Protest over slain burglars takes a confrontational turn

[High Plains]

Source: Houston Chronicle

Activist Quanell X and dozens of other protesters Sunday faced hundreds of homeowners and supporters of Joe Horn, the Pasadena man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing a neighbor's home more than two weeks ago.

Families of the slain men, Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, also were present.

Yard signs lined the 7400 block of Timberline in Pasadena, where the incident took place, as well as on nearby streets.

Residents and Horn supporters waved American flags and carried signs reading, "We love our neighbor for protecting our neighbors" and "Burglary is a risky business." Motorcyclist Aaron "Blowout" Morrow, 43, and dozens of his fellow bikers lined Timberline, loudly revving their engines each time Quanell X attempted to speak.



Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5346606.html

---

The Joe Horn reverberations continue. Black Panthers, redneck neighbors, yeehaw, ain't America grand?

[High Plains]

1. Horn is yet to be charged.

Later in the article, Pasadena cops say they will pass the case on to prosecutors in a week or so. Yeah, this must be a tough one to figure out, especially since Horn is on tape vowing to shoot the guys and is on tape shooting them.

[Xenotime]

88. Sounds like pre-meditated murder to me.

[Xithras]

181. The question isn't whether he did it, but whether he can be convicted.

The prosecution isn't going to waste it's time pressing a case they know they cannot win, no matter how guilty he may be. The question is whether there is any legal defense for his actions under Texas law, and whether his actions go far enough beyond those protections to convince a jury of his peers that he should be convicted. Since most Texas media is treating this guy like a hero, and since rural Texas opinions tend to lean very heavily in favor of "defense of property" actions, there is a real question as to whether he would ever be found guilty.

If I remember correctly, the prosecutors office has already said that it would forward the case to the Grand Jury. The GJ should give us a good benchmark of the real attitudes of the average Texan in that area. If they won't indict, no regular jury would have found him guilty anyway.

[MADem]

2. I;m guessing the widow of that slain football player wishes they'd invited Joe over

the night that poor guy was murdered...

[rfranklin]

4. No, he would have shot all the colored people there...

because they all look alike, you know.

[MADem]

14. I admit I haven't followed the story.

Is the guy an avowed racist, or did he shoot a burglar who was black?

[seriousstan]

35. I guess he should have waited for white thieves.

[Tyler Durden]

44. No, he should have stayed in his own house, like he was told.

He wasn't a cop, nobody elected him sheriff.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

50. LOLZ

[Tejas]

150. very sad case

Died trying to protect his family from criminals.


edit: Quanell have a protest march scheduled? For which side?

[Tejas]

3. I'm confused

Not sure I see the wisdom of a protest group in picking Quanell to be a spokesman.

[Lance_Boyle]

5. It takes a special kind of audacity

to protest on the basis of "yeah, they were committing burglary, but feel bad for them anyway." Or maybe we should feel bad for the families they left behind, who knowingly or unknowingly benefited from their past burglaries? After all, a criminal's gotta put food on his family, right?

I guess I come down on the side of those the (totally unbiased) OP termed "redneck neighbors." That "burglary is a risky business" sign rings true.

[Mike Daniels]

8. When you commit a crime you take your life in your hands

Was Mr. Horn right in shooting two people that posed no immediate threat to his life or liberty. Probably not.

However, do I feel that horrible that a few neer-do-wells will no longer able to prey on society? Not really.

[acmavm]

124. So Mike, you've got such valuables that they're worth killing

over?

Yeah, they were wrong. THEY BELONGED IN FUCKING JAIL. NOT DEAD.

[Bandit]

11. Since when has burglary become a Capital Offense?

Are Americans so blood thirsty they can't wait for the legal system?

[Lance_Boyle]

13. Since about the time they got caught in the act.

Lots of crimes that wouldn't draw the death penalty under the criminal justice system very easily (and often legitimately) draw the death penalty under the self defense system.

[Tyler Durden]

15. Hope you've always got your KEYS....

...And don't try and get in a ground floor window half smashed next door to your version of "Joe Horn."

BOOM.

"I THINK they're burglars, I'm gonna go shoot them" is VIGILANTISM and AGAINST THE LAW.

[Lance_Boyle]

23. And missing keys is relevant to this case how?

You don't really think the two men who were caught and killed in the act of burglarizing a person's house forgot their set of keys to the victim's house, do you?

If the defense of property statutes in Texas apply in this case, then "I caught them red-handed burglarizing my neighbor's house" could very well be something other than vigilantism, and entirely non-criminal.

[Tyler Durden]

27. NO, but what did HORN know?

He THOUGHT by his own admission on the phone that they were burglarizing the house.

And as to the property statutes, I was in Houston when that asshole shot the repo man with a high powered rifle from down the block as he towed away the truck he hadn't paid on in 6 months. The property statute refers to YOUR actions in defense of YOUR property. The defense of the NEIGHBOR'S property is the neighbor's and the authority's problem, not yours to solve with your gun.

What is this, the wild West revisited? I suppose if some gangbanger "thought" the car going by with a backfire was a driveby, then he's within his rights to open up on that car. By your logic, he can even do it if he thinks the driveby is happening NEXT DOOR.

[MADem]

16. Some states have that "Shoot in your house" law. Anyone burglarizing

in those states ARE taking their lives in their hands.

When that glass breaks, you don't know if you're being burglarized or are about to experience a home invasion.

[Tyler Durden]

17. Wasn't Horn's house or property: who elected him SHERRIF?

Or judge, jury and executioner on a non-capital crime?

[MADem]

18. That's a bit different, then. I am not familiar with the law in his jurisdiciton, either. NT

[Tyler Durden]

20. NO LAW permits a private citizen to KILL suspected felons,

UNLESS the are on HIS PROPERTY in the ACT of committing the felony.

[Lance_Boyle]

21. simply untrue.

Self defense is not something that can only happen on one's own property. Neither, apparently, is the "defense of property" in Texas, which may be applicable in this case.

[Tyler Durden]

22. He was IN HIS HOUSE, talking to 911.

Where was he in jeopardy? Show me.

And the "Defense of Property" Statutes refer to YOUR property, not your neighbors.

I used to live in Texas. It wasn't Horn's property, his rights to protect it are nil.

[Lance_Boyle]

24. my understanding is that

the dead criminals were leaving the first victim's property and entering Mr. Horn's property when the shootings occurred.

[Tyler Durden]

29. Your understanding is mistaken

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5346606.html

snip

"Horn, 61, shot DeJesus and Ortiz on Nov. 14 after telling police he saw them steal from a neighbor's home. Horn told a 911 operator that he intended to confront and shoot the men."

snip.

This is VIGILANTISM. You cannot spin this any other way.

[Lance_Boyle]

45. your snip does not mention location

What he said to the 911 operator does not matter a whit if he confronted the burglars as they were leaving the first victim's property and entering his. At the point they entered his property in the commission of their burglary, defense of property becomes a potentially legitimate claim.

[Tyler Durden]

52. Fine, believe his LAWYER, and cherrypick the evidence. And here's the tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

Give it a listen, then tell me this is not a vigilante in action:

"I've got a shotgun, you want me to stop 'em?"

[Tejas]

85. an audio recording is not a picture

If you were on the jury, would it matter to see pictures showing where the shots were fired from and where everyone involved were at that moment?

It does matter, doesn't it?

Sorry, that audio tape doesn't prove whether the bad guys were at his front door or flying by on a magic carpet.

[Tyler Durden]

89. Another defender.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

snip

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."

snip

When he left his house with the weapon, he was in violation of the law.

[Tejas]

110. how many times are you going to quote a falsehood?

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

175. I agree with Tyler, on every point he has made. N/T

[guruoo]

120. Horn to 911 @ 06:05 into the tape - "I'm gonna kill 'em"

I wasn't so sure at first, but jeebus, this is damning.

[Tyler Durden]

87. Here is the LAW from the man who wrote it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

snip

"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."

snip

[Tejas]

114. that is not the LAW

That is the same tired quote that shows how clueless a legislator can be about his own legislation.

[guruoo]

121. Guy doesn't know his own legislation?

Now that's scary.

[Tejas]

122. ie: Rep. Carolyn "shoulder thing that goes up" McCarthy

[Paladin]

166. How About A Little Full Disclosure, Here?

If you know anything about Texas lawmaking, you know that Jeff Wentworth is, without a doubt, the most fanatically pro-gun legislator in the history of a gun-crazed state. If Wentworth is casting doubts on Horn's actions, it is extremely significant. Just thought I'd point that out; somehow, I didn't think you'd get around to it.

And your willingness to trash Carolyn McCarthy may get you backslaps down in the Gun Dungeon; up here in a Real World forum---not so much.....

[Tejas]

187. quit worshiping the ground he walks on.

Look bud,
you and the rest need to quit quoting a Republican that's just trying to cover his a**.


"If Wentworth is casting doubts on Horn's actions, it is extremely significant. Just thought I'd point that out; somehow, I didn't think you'd get around to it."


Yes, significant in that he stands there and says "it was never intended...".

His bill only added to laws already in place that sanctioned the use of deadly force. Imagine that, double-speak from a politician. His "Castle Doctrine" simply added that you have no "duty to retreat", and that in a good shoot you are no longer open to civil litigation brought by criminals and/or their relatives.

So you see, the "Castle Doctrine" is a group of amendments to an existing law.

[Hobarticus]

39. "Self defense" is awfully hard to justify in this case

He left his house, when advised against it by the authorities, and shot these guys in his neighbor's yard.

He claims they made aggressive moves towards him. This is after he came out of his home, brandishing a rifle.

I can't chase someone down on my block with a gun, obviously threatening them, then claim self-defense when I shoot them after THEY react in self-defense...if these guys even did that. Only Horn knows for sure, and he has no good reason to lie, now does he?

Anything else is his lawyer blowing smoke up anyone's ass that'll listen.

[Tyler Durden]

43. Thank you.

A lot of people on this thread appear to think the neighbor's TV is more important than a life, whose value is not theirs to judge.

I pray I don't have to get into MY house through a window with a "Horn" watching me.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

61. This is not as cut and dry as it seems..

"He claims they made aggressive moves towards him. This is after he came out of his home, brandishing a rifle."

Yes the guy should have stayed in his home *if* these guys were on their way out with stuff in their hand. But running out of your home with a gun because someone broke into your neighbors home is not illegal in Texas nor is using that gun if someone makes an aggressive move towards you.

Sometimes you can do something very legan *and* very stupid at the same time.

"I can't chase someone down on my block with a gun"

Did he run them down then shoot them?

"Anything else is his lawyer blowing smoke up anyone's ass that'll listen."

That whole presumption of innocence thing stings sometimes..

[Tyler Durden]

63. I don't have a problem with the "presumption of innocence."

What I have a problem with is the "shoot 'em up" mentality shown all over this thread.

If there was a psychological test for a license to own a gun in this country, and I was giving the test, about half this thread would fail, and I'm a dedicated gun owner.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

75. So youre answer is..

"What I have a problem with is the "shoot 'em up" mentality shown all over this thread."

Than address that! but you're speaking as if you personally know this guy and you *know* he was itching to shoot someone rather than someone who wanted to defend his neighbors home and was *monumentally* stupid in doing so. You have called him blood thirsty, and a vigilante... You have presumed his guilt and his motivation with little to no evidence..

What if the perps had said 'oh crap' put their hands on their head and got on their face? would he have shot then? do you know for sure the perps did not make an aggressive move towards him (or a move most reasonable people would consider aggressive)?

"If there was a psychological test for a license to own a gun in this country, and I was giving the test"

Im rather happy we dont live in a nation where any one person says 'If I had things my way....' and it actually happens..

[Tyler Durden]

79. Just listen to this guy on the tape, will you?

It wasn't up to HIM to confront anyone. he was told to sit still.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

His words: "I've got a shotgun. You want me to go get 'em?" He was told no time and time again, then racked the gun for the 911 operator to hear and announced his intention.

Just don't DEFEND the guy and actions like his. We are headed back to the jungle and people like Horn are leading the charge.

[Hobarticus]

82. Do you know that they DID make a move on him, besides Horn's account?

Again, assumption goes both ways. Only Horn's talking, and lawdy, he wouldn't have a reason to lie, now would he?

If I shot someone, justified or not, damn skippy I'd say anything to keep my ass out of the fire, especially when I was told by authorities to avoid confrontation. Who's going to argue with me, the dead guys?!?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

84. No and thays why I think Ill wait until there is a trial to demand

he be punished..

So your answer to 'do you know he did X' is 'well how do you know he didn't do x' thats an awful dangerous attitude to take when condemning someone.. Maybe we should just send him to gitmo..

[Hobarticus]

92. Not nearly as dangerous or stupid as taking Horn's word for it

...when he just shot two people under suspicious circumstances, and the witnesses are dead.

Heck, who knew law enforcement could be so easy? Why have cops, in that case?

I'd think someone with two little angels would expect more from the justice system then instant gratification for whoever wants to grab their gun and go get themselves some justice, but maybe not.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

146. So in every case where someone is shot and killed

The other party was blood thirsty?

Im not taking his word on anything Im saying lets get a jury of his peers to sit down and hear far more material than you or I are being given access to and let them decide.

You are basically screaming 'he did it'

-

'I'd think someone with two little angels w.... blah blah blah... twisting my position for appeal to emotion.. blah blah blah'

Tell you what, if you have real evidence that this guy was (a) blood thirsty or (b) killed the guys to get rid of witnesses just pass it along to the police... I worry about my girls all the time and among the things I worry about include vigilantism and people who wish to strip away the judicial process...

[Hobarticus]

159. "I've got a shotgun. You want me to go get 'em?"

These are Horn's own words, from the 9/11 tape. "Go get'em"? Jesus, Horn sounds aroused.

Have you listened to the tape, at all? I suspect you haven't.

Never said every shooting was done by bloodthirsty people. If you'd like to make a point, please don't make false parallels to things I say.

"You are basically screaming 'he did it' "

Uh, yeah. He did do it. He confessed as much. That's not in question. He did it, you and I disagree whether or not it was justified.

"Tell you what, if you have real evidence that this guy...killed the guys to get rid of witnesses"

Well, if there's three guys in a room, and one shoots the other two, he effectively removed the witnesses. So if the third guy comes out and swears up and down that he killed the other two in self-defense, then we have to take him at his word. I don't really need to prove that.

My point is, he went OUTSIDE his home and confronted these guys. He sought out an opportunity to shoot them. He didn't pick the gun up from one of them in a scuffle; he brought his own piece to the gunfight. Wait, not a gunfight, the other two weren't armed. So now you want to believe Horn at his word, when he has every motivation to lie. I'm sorry, I find that ridiculous.

"I worry about my girls all the time and among the things I worry about include vigilantism and people who wish to strip away the judicial process..."

Funny, I never would've picked that up from your posts. If you mean it, then for your little girls, I hope so too. Sincerely.

You're right, this will get worked out by law. It just bothers me that we live in a day and age when someone feels obliged to shoot people over stealing their neighbor's freakin' TV.

And welcome to DU, BTW.

[Hobarticus]

67. Like those guys got "presumption of innocence"? Due process?

Nope, they just got plugged. Yee-haw. Nice try, Captain Justice.

Not saying it's not legal in Texas or wherever. I think it's dangerous.

"Did he run them down then shoot them?"

Maybe not. But he still he needlessly left his home, and confronted them with a gun. Why risk getting his ass shot over his neighbor's insured TV, unless he had a boner to kill someone?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

78. Do you know

They did not make a move towards our mentally challenged shotgun holder? If guy A is holding a gun and guys B and C (each 40 years his junior) make an aggressive move there is no due process needed. Its legal to defend yourself.

Im not backing the moron who left his house, he should have stayed in doors once the police were contacted, perhaps went to a window so he could get a good look should he be asked to ID. But being stupid is not a crime..

"Maybe not."

Good then we can put that stupid analogy aside..

"Why risk getting his ass shot over his neighbor's insured TV, unless he had a boner to kill someone?"

Some people want to look out for their neighbors, I agree he should have kept his butt put, but leaving the house to defend your neighbors property is not proof of guilt..

[Tyler Durden]

80. I give up. Defend him all you want. n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

81. Im not defending him..

There is this huge area between defending someone and crucifying them... You should join me in it..

In any event have a nice day..

[Hobarticus]

86. Do you know that they DID?

Besides Horn saying that they did, obviously out to defend his ass, now?

Rather stupid assumption.

[acmavm]

127. Friggin' amazing. You damn well better hope your kids are

angels if we're going to become a country of crackpots.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

147. If we become a country that presumes guilt

It does not matter *even* if they are angels..

[MADem]

26. Well, he says they were on his property...

Here's his lawyer's account. Now, I don't know much about this case, so spare me the outraged retorts, OK? I don't have a point of view on this matter yet--I am still learning the facts of the situation.

If you want to discuss this reasonably, fine. The lawyer says the two dead guys were on his client's property in the act of lunging at the client:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/pasadena/news/5330708.html

HOUSTON — A man who told police he planned to kill two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house shot them only when they came on his property and he felt threatened, his attorney said on Monday.

Tom Lambright, who represents Joe Horn of Pasadena, said his client was just going to take a look around when he went outside after hearing glass break at his neighbor's house. He had seen Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, crawling into and then out of a window, Lambright said.

Horn went outside, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, to see where the suspects were heading when he came face-to-face with them in Horn's front yard, Lambright said.

Horn is 61 and heavyset. The suspected burglars were young and strong enough to beat him to death with their bare hands, Lambright said. So when one or both of them "made lunging movements," Horn fired, Lambright said.

"He's trying to protect his own life," Lambright said. "He's scared."

[Tyler Durden]

30. BULL FUCKING SHIT.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5346606.html

snip

"Horn, 61, shot DeJesus and Ortiz on Nov. 14 after telling police he saw them steal from a neighbor's home. Horn told a 911 operator that he intended to confront and shoot the men."

snip

This is lawyer bullshit trying to get this bloodthirsty creep off. THIS was VIGILANTISM. Nothing less. The 911 conversation proves both Horn and his Lawyer are LIARS.

[RantinRavin]

37. There is nothing in that link

that says where the men were standing at the time they were shot.

[Tyler Durden]

40. I suggest you note that is SAYS Horn is inside his HOUSE

...and if you can listen to the 911 call (I've heard it. Have you?) Horn is SPECIFICALLY TOLD by the operator NOT to leave his house and to wait for the police.

Stop acting like the lawyer for this guy. He was HOT to shoot them, so he did it.

[RantinRavin]

65. I just tracked down and listened to the 911 call.

1. Horn was not inside his home when the shots were fired.

2. Horn aggrivated the circumstances by going outside to confront the men.

3. Horn should be referred to a grand jury, where 2nd degree murder charges should be filled. (1st degree wouldn't stick due to extenuating circumstances)



When I took my concealed weapons course the instructor made a very good point. Before you pull a weapon you should be able to understand that you are going to go to jail for a very long time for doing this, and if after thinking about that, you can say that going to jail for the rest of your life is better than what is fixing to happen, then you probably have a reasonable fear....

That being said, Horn certainly would not be able to answer that simple question with a clean mind.

[Tyler Durden]

71. Thank you too. And welcome. n/t

[MADem]

38. Stop shouting. And either discuss this subject reasonably or stop bothering me.

I said I don't want drama, here. You are mistaken about the law, too apparently:

Legal experts said Texas law allows people to use deadly force against others who are burglarizing someone's home. However, they also say all the facts have to be examined.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/pasadena/news/5337517.html

[Tyler Durden]

41. Sorry, I'm just tired of people defending a vigilante.

We either are a nation of LAWS or we can go back to hanging people from trees. The only difference between that and what Horn did was how long it took.

Where in HELL is due process? There's no drama here, just one person taking the law into their own hands.

This was Pasadena TEXAS, not Medellin Columbia. On second thought...

[MADem]

57. There will be a grand jury. At this point, all we have is the statement of

the individual who did the shooting, and the statement of his lawyer on his behalf.

His assertion is that he saw the deceased burglarizing a neighbor's house, called the police, told the police he intended to confront them, went outside, they were on his lawn, they were 'lunging' and he shot them.

The law, if what he says bears out, seems to support him.

It is up to the grand jury to decide if he's being honest in his recounting of the events in question.

TEXAS is quite different from, say Boston, or Montpelier. They're a bit more free and easy with those guns down that way.

[Tyler Durden]

59. And the tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

"I've got a shotgun. You want me to get 'em?"

[MADem]

90. It does seem as though this guy has the "Castle Doctrine" on his side.

See here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/a_time_to_kill.html

Towards the latter part of the tape, they discuss the Castle Doctrine.

I thought I heard "stop 'em" as opposed to "get 'em."

I can't believe it took so long to get police on the scene, too. That guy was on the phone for awhile. They might have prevented this, had they screamed up to the location with sirens blaring.

The more I read, the more I believe it will be a tough road to convict this guy under TX law.

[Tyler Durden]

93. Actually, no he doesn't

This quote is from the author of the Texas Law:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main...

"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."

The moment he left his house with the shotgun, since they had not entered his house, he was in violation of the law.

[Tejas]

131. your link is dead, irrelevant as it was a falsehood anyway n/t

[MADem]

163. There are other laws that apply--not castle doctrine. Castle doctrine is the

law that obviates the "duty to retreat" that used to exist in those circumstances. But there are other laws on the books that apply. I scattered a few links elsewhere in the thread.

[Hobarticus]

42. Was Mr. Horn physically in danger, until he walked outside?

If not, then how can this be self-defense?

And this law isn't just a blank check to come out with all guns blazin', podner. Any cop will tell you that. You shoot someone, you'd better damn well better make sure it's the last resort or reap the consequences. And this was not Horn's last resort.

[MADem]

64. My cite is from the TX paper covering the story.

I acknowledge I am not an expert in TX law on this matter, but I would hope that the Chronicle isn't talking out their ass, to a TX audience of readers. I'm sure they consulted before they wrote that.

Apparently TX law is a bit more 'liberal' in their definition of self-defense than other jurisdicitons. We've already learned that the wrongdoers do not have to be on his own property for him to shoot them, and the paper is saying he was within his rights.

If he were suspected of wrongdoing you would think the police would have picked the guy up by now.

A grand jury will make the determination, though.

[Tyler Durden]

70. My cite is from Horn's own mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

"I've got a shotgun. You want me to go get 'em?"

You can presume innocence, but don't DEFEND this man. I'm certain all of his wonderful neighbors will contribute to his defense fund and the statue honoring him.

[MADem]

112. I didn't hear GET. I heard 'stop.' And it's not a matter of defending him, it is a matter of

trying to determine what the LAW is here.

I'm digging around, and I am finding cites that would suggest that the law is on the side of the guy with the shotgun.

From our 'friends' at the NRA:

Texas Legislature Votes NRA-Backed “Castle Doctrine” into Law

Tuesday, March 20, 2007


Fairfax, VA. ¾ The Texas State Legislature today gave final approval to the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed “Castle Doctrine” bill (SB 378), bringing common sense self-defense protections to law-abiding Texas citizens.

Texas is the first state to pass “Castle Doctrine” legislation this year, making it the sixteenth state to recognize the importance of victim’s rights.

“I want to thank the Texas Legislature for working together to pass this vital legislation and take further steps in protecting the people of this great state,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “Law-abiding citizens now have the choice to defend themselves and their families in the face of attack knowing their decision will not be second-guessed by the State of Texas.”

SB 378, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Wentworth (TX-25) with 27 co-authors and the House version of the bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Driver (TX-113) with 106 co-authors, states that if a criminal breaks into your occupied home, your vehicle or your place of business, the victim may use any manner of force against that person and does not have a “duty to retreat”. The bill also provides protection for persons using force authorized by law from liability for injuring their criminal attackers.

“On behalf of all NRA members in Texas, I want to thank Senator Wentworth and Representative Driver for their diligence in passing this important bill into law,” concluded Cox. “The Castle Doctrine bill is about putting the law back on the side of the victim, the way it’s supposed to be.”

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=9108

Apparently, there are other laws that work in concert with this one to give that fellow justification, that go BEYOND this law and were already on the books. The Castle Doctrine law changed the "Duty to Retreat" aspect. TX has a different take from some other states, apparently.

The larger issue of morality might diverge from the issues of legality in this case. And even if the members of the grand jury don't believe this guy had "permission" from his neighbor to defend the neighbor's property, or if they don't necessarily believe that the two were attacking or threatening the fellow with the rifle, the likelihood of Jury Nullification has to be considered.

I have to say I think the guy will walk. I might be wrong, but if he conducts himself well at the GJ, they'll probably no-bill the guy.

That's just my guess based on reading. I am not averring it is the "moral" thing to do.

[Hobarticus]

73. I understand it's within the law...

...and that my whole problem with it. Texas or no, it's a dangerous policy.

There has to be a little more of a guidline than "I got skeered" to justify killing someone, law-abiding or not.

By the way, Horn "got skeered" AFTER he ran out into his yard with his piece, in order to defend his neighbor's insured TV.

We can agree about the law. He's within the law, but I don't think the law is moral or just or wise in any way shape or form.

[Tyler Durden]

91. Actually, it's NOT within the law.

This quote is from the author of the Texas Law:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

"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."

The moment he left his house with the shotgun, since they had not entered his house, he was in violation of the law.

[Hobarticus]

94. It's a deeply and dangerously flawed law, in any case...

I agree, I shouldn't be able to run over and defend my neighbor's TV with deadly force. This needs to be fixed, toot sweet.

[MADem]

125. Apparently there are other laws that provide cover for the guy.

Here's a blogger's take on the situation: http://lonestartimes.com/2007/12/03/joe-horn-and-justification/

Apparently there are other laws that he cites that allow you to protect your neighbor's property. And that Castle Doctrine obviates that "duty to retreat."

And as this guy notes, IF the guy was on his own property and they were menacing him (and they aren't here to dispute that) he's got justification.

Another view, from the LAT. I think it is more likely than not that the guy will walk, given the environment in Pasadena Tx--note the police captain's take:

"This is not an individual who stepped outside and gunned down two pedestrians on the sidewalk," said Pasadena Police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett. "In a situation where there is some uncertainty about which side of the law someone was on, the best thing to do is assemble all the information and present it to the grand jury."

Noting Texans' prevailing populist views on guns and self-defense, legal experts differ over whether a jury of his peers would ever indict him. They also differ on whether one should, given a Texas law known as the "castle doctrine" which permits citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes and vehicles. A bag one of the dead men had been carrying contained a large amount of cash, apparently taken from the house, police said.

Tommy LaFon, a Houston lawyer and former prosecutor who has argued disputed shooting cases before grand juries, said that Horn's attorneys might be able to claim that he was acting as the de facto defender of his neighbor's property. "He's not drunk at a bar somewhere; he's a guy who intercedes in a situation next door," LaFon said. "If a jury believes he was standing in the shoes of the owner, that might affect their decision."

Police caution that although the 911 recording makes for provocative discussion, it fails to answer many questions they must try to answer: Was Horn on his property when he fired or had he ventured into the neighbor's yard? Were the suspects coming at him? Did he feel threatened?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-shoot25nov25,1,925907.story?coll=la-news-a_section

[Hobarticus]

160. Whether within the law or not...

I still think it's fucked up.

[MADem]

162. Understand that I do not disagree with you. I think a few things are fucked up, actually.

The fact that the police took well over five minutes to respond to a burglary in progress is the first fuckup (it speaks to why laws like this can pass in TX). The second fuckup is the series of overlapping laws that appear to give this guy a 'right' to shoot people. The third fuckup is those two guys, who are dead because they were mendacious, craven, and stupid THIEVES.

It's an unfortunate situation all around. It really is. I do have to say though, that burglary in a 'shoot to kill' state is a fucking idiotic move--I can't help but think the deceased are 'Darwin Award' candidates.

[Guaranteed]

188. Dude, you're wrong.

If you haven't listened to the tape, you need to listen to it.

If you have listened to the tape, and you've heard the man say "I'm going to kill them" over and over, and then go outside and do just that- no, there was NO fear- then you simply have no sense at all of justice.

[DBoon]

46. What are you? Some kind of "liberal"?

:sarcasm:

[Tyler Durden]

58. Yeah. Guess so. Seems a little RARE on this thread though. n/t

[MADem]

164. That's unhelpful. A discussion of the existing law does not necessarily indicate SUPPORT for that

same law.

The challenge here is determining if a grand jury will find this guy acted within the law. And that will be determined by testimony--his, the officers on the scene, the coroner, etc.

And it could also come down to nullification. But we'll just have to wait and see.

[Quantess]

182. Many people are frustrated with the criminal justice system.

The criminals guilty of burglary (and ID theft) get let out of jail quickly, and tend to be repeat offenders. It's a revolving door.

I'm not saying that justifies vigilante justice, but it does offer an explanation as to why this Joe Horn guy is revered by some.

[Orsino]

115. Perhaps less than the audacity of acting as judge, jury and executioner.

I'm not without sympathy for the nearly-burglarized neighbor or for the killer, but by definition we can only hear their side of the story now. What actually happened that should carry the death penalty? What was the killer afraid would have happened that should have carried the death penalty?

[formercia]

6. The last 2 guys that tried to break into my apartment

when I was home had a AR-15 stuck in their face. They got the message in no time.

[slackmaster]

7. And you didn't even have to shoot them

So according the the Body Count Fallacy crowd, you didn't actually use the rifle.

[MilesColtrane]

9. Either that or they're buried under his apartment. n/t

[formercia]

12. It would have been no problem

The local sheriff made it known that once they step inside your door, they're fair game.

[Tyler Durden]

19. Then shame on you.

You aren't the kind of RESPONSIBLE gun owner the rest of us are trying to make ourselves out to be.

This is the kind of shit that makes it hard for Democrats to get elected.

[Tejas]

133. so...you're saying Quanell has a point? n/t

[formercia]

176. No, I think he was wrong

Mine was a totally different situation. The perps were breaking into my apartment with me inside. I had seconds to react. If I had waited until the police arrived, it could have been a very dangerous situation. I had no idea if they were armed.

[Paladin]

169. I Guess It Just Can Never Be Pointed Out Enough.

Just in case it got past you: the two burglars didn't step inside Joe Horn's door. There is no compelling evidence that Joe Horn was ever in any personal danger. The phone tapes make it clear that he wanted to shoot the two individuals, that he was ordered not to, and that he shot and killed them anyway. Righteous self defence didn't have anything to do with this rank act of vigilantism---but by the time his lawyers and the Guns Are Life crowd gets through with things, they'll probably name a Pasadena high school after him.....

[formercia]

10. Why shoot them?

When they can spend the rest of their life telling their maggot friends how I made them shit their pants.

[Alexander]

28. But by pointing his AR-15 at them, he was clearly prepared to shoot them.

Responsible gun owners know you don't threaten someone with a gun unless you are prepared to use it.

[slackmaster]

32. Yes, and rest assured I would respond in the same way if someone broke into my house

I'd be prepared to shoot if that became necessary.

[Tyler Durden]

62. If necessary, then it's your karma. Horn was hunting men.

"I've got a shotgun. You want me to go get 'em?"

He had a choice; he could have stayed inside. They come to HIS window, then he can justify his manhunt.

[slackmaster]

69. Tyler Durden, based on the information I have seen and heard I agree with you on this one

I find the case interesting and will be following it to see what the local justice system does.

[Tyler Durden]

76. One of the reasons I left Texas.

No offense to any Texans here, but the nightly gunfire, and choppers circling the city with high powered spotlights were too much for me and my family.

The only person killed in Owosso (pop 20,000) in the last 2 years was killed in a fire. There haven't even been any traffic fatalities in the city limits.

Texas LOVES the shootout. This guy will get off, just like the guy who shot the repo man in the back from 100 yards.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

68. You can be prepared to use it yet not use it if the perp backs

down... That *is* responsible..

[Tyler Durden]

72. Now that works. n/t

[formercia]

96. Which is exactly what happened.

They both put their hands up and gave some worthless excuse about being at the wrong apartment.

The fact that they were using a credit card to jimmy the door lock didn't fly with me but I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Opening fire with an assault rifle in an apartment complex is not a very bright thing to do.

[-..__...]

25. Sounds like the racists here are Quanell and his followers.

Quanell X, who said he is not certain the shooting was racially motivated, said he "wouldn't be surprised" after Sunday afternoon's events.

[bigworld]

31. I agree

I'm sure Mr Horn would have shot them if they were white punks as well. By turning this into a racist incident, Quanell X cheapens the horror of real racism, and equates people of color with criminality.

[Tyler Durden]

34. You've never been in Pasedena Texas EITHER, have you?

Just slightly to the left of VIDOR but not much. I didn't go there unless I had to, and I'm WHITE.

[Tejas]

143. I've been to both places in the last month, tell me everything I missed.

[Tyler Durden]

33. Ever been to Pasedena Texas?

Right.

Two dark Hispanics get shot by a White vigilante. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of this.

[bigworld]

49. Two thugs were shot by a guy. Period.

My friend, I don't case if the shooter was black, or white, fascist, socialist, whatever. And I don't care what color the criminals were. By taking sides because of race, we're ignoring the facts here. These guys were witnessed burglarizing a neighbor's house. The shooter called 911. The guys were coming over to (allegedly rob) the shooter's house.

This Horn guy may be a racist rat, Pasadena might be a rightwing hellhole, but that doesn't enter into the equation. We can't take the criminals' side simply because they are black. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend.

[Hobarticus]

53. (allegedly rob) = justified killing? Wow...

Couldn't have pointed out the absurdity of it any better.

May you not be (actually killed) when someone thinks you're (allegedly robbing) them.

[Tyler Durden]

55. Hope you don't get shot by some Passive/Agressive neighbor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

"I've got a shotgun. You want me to get 'em?"

[Vattel]

77. so why are you

taking the side of Horn who is most probably also a criminal

[Vattel]

108. I take it back

it look's like the texans have legalized murder

[Xenotime]

158. Maybe it is an issue of race after all....maybe.

[MADem]

165. What does "Pasedena" have to do with this? Everyone there is a racist?

That is a broad brush; hardly a 'progressive' assumption to make. Racial bias might be something for the grand jury to explore, but not here without knowledge of this fellow's attitudes or a clear sense of the visuals on this matter.

This situation could have happened anywhere in TX--we are talking about a STATEWIDE set of laws that serve as a putative umbrella to shield this shooter.

You'd think two swarthy fellows bent on burglary in a shoot-to-kill state, if "Pasadena TX" was such a scary place, would go to a location where the pickings were a bit less fearsome.

I'll wait for the Grand Jury. There's just not enough information. I don't especially LIKE the laws that permit this sort of thing, but I'm not a TX resident either, so it isn't up to me.

[Vattel]

56. how is that racist?

he said he wasn't sure, but that after being subjected to racial slurs, it wouldn't surprise him if it had been. Sounds reasonable to me.

Horn is probably going to be charged. Telling the police that he would shoot them and then doing so even after they were outside the house makes any defense justification a stretch.

I hope that if he did deliberately go out to shoot them, he does time.

[Xithras]

184. No question about it. Quanell X IS a racist.

He was kicked out of the Nation of Islam for publically advocating that blacks should all go mug "some good white folks". He's a black nationalist who preaches racial seperatism. Huey Long of the original Black Panther Party even sued his NBPP to try and stop them from using the Black Panther name, because these guys are so over the top stupid. If you really want to get sick, read their positions on the "Jew problem".

[5446]

36. Uhm...

I'm supposed to be upset that two criminals got shot while committing a crime?

Sorry, but no. I'm all for it.

As for the wild west? I'm pretty sure its a civilized society, where one man doesn't need to go abouts invading another man's home to steal his possessions. Oh, the gun? Nah, in the wild west they would've hung 'im, not shot him.

"Burglary is a risky business." <- Indeed.

[Tyler Durden]

47. Shame on you, too.

Don't dare talk about "rule of law" and Impeachment then.

And by the way, welcome to DU.

[Hobarticus]

51. Judge not, lest you be judged....and pumped full of lead in the street

May you never get caught in crossfire between your neighbors.

[bigworld]

54. welcome to DU

... sometimes in amongst these posts it is the wild west, so speak your mind, and hold on tight. :)

[Guaranteed]

189. You're a goddamned moron.

Never, ever serve on a jury. Please.

[guruoo]

48. Horn to 911: "Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking, and I’m going.”

IMHO, bet this guy was a passive-agressive type that for years had fanticized about the day he'd
finally be able to 'show everyone'.

Guess he showed them all right.


Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars

By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 3:45am GMT 03/12/2007

...

His claim that he shot the pair because he feared for his life appears at odds with
his 911 call just before he opened fire, in which he appears determined to confront the men.

...

Mr Horn saw Miguel Antontio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz getting into a neighbour’s house at around
2pm on November 14. According to his lawyer, he grabbed a 12-bore shotgun and called the police.
He spoke to a police dispatcher for several minutes during which Mr Horn insisted he wouldn’t
let the intruders get away. The dispatcher repeatedly told him to stay inside as officers were
on their way.

When the burglars crawled back out of the neighbour’s window carrying a bag, Mr Horn told the
dispatcher: “Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking, and I’m going.”

A few seconds later, he could be heard warning them not to move and then came the sound of three
gunshots.

After the shooting, Mr Horn re-dialed 911. “I had no choice,” he said, his voice shaking.
“Get somebody over here quick.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/30/wtexas130.xml

[Tyler Durden]

60. Why anyone can defend this man after hearing the tape is completely beyond me. n/t

[Vattel]

66. b/c burglary justifies murder

apparently

[qanda]

83. That's what I'm saying

Even our government isn't cruel enough to kill someone for stealing. I was once a victim of a home invasion, luckily my sister woke up and pepper-sprayed the guy as he was coming through the door or who knows what would have happened. I didn't know what to think when I first heard this story. The victim in me was saying, "No better for them!" Then I heard that tape and I just couldn't believe that anyone was that eager to go out and kill someone for something that wasn't even theirs. Things can be replaced and people can be rehabilitated but Mr. Horn made himself out to be God and decided that those men deserved to die for their crime. What a sad world we live in!

[Tejas]

97. So, an audio tape ALONE can get you lynched around here? n/t

"60. Why anyone can defend this man after hearing the tape is completely beyond me. n/t"

There just might be other evidence, pro and/or con. Hopefully the Grand Jury isn't full of a bunch of knee-jerkers.

[Tyler Durden]

102. Hope the grand jury follows the LAW.

This quote is from the author of the Texas Castle Doctrine Law:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main ...

"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."

The moment he left his house with the shotgun, since they had not entered his house, he was in violation of the law.

He didn't want to let them get away, and that is where he broke the law: he was not legally allowed to do so.

[Tejas]

103. already disproved that as false (with Texas Law), yet you cling to it as truth

[Vattel]

104. well it's always possible

he was joking when he said told the dispatcher he was going to go shoot them. But how likely is that? In all probability he is a murderer (although I don't know texas law well enough to know for sure of murder of this sort is criminal in texas.

[Tejas]

109. I understand, but

not knowing Texas Law and still insisting it's murder is most of the problem in this thread. I really don't believe there are many in this thread that would make it past the first cull in a jury pool.

As far as "joking", no, I agree, he was in a serious mood. But some here would base their decision to convict purely on that tape audio tape, that no other evidence (and there will be plenty) is even worth presenting.

[Vattel]

129. misunderstanding

I wrongly assumed that you would be aware that the word "murder" has a non-legal sense as well as a legal sense. Obviously I am using the term in a non-legal, moral sense when I worry that murders of the sort apparently committed by Horn are not criminal in Texas.

[Tejas]

138. I see what you mean but

I can easily (as others would) take "murders of the sort apparently committed by Horn" to mean that you believe Horn commited murder in a legal sense.

Quanell as well as others in his charade, er, parade...um...protest march are calling for justice to be served. To do so would mean sorting the evidence out, that which some here seem to think is not necessary.

Sorry if I took any of your "murder of this sort" statement literally.

[Vattel]

144. fair enough

having now examined the texas law on this, it looks like it will come down to a judgment of whether horn was reasonable in believing it was necessary to shoot the burglars to prevent the loss of property. No teling where a grand jury or a jury will come down on that.

[Tejas]

145. looking forward to more evidence...

because evidence matters. The location of the perps when shot are still a mystery. If they were indeed advancing into Horn's yard, a lot of what-ifs will immediately go out the window.


Might not make a difference to Quanell but I won't lose sleep over that fact.

[guruoo]

98. I've seen it before...

Shooter always wanted to be the big hero.

Now it's -Real blood. Real agony. Really dead.
And, 'I did it'.



Not exactly like the 'cold dead hands'
people promised it would be, is it Joe?

I'll wager that, whether in jail or free, this shooter
won't make it through the first year.

[Guaranteed]

190. You can't. nt

[bigworld]

74. Here's the 911 transcript, FYI

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

[Tyler Durden]

95. When Horn decided to leave his house with a shotgun, he was in violation of the law.

This quote is from the author of the Texas Law:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main...

"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."

The moment he left his house with the shotgun, since they had not entered his house, he was in violation of the law.

He didn't want to let them get away, and that is where he broke the law: he was not legally allowed to do so.

[Tejas]

99. That is absolutely false.

"But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, <dramatic irrelavent BS snipped>"

According to the Texas Penal Code, it's version of "Castle Doctrine" does indeed include wording that sanctions protecting a neighbor's property, up to and including using deadly force.

Imagine that, a legislator that doesn't even know what a law that he sponsored includes.


Color me surprised. :eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

105. Enjoy the Wild West sporto.

Visit Texas, but bring your bullet proof vest.

Keep on defending this guy. You're beginning to look like a troll though. I have no problem with seeing him go to a grand jury, even though I can figure out they will no-bill this guy right away.

I just won't defend the actions of a vigilante, and shame on you for doing so. This is not the action of a nation of LAWS.

[Tejas]

117. ah, the name-calling begins

"Keep on defending this guy."

I've defended the idea of using any and all evidence in the courts, that's how it works in this country...though some would just prefer to cry "MURDERER, HANG HIM!" until everybody believes it's true.


"This is not the action of a nation of LAWS."

Neither is "guilty until proven innocent".

(Quanell would do well to remind himself of this fact)

[Tyler Durden]

123. Well then what do you call it?

In Michigan, Horn would at least have been arrested and arraigned. It seems you like the shoot 'em up version. Nobody wants a lynching; it appears to most of the rest of the country that's what's already happened.

But you just keep on with what you're doing. When it looks like you can hunt people if you think you're justified, I don't think your tourism will be going up soon.

[guruoo]

113. Texas law: § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY.

According to Owen Courrèges @ the Lone Star Times:

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b)

§ 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)

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/12/03/joe-horn-and-justification/

[Lance_Boyle]

178. dear god durden, have you not read ONE of the replies above

that say there are laws on the books OTHER THAN the castle doctrine law you keep trotting out that come into play here? It gets tiresome to try to argue a point with someone who just shouts the same incorrect information back in your face over and over again. YOU ARE RIGHT that the castle doctrine law alone does not absolve Joe of responsibility. Now can you PLEASE accept that the castle doctrine law is NOT the be-all and end-all of this case, and that shouting about that law repeatedly as if no others exist is not moving this discussion along in any productive way?

[RantinRavin]

100. Texas Penal Code Title 2, Chapter 9, Sec 42:

Under the Texas Penal Code Title 2, Chapter 9, Sec 42:

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.

[Tyler Durden]

107. Yeah, can see where this will get stretched to allow big bad Horn...

...to go kill two guys to protect his neighbor's stolen TV or whatever else they stole.

[Tejas]

119. This is a free country

You are more than welcome to move back to Texas and work towards changing any state law that you deem unfit. Until then, the state law is what it is and we all live with it...including laws on evidence being required to convict someone for a crime.

[Xenotime]

101. quanell x and the new black panther party confronted by joe horn supporters

Source: Blog

Site went down while trying to add excerpt.

Read more: http://www.blogsofwar.com/2007/12/03/video-quanell-x-and-the-new-black-panther-party-confronted-by-joe-horn-supporters/

---

Google video wouldn't post to Videos section. Link. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2030703163732885998

[guruoo]

148. Absolutely sickening

I would like to know whom was really was behind this 'counter protest'.

BTW: IMHO, this quanell x guy must be a real piece of work.
If it wasn't a racial issue before, it sure will be now

[GETPLANING]

106. Quanell X is a pain in the ass

I live in Houston and have watched "Quanell's" antics for years. If a black man had shot two white burglars coming out of his neighbor's house, "Quanell" would be leading a protest defending him. He is a bigger racist than the racists he claims to be against.

[Catherine Vincent]

154. Wrong.

That black man would be in jail.

[Tejas]

155. who? Quanell?

Where is GETPLANING "wrong"?

[Xenotime]

157. Wikipedia link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanell_X

[Tejas]

173. thanks, but not what I asked. ;)

[ackerrj]

111. Colorado's "Make My Day" law.

I find this evidence of why main stream Americans are disenchanted with Liberal Democrats.

In Colorado, if someone breaks into your home, you have a right to kill them.

Its called the "Make my day" law, after Clint Eastwood...

I am a liberal in this part of the world, and I agree with it.

If you don't want to be shot, simply do not break into others property.

In Colorado, someone defending their own property from a break in is usually not charged in these cases.

As to neighbors defending my property, I would welcome it.

If the economy ever breaks down, your defense will be your neighbors. That is one reason why humans clustered into settlements, for mutual defense against predators, human and otherwise.

If someone breaks into your home it is not necessarily a property crime. See the examples cited below.

There are societies where the economy has broken down. If you want first hand accounts of that, say Argentina, look here:

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readreplies.aspx?subjectid=54034&nonstock=False&msgid=24081190

or here:

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readreplies.aspx?msgid=24081216&nonstock=False&subjectid=54034

There are simply not enough police to defend everyone.

[LostinVA]

116. oh brother

[Tyler Durden]

128. That's us: the amusement park called "Dirty Harry Land."

I'm just going to keep buying veggies and ammo because some damned fool is sure as hell going to try and take me out because he feels the law allows him to.

[guruoo]

137. It's a real mess, isn't it?

'Why did I shoot them? Because I can, that's why.'

[Vattel]

135. I would like to reply

but there's a wolf at my neighbor's door and, having clustered together with my neighbors in a human suburban community, I feel it is my function to go kill it.

[Tejas]

140. don't get emotional, Quanell will have PETA all over you! :)

[Vattel]

149. I called PETA

and they told me to stay in the house, that my neighbor wasn't worth shooting a wolf over.
Sorry, I'm tired.

[lakercub]

139. I am also from Colorado and agree with you

I don't own a gun and hopefully never will. But my house was broken into on Halloween night 4 weeks ago. My wife, my kids, and I were all home, and my wife was the only one not in bed. She heard noise on the stairs, thought it might be the heater, but pushed the door open to check. As she pushed the door open, the intruder pushed back and freaked her out. She screamed and, thankfully, the perp ran away. The cops got here in 4 minutes which was great, but since then we have been installing security lights, little door alarms, new locks, garage door scramblers (thats where he/they got in), etc. We don't feel as safe as we used to in our own house. It doesn't help that we have no idea what the motive was as nothing was stolen. It was probably a Halloween night prank, but we will never know.

If I had owned a gun, and had caught them, they would be dead. I wouldn't feel the least sorry for it either. The feeling of invasion since that night has been horrible. My wife is scared in her own house which just disgusts me. Breaking and entering is risky, and if one is stupid enough to do it, then, even if its just robbery, that person has every reason to expect the worst. Not many things deserve to get a person shot, but breaking into homes and violating the owners sense of privacy and putting the owner in fear for the well-being of his/her family is definitely one of them.

If a neighbor had had a gun and put a stop to my break-in, I'd have been ok with that too. Who knows whether it's burglary or something worse that's happening. I don't typically support vigilantism, but if I see someone breaking into a neighbor's house, I feel almost duty-bound to do something to stop what is happening. Even with a 4 minute response time like we had, a lot can happen in 4 minutes. If the break-in has violent intentions I'll feel a lot worse that I did nothing to help my neighbor than I would if I broke the law to help.

This case has a bunch of aspects. If the shooter saw them actually leaving the property, there is no reason to confront them, as they are on the way out. Let the 911 call do its thing. But if he sees them breaking in, how does he know what their intentions are? As far as I'm concerned he is justified if he wants to try and stop it. From the tape, though, the gun owner seems like a loon and just decided someone needed killin'. I have no use for that either. But protecting yourself, and your neighbors, is laudable.

To me the timing in this case is everything. It appears as though he took action AFTER they were leaving the neighbor's house, which means he should never have gone outside to confront them. At most he should just have yelled at them from inside his house to get the hell out of his neighborhood. If they then try to break into his house, then, by all means, open fire. But not until then.

[raccoon]

180. Oh, nice. " but if I see someone breaking into a neighbor's house, I feel almost duty-bound to do

something."

Suppose it turns out this was a friend or relative of the owner who had the owner's permission to enter the house, but they forgot their key or the owner forgot to put one somewhere for them?

Too damn bad if they've already been shot dead by some trigger-happy neighbor.

[struggle4progress]

170. I'm guessing that, unlike me, you've lawfully never broken into a house.

The place had been sold as a rehab, after having been occupied by squatters for a period, and all the doors were locked. The new owner asked me and a friend to get into the place without doing too much damage. After a bit of work in the back, we got a window open enough to crawl through and unlocked all the doors.

Given enough time and patience on the part of any authority who thought we were doing something illegal, we could have proved that we were not working some mischief. But an excited vigilante might have been an entirely different story.

[raccoon]

179. Is your profile disabled? nt

[Quantess]

183. I happen to agree with you, mostly.

But I'm not sure I want to emulate Dirty Harry.
Welcome to DU!

[THUNDER HANDS]

118. if he only had a taser

[pegleg]

126. Lesson: Don't burgle. They shot themselves

[guruoo]

130. Timing of the shots makes one wonder if last was a 'coup de grâce'

He fires twice, rapidly, then after six seconds passes he fires again.

07:01 mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

He then tells 911 that one was 'in the yard over there',
and the other 'ran down the street'

To say the least, this doesn't look good for Mr. Horn.

on edit: Err, ahh, corrected ze grammaire.

[NorthernSpy]

136. ooh, you should try the coup de foie gras...

... it's even better!


:9


Of course, you meant to write coup de grâce. ("Coup de gras" would mean "strike of fat". Applicable to Sumo wrestling, perhaps?)

[guruoo]

142. I was tempted to just leave it as is..

but yaa know.
Well, looks like it's off to the store!

[NorthernSpy]

132. I think someone pays Quanell X to do this stuff...

You notice how he always shows up at just the right moment to turn someone else's legitimate efforts into a flaming trainwreck?


I don't trust him. I think he's an agent provocateur, and I think he's on someone's payroll. (You read it here first!)



:tinfoilhat:

[Tejas]

134. No longer a member of the Nation of Islam, is he.

There's a reason for that, but his fellow protesters don't seem to care.

[bluestateguy]

141. The New Black Panthers are troublemakers

They are not associated with the real Panthers of the 1960's and 70's.

These clowns also showed up at Duke last year to demand "confessions" of the lacrosse players falsely accused of rape by a deranged young woman.

In any event, the DA is welcome to try and charge Joe Horn, but I don't see a Texas jury convicting him.

[Mountainman]

151. "showed up ..... to demand "confessions" of the lacrosse players"

That sounds like a lot of fellow DUers last year too.

[bluestateguy]

153. Oh yes

And we have a stubborn few who are obviously still very bitter about the outcome of the case and refuse to admit that Matt Nifong, Duke University and the "victim" did anything wrong.

[Catherine Vincent]

152. Joe Horn is in seclusion.

Too late. Next time keep your trigger happy arse in the house!

[BadGimp]

156. seems clear to me

From reading the published transcripts it seems clear that Horn ignored repeated instructions from the 9/11 dispatcher and seemed predetermined to confront and shoot the intruders. He telegraphed his intentions to the dispatcher well in advance and was warned not to intervene.

He also is guilty of putting himself in danger when he clearly did not have to since neither he nor his property were being threatened.

I say he needs to be charged with some form of murder.

[tidy_bowl]

161. It's real simple here.....

.....I haven't the time, the inclination or the need to set down with someone breaking into my house to ascertain whether or not they wish me bodily harm, I just assume the worst. You don't like it? Then don't come into my house.

I am just so glad their are so many here that can supposedly read minds, I know I can't.

[LostinVA]

177. Nobody broke into Horn's house

If they had, then he would have had a legal right to shoot them. He was NEVER in harm's way.

[Paladin]

186. Better Plan On Repeating That, Like I've Had To

Somehow, a number of the Joe Horn supporters can't---or won't---grasp the fact that the burglars did not enter his home, giving him something remotely close to a self defense justification. It was a vigilante action, pure and simple; but he may end up avoiding punishment. Hell, the NRA is probably warming up a chair for him at their next convention.....

[Paladin]

167. You Know, I've Never Been A Great Admirer Of Quanell X.

But I have to say that in this instance, he comes off looking like Atticus Finch, when compared to the predictable bunch of mouth-breathers who showed up to back the actions of this crazed old vigilante. Those of you who think that what Horn did is just hunky-dory, really ought to consider the kind of fucked company you're keeping......

[Pavulon]

168. Lesser of two weevils

shooting burglars instead of just reporting is dumb. Creates lots of personal liability. But for the burglars it is a work hazard, like anyone in certain jobs, know your hazards. Severed fingers, burns, being squashed by a heavy piece of equipment are hazards I watch out for.

00buck or a 9mil round are hazard for people who steal shit. A pretty effective one I might add.

Now shooting them was not necessary, but I am not to disturbed by all of it.

Charge him with disorderly conduct and let it be.

[Paladin]

171. Why Not Just Give Him A Medal And A Blow Job? (n/t)

[Pavulon]

172. It is really hard to feel bad

for guys stealing shit in the middle of the day. If he broke statues charge him and watch a jury dismiss. They got shot, I presume they were aware that stealing is wrong, and people tend to react poorly when shit is stolen.

It was ethically wrong to shoot the assholes committing a felony but legal is another story.

[Guaranteed]

192. No, no "disorderly conduct." Because he committed 1st degree murder. Twice. nt

[Tejas]

174. As usual, you missed again by a country mile

Atticus Finch defended his client from the likes of Quanell X (ie: racists).


Sure hope nobody takes you seriously.

[Paladin]

185. And Yet You Took Me Seriously Enough....

...to post a response. How flattering.

Whatever his faults, Quanell X is on the right side of this tragic issue. If you want to hang with the redneck hordes who are calling up AM hate radio shows across the country, trying their best to get Joe Horn canonized, be my guest. Seriously.....

[Guaranteed]

191. Atticus. Seriously.

The mob is wrong.

[killbotfactory]

193. Anyone who defends Joe Horn is being a fucking idiot

Despite being warned not to, he put himself at risk, and wound up needlessly killing two people.

You do not want to live in a world that allows anyone with a gun to shoot down anyone they want to in the street and get away with it by claiming they thought they were thieves.

[gorbal]

194. Reminds me of when my brother got shot at

He was taking A short-cut with some friends and this old freekster started shooting at them. (the perceived low crime rate in rural Maine explained)

I wonder if this case would receive the same attention if he had only wounded them?