of adrenaline.
This fella was itching to get at the burglars, said so many times, went outside against advice, was not under direct threat, and went out and killed two people as he had warned he was likely to do at the very beginning.
Clearly an error in judgment but that doesn't necessarily make him a murderer.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Clearly an error in judgment but that doesn't necessarily make him a murderer.
That is, of course, for the courts to decide.
However, "an error in judgment" is an extraordinarily over-generous way to describe this, in my view.
Reminds me of one of my murderer clients, who said "everyone's entitled to one little mistake."
dlowan wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:Clearly an error in judgment but that doesn't necessarily make him a murderer.
That is, of course, for the courts to decide.
Oh, I agree. I doubt we're privy to all of the evidence... and even just hearing the 911 call could alter my opinion. He may well deserve something between nothing and murder one... I'm just not ready to call the man a murderer.
I have to say that my opinion is: No gun - no deaths.
Joe Horn, mr nice guy from the burbs, really had no reason to have a gun. Was he a sporting shooter? probably not if he owned a shotty. Did he own animals that may need to be put down was he a farmer that may need to kill ferral animals or pests? I think not.
The sole reason for this man to have a gun was to threaten people. People who may or may not be engaged in criminal activity.
It should not be up to residents to decide what constitutes unlawfull activity this is for the courts to decide.
If Joe Horn did not own a gun police who attended the scene would have arrested these supposed burglers.
What if it was a friend of the house owners playing some silly practical joke?
In my opinion the result of laws that allow residents to use deadly force can only be anarchy and a breakdown in the rule of law.
This mind set that any person is entitled to own a gun "just in case" confounds me.
OCCOM BILL wrote:You could feel the adrenaline pumping in Joe's veins just by reading the transcript
Yeah, and his words left little doubt about what made the adrenaline pump. It wasnt fear about his own safety. It wasnt "Self Defense". It was the urge to, gosh darn it, go outside and catch him those thieves, cause he wasnt just going to let 'em get away with that bag of loot he saw them carrying out!
There's not a single sentence in the whole transcript that suggests he was even afraid. He was pumped up because he just wasnt going to let them get away - he was
going out there!
That's not self-defense. That's vigilante justice.
OCCOM BILL wrote:No, it isn't. But a reactionary shoot isn't an execution either. I'm a pretty tough guy, Deb, and I don't scare easy, but the night someone attempted to break into my home I was plenty scared.
Nobody tried to break into his home. He saw burglars going into his neighbour's home and getting away with it, and it made him angry.
If that's a "reactionary shoot", the reaction sure as hell isnt one of self-defence.
OCCOM BILL wrote:The dispatcher told me I could use only reasonable force, but precisely wtf is that?
What the hell would the doubt about "precisely wtf that is"? He was told explicitly and specifically what it was: staying inside, NOT going outside, and NOT risking lives over property. He went outside anyway, with the specific intent to figger out who they were, where they were going and to not let them get away with it. He
said so.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I know that I would have done my damnedest to protect my girlfriend and myself and let the authorities sort me out later. Fortunately, my door held up so it didn't matter.
Nobody threatened him or his girlfriend, wife or family. The burglars didnt even know about him being there
until he himself decided to come out and go after them. They went into another house and came out with loot, and were running away.
Nobody was banging down his door, and nobody was threatening either him or his family. It wasnt until he decided to ignore all of the implorings of the police dispatcher and go outside
to get them that one of them turned to him.
Moreover,
you can read this in the transcript. He never once said anything, not a word, about feeling that either he, his family, or his house was being threatened. He never once uttered a word of fear. Instead, he went on at length about how he saw these burglars breaking in and getting away with the loot and that he didnt want to let them get away with that, he was going out there.
There is not a word about him feeling he had to defend himself in anything he said - just righteous anger, anger about these buggers threatening to get away with burglaring a house.
Again, thats not self defense, that's vigilante justice.
You're completely ignoring all his words, and instead projecting the reaction you would imagine - to a situation that didnt occur.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace