"the men... were illegal aliens, and already suspected of belonging to a crime ring responsible for a number of prior burglaries."

If true, then Joe Horn did the country a favor by killing these invading parasites.

Okay,

Disclaimer: The person writing this is a concealed-carry licensed, multiple gun-owning, Texas Republican.

That being the case:
1) I still don't think that I would be likely to shoot two people from behind who were outside of either the house or the fenced (and nearly all rear yards in TX are fenced) yard.
2) Mr. Quanell X and the New Black Panthers WOULD be self-nominating for the Darwin Awards if they showed up on my lawn.
3) Hoooray for the hero officer who bravely ducked and covered while the situation unfolded. Any idea how he made any useful evaluation of the scene while he was sucking floor-mat?

As a Houstonian, I am well aware of this story. Horn did the proper thing. He is not a trained professional. He did not want to witness his neighbors getting robbed and stand by a do nothing. He instructed the criminals to freeze but one charged him thus making him unsure of the first ones motives. We need more neighbors like Horn. I wish he was my neighbor. Police do not respond to 911 calls period. They show up, but do not respond with urgency. I do see quite a few officers sitting on the side of the rode trying to catch speeders. After all, murder, rape and robbery are only second to the scourge of speeders. ww

You guys should read this for patterico, who has covered this in depth:
http://patterico.com/2007/12/04/pasadena-case-tests-texas-law-on-the-use-of-deadly-force/#comments

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

immediately after committing burglary It says nothing about the burglary needing to be committed at night only a theft needed to be committed at night. Emphasis was placed on the or, plus in (A) it mentions theft during nighttime specifically, just like (B).

Anyway, I don't claim to be an expert but this is what I picked up from Patterico's readers comments. If you are interested you really should check his site out. I think he has four different posts and numerous updates on Mr. Horn.

I, personally, have no problem with Mr. Horn's actions. Shot in back or not. They were criminals and refused to stop. Plus, Mr Horn had already ID them when he saw them enterin and leaving the neighbors house.

First: Where's the knuckleheads..Mitchell & Eric?? Morning to ya!

To the point: Joe Horn was wrong & a Grand Jury should indict him for murder because that's what it was. No property is worth killing someone over. The burglars weren't even in Joe Horn's yard! He was a maniac waiting to kill at any cost! Remember his words---I'm gonna kill'em!

I don't like guns. Guns kill people!

Mr. Horn did the right thing morally, legally, and culturally. Plus, he was smart because he killed both perps instead of wounding them. That's what my Dad always told me -- keep pulling the trigger and don't stop until they are really, really, REALLY dead.

This is a promising turn in our culture. As these gun protection laws are challenged and strengthened, more people will realize they must protect their own property and lives and they have the right to do so.

I see more dead criminals in the future. Cops won't get any faster, but citizens will.

Every family that values their life should have a two barrel shotgun (12 Ga) for each member of the family. When groups like the black panther terrorists show up a shotgun should be sticking out of every window in the neighborhood and people should not fear using them. Groups like the black panther terrorists are responsible for the death of a thousand or more Americans for every 1 (one) death that can be tied to the KKK since formed by the democrat party. Everyone knows this is true but are too chickensh** to say it out loud.

If you citizens can't get on board with the Nanny State being responsible for you protection, we need to find citizens that can.

Your individual preferences don't matter, it's not murder under the law there, as documented above. Killing criminals is ok, keep your personal morality off of our property. The police are near useless; individuals are and must always be allowed to protect themselves, or we will not have liberty and our documented rights will be useless.

It's funny how when conservatives want tougher laws against those who would harm us, liberals cry about police states and individual liberty. But when criminals harm people, they worry about the life and rights of the criminals. Their stance is always for their precious "underdog", the criminals.

justice: "The burglars weren't even in Joe Horn's yard!"

I guess the police report above is wrong then, "He saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbors before they crossed into Horn's front yard."

1. Horn said ahead of time that he would kill the men. Did this make it premeditated murder?

I will write about this one because this is the one that sticks out to me. I think that the premeditated murder thing is not relevant. The criminals are where we need to access this issue. They obviously went with the intent to burglarize. We as home owners then have a right to respond...even if seconds or moments later...we say we are going to kill the burglars.

Where I am a little concerned as he wasn't himself burglarized. I am trying to separate vigilante justice. Yes we all know when we are burglarized that nothing is going to be returned(sadly) and that we need insurance. But this doesn't change my thoughts just makes me want to be very sure in the facts before I make a comment.

As to those politicizing this...no more...no more justifying a behavior because of slavery or poverty or anything. I personally would have more respect for any grandstanding if they were trying to stop the behavior...kind of like Bill Cosby has been doing or LaShawn Barber.

First: Where's the knuckleheads..Mitchell & Eric?? Morning to ya!

Wow right out of the gate I get insulted by Justice58. She sure had a wonderful track record of predictions on the Duke Lacrosse Case with a batting average of about .000, and thought Mike Nifong was the greatest prosecutor who ever lived. To be insulted by someone with that level of judgement is a compliment indeed.

Based on the facts I have seen so far if I were on the Grand Jury, I believe I would vote to indict. I think there is sufficient evidence that a crime may have taken place. However, I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction at this point. I would be very interested in hearing direct testimony of the undercover policeman.

I don't think the fact that they were illegal aliens or suspects in a crime ring has any relevance to THIS case. The fact that they were shot in the back is relevant. If Mr. Horn claims that one of them charged at him after he told them to freeze, then how did he get shot in the back? This is where the testimony of the undercover policeman becomes crucial.

In my personal opinion, I think Mr. Horn was an idiot. He made the situation more dangerous. As stated the police officer hesitated because he was afraid he would be shot by Mr. Horn, which prevented him from acting. Mr. Horn ran the risk of getting himself killed. He went into the situation alone against at least two people. He didn't know if there was a lookout or wheel man to contend with as well.

Really, the smart thing would have been to do what he started out doing. Call the police and stay hunkered down inside his house in a more defensible position. It's not worth killing two people over some household stuff that is most likely insured anyway. If they had tried to enter his house though, then let the lead fly.

As full disclosure, I have been in a situation similar to Mr. Horn. When I was in college, my next door neighbor was being robbed, I called the police and went into Rambo mode with my .357 Magnum. I didn't catch the crooks but almost got my self shot by the police. Luckily, I just got off with a well deserved scolding by the police officer, the lesson of not to be so stupid again and of course my life.

First, this is not "vigilante" justice. The criminals were apprehended in the commission of their crime. Second, the U.S. Supreme COurt recognizes the right to use deadly force to stop fleeing felons. Third, I wouldn't be surprised to see the prosecutor attempt to prosecute Mr. Horn. Getting a conviction may be difficult.

First: Where's the knuckleheads..Mitchell & Eric?? Morning to ya!

Wow right out of the gate I get insulted by Justice58.

She sure had a wonderful track record of predictions on the Duke Lacrosse Case with a batting average of about .000, and thought Mike Nifong was the greatest prosecutor who ever lived. To be insulted by someone with that level of judgement is a compliment indeed.

Based on the facts I have seen so far if I were on the Grand Jury, I believe I would vote to indict. I think there is sufficient evidence that a crime may have taken place.

However, I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction at this point. I would be very interested in hearing direct testimony of the undercover policeman.

I don't think the fact that they were illegal aliens or suspects in a crime ring has any relevance to THIS case.

The fact that they were shot in the back is relevant. If Mr. Horn claims that one of them charged at him after he told them to freeze, then how did he get shot in the back?

This is where the testimony of the undercover policeman becomes crucial.

I think it also depends on the case law in Texas.

In my personal opinion, I think Mr. Horn was an idiot. He made the situation more dangerous. As stated the police officer hesitated because he was afraid he would be shot by Mr. Horn, which prevented him from acting. Mr. Horn ran the risk of getting himself killed. He went into the situation alone against at least two people. He didn't know if there was a lookout or wheel man to contend with as well.

Really, the smart thing would have been to do what he started out doing. Call the police and stay hunkered down inside his house in a more defensible position. It's not worth killing two people over some household stuff that is most likely insured anyway. If they had tried to enter his house though, then let the lead fly.

As full disclosure, I have been in a situation similar to Mr. Horn. When I was in college, my next door neighbor was being robbed, I called the police and went into Rambo mode with my .357 Magnum. I didn't catch the crooks but almost got my self shot by the police. Luckily, I just got off with a well deserved scolding by the police officer, the lesson of not to be so stupid again and of course my life.

I'm not convinced that Mr. Horn did the smart thing. He'll likely be idicted, but it's just as likely a jury will go light on him.

But I do think it speaks to the level of desperation and helplessness many of us feel because too often the police don't respond with any sense of urgency. We don't feel safe and we don't feel protected and we're tired of watching criminals go free waiting for the police and the justice system to work in our favor.

Even with that said, given the opportunity, I will happily donate to his defense. I'm glad he did it.

Sad that there are people out there too though like Mr. X. He said he was there protesting Mr. Horn's actions and not that of the burglars. But judging by Mr. X's long and storied past; convicted drug dealer, Nation of Islam member and now Black Panther member, I would call him a flat out liar. He has been quoted extensively making anti-semitic statements and telling black people they should wreak havoc on white neighborhoods and commit crimes against white people. I would guess with a high degree of certainty that he sees these dead asswipes as martyrs to his cause.

#14: People keep stating that both criminals were shot in the back. So far, no one in authority has agreed to this statement. The medical examiner even went so far as to say one was shot in the torso and neck.

This doesn't say he wasn't shot in the back, but also doesn't say he was. It is not a fact as of yet.
One newspaper, liberal leaning according to posters at Patterico, stated both were shot in the back and it went from there.
Maybe the were maybe they weren't, but if you read Texas law use of deadly force by the public is authorized in catching a burglary suspect.
Again I recommend the Patterico posts on this subject, specificly the first one when Texas law was quoted in full.

Horn was scared for his life, terrified in fact. The criminals ended up on his property. I think he did have the right to shoot. I hate that the criminals are the ones who are being made out to be the victims.

Eric and Justice58 -

Have you read the recently implemented Texas laws that Cstmbuild made reference to? Over at Patterico, the exact statutes have been posted.

9.41 authorizes force to protect one's own property. 9.42 authorizes deadly force for, among others, the exact scenario involving Horn and the two deceased (burglary, crime-in-progress, no police already involved and there is no nighttime requirement for burglary). 9.43 authorizes deadly force by a third party (such as a neighbor) when the property's owner would have been authorized to do so by 9.41 and 9.42.

Murder is defined as killing without legal authority or excuse. Manslaughter also requires a finding of unlawful killing.

Given the recently enacted Texas laws, what would you propose Horn be indicted for and on what basis?

Remember that time he hid a cell phone in the padding of the uprights and then pretended to make a call after he scored a touchdown? Now he shoots two people in the back? What a loveable scamp you are Joe Horn.

If the state forbids you from defending yours and your neighbors property, does that make the state then responsible for the protection thereof? And doesn't that make the state liable for the failure to protect said property?

If the government was brought to court every time the police failed to catch a robber or a murderer, how agressive would they be towards the Joe Horn's of the world?

Sorry for the double post. I hit submit and then lost all connection to Wizbang. So I typed it up again and hit submit, lo and behold both show up.

Jim2 if you will notice in the second post, I also included the disclaimer, that it all depends on the case law in Texas. Mine was a lay opinion based on what DJ wrote.

I'm not a prosecutor and I don't know what he has been charged with specifically and I don't know squat about Texas law, but it is in the hands of the grand jury. I believe the case has a lot of unanswered questions that a grand jury is not going to answer but should be answered given that two people are dead as a result. That is why I would probably vote to indict.

Oh and please don't confuse me with Justice58, that's just mean.

Eric -

No insult intended!

The very recent nature of the Texas laws may preclude previous case law precedents.

However, surely to indict, the GJ must be told by the DA what the DA thinks the crime would be. Given those statutes, it would seem murder and manslaughter must by definition be off the candidate list. To represent otherwise would seem to court electoral suicide by the DA.

Still, maybe the noise of the shotgun shots would allow disturbing the peace as a possibility?

#14: People keep stating that both criminals were shot in the back. So far, no one in authority has agreed to this statement. The medical examiner even went so far as to say one was shot in the torso and neck.
This doesn't say he wasn't shot in the back, but also doesn't say he was. It is not a fact as of yet.

"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb."

Gosh I'm sorry I got confused by the Police captain who said they had been shot in the back.

If you have an objection, tell it to him.

Answers:

1) (NO) because PRE-meditated means he HAD plan and INTENDED to implement it. If the men had stopped got on the ground, they would still be alive. They acted aggressive and Mr. Horn feared for his life.

2) (YES) See last sentence from above.

3) (PROBABLE) Also irrelevant, unless they got on scene and ACTED instead of Mr. Horn having to.

4) "but makes no statement about a mid-afternoon burglary." Unless stated prohibited, then nothing specific is violated.

5) Absolutely (NOT)

6) Absolutely (NOT)

7) (NO) There are more than just one "right" in the Constitution.

8) Again (NO) see #7 answer.

Overall my opinion is what Mr. Horn did was fine. The only thing he should have done better was NOT use the words "I'm going to KILL them".
But that's just a legal pain in the ass, he did the right thing.

Heck, I already KNOW if some dirtbag kicks in MY door, I'm gonna KILL em, the difference is I am NOT going to mention that in the police report. ((I feared for my life, told them to stop, they didn't I fired.)) Did I shoot to kill or wound? correct answer--
I shot to (STOP).

Allright there Eric! You love me & you know it!

Still, maybe the noise of the shotgun shots would allow disturbing the peace as a possibility?

LOL

The very recent nature of the Texas laws may preclude previous case law precedents.

Well unfortunately, that may be what drives it to indictment, since these laws may require judicial review where this sets the precedent.

The one possible hole in Horn's defense relies on the Texas definition of "burglary." In many states, it is defined as the "nighttime breaking of a dwelling house," setting forth the conditions for the charge. If it's daylight, or a business where no one lives, it can be breaking and entering, and/or a host of other charges, but not "burglary." I have no idea how the Texas statute on burglary reads, though - and even so, Horn might still be justified under other provisions of the quoted section (or the previous unquoted section).

In my state, even in obvious self-defense cases, the prosecutor often prefers charges of murder and then doesn't contest their dismissal with prejudice. This protects the citizen from later prosecution (under double jeopardy) and also provides some protection in the event of a civil suit. So the fact Horn may be charged doesn't necessarily mean he will be prosecuted seriously. It depends on the prosecutor.

I don't care about legality, morality, or any other -ity. Anyone who shoots someone in the back is a coward. Period.

Duke -

"Period."?

What if a shooter had just shot one of your daughters and - back to you - was shifting his aim to your other daughter?

No one has mentioned the Texas law that exonerates defendants if the victim "needed killin'" Some of our attorney friends from Texas probably have the exact wording of the statute.

jim2-
Nice straw man. You know what I mean, don't be such a brick.

The real moral of this story is that Texas should be declared an independent state with a fence built around it. George Bush could be "Pretend Cowboy For Life". Dick Cheyney can be his "Permanent Shoot em In The Face Shotgun Holder". And the rest of the wacko Texans can shoot each other all day and night, thus doing the rest of the world a favor.

Duke -

StrawPERSON! Mustn't be sexist. ;-)