Jay, excellent post. I agree with what Mr. Horn did. And to any person who doesn't like the results of Mr. Horn's action, too BAD.

Yesterday, Horn said he knows what a hero is and he is not one. It seems Horn is also humble. I do not know if anyone saw the circus the "leaders" of minorities created, but it was disgraceful. They were going to picket Horn's home, but volunteers from all over Houston crowded around his home and shouted down all protesters. It is crazy that you do something good and you get villified, but act badly you are embraced. God bless you Mr. Horn. ww

Now THIS is "neighborhood watch"! I should think knowing that a neighbor might take action would deter crime in that area.

'That is the case made by the thieves who threaten their victims. "Your money or your life." "Gimme or I'll hurt you." '

Exactly, Jay and with these words the criminal has established the "ground rules" so to speak. One would then be a fool to not to believe him. If your life is threatened how can one be blamed for acting accordingly to save one's own life.

Two more idiots out of service. They made the mistake of picking on a Marine.
http://www.local10.com/news/13585335/detail.html
"Police said Lovell, a retired Marine, wouldn't be charged."

The argument I have heard so many times when the subject of killing of criminals is "no material possession is worth more than a human life."...

That is the case made by the thieves who threaten their victims. "Your money or your life." "Gimme or I'll hurt you."

Exactly! The thief has decided that your possessions are more valuable than your life, so why can't you, as the owner of those possessions determine that they are more valuable than the thief's life?

In Texas there is no duty to retreat:

1. Within your own home.

2. On your own property after dark.

If someone enters your home (or your yard after dark), and threatens you, you have a right to respond. When his neighbor invited Horn to watch his property, he granted Horn that same right on the neighbor's property.

Horn was on property he had the right to defend when he shot, and according to a police witness, the two perps were approaching him.

In Texas that's a no-bill.

I'm glad I live in Texas.

'Nuff said.

Here in Maryland (where I live) Ronnie White once lived. He killed a Police Officer, Cpl. Findley, by dragging the Officer to death. While incarcerated, White suffered death.
Outrage ensued. You see, White was black and Findley was white.
What you will not hear is the reason for White's fatal injury. The reason is Abu-Jamal.
You see, Abu-Jamal is still alive, and the policeman he killed has been buried for 20 years.
Maryland had no need for a new Abu-Jamal.
There will now be a Federal investigation as to the loss of civil rights by White.
No investigation will ever be conducted concerning the civil rights of Cpl. Findley.

From Jeffrey Snyder's thoughtful essay A Nation of Cowards

OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual ...

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

I encourage everyone who has not read it to please read it.

The legal problem here, however, is tough: this is not a good self-defense case. If someone threatens you or an innocent third party with violence, you may, indeed, decide to defend yourself because that can be safest course of action if you are armed and properly trained.

If you threaten the criminal, assault them, injure them, or kill them, you are guilty of a criminal offense, but you are excused. If you attack someone who is robbing your neighbor without threatening violence to you or to another, you may be in a lot of trouble.

To expand on "duty to retreat." I am not a lawyer, so this is an educated layman's explanation.

In Texas "duty to retreat" exists in public spaces where both parties have a right to be. A good example would be a bar. A loud drunk comes up to you and starts bullying you. "Duty to retreat" kicks in. You have an obligation to attempt to avoid the confrontation. Get up and move away.

Your percentage move would be to get up, go over to the bartender (or bouncer, or other position of authority in the bar) and register your displeasure with being hassled. That individual has both the responsibility (and authority) to quell or remove the drunk.

If after you have attempted to avoid confrontation, the drunk persists in seeking a fight, you have discharged your duty to retreat, and right of self-defense kicks in.

Duty to retreat exists only if there is an opportunity to retreat. If the drunk comes over, and then, with no provocation and no warning, attempts to punch you, you have the right to block the punch, and to defend yourself to the extent required to ensure no other punches are thrown.

Why does a "duty to retreat" exist at all? Really, to reduce violence to minimums. Yeah, you should not have to back down from a pushy drunk, but that man's judgment is impaired by alcohol. The situation can be resolved without violence by going to someone in authority in the bar. So let's go that route instead.

Duty to retreat started as common sense, before the lawyer came along to muddy everything.

The duty to retreat is not absolute. I recently requalified for my permit to carry and 90% of the time was spent on how to keep from going to jail or being sued in civil court. The state I live in has the duty to retreat, but it's less broad than it sounds. If someone invades your home, you don't have to retreat if the invading party has a visible weapon, or if there are other members of the family that would be put at risk by the invading party if you were to retreat. The fact that your home was invaded meets the first requirement of the law, in that you are an unwilling participant. If an intruder has a visible weapon the second requirement is met in that you now can reasonably fear great bodily harm to yourself or others in the home. At that point you can use lethal force. The duty to retreat exists only until the two requirements are met. An intruder need not have a visible weapon to meet the second requirement, but you need to wait until they make their criminal intentions clear. Then any able bodied person may reasonably pose a threat sufficient to justify lethal force, but it's a harder sell in court.

In Horn's case he was an unwilling participant in that the burglars broke into a house he had been asked to watch. Mr. Horn took reasonable steps to protect that property by first calling 911. When the police did not show up in time to stop the crime Mr. Horn armed himself and, while on his own property, confronted the burglars as they exited his neighbor's house. When the burglars came at Mr. Horn in spite of the presence of the shotgun they reasonably presented a clear threat of great bodily harm as they must have been insane. Side note: Always tell the 911 operator that you fear for your life even if you don't feel that at the moment. However, never say you are going to kill someone. All this can be used in court, so give yourself the advantage.

Lesson to burglars: If confronted by someone with a shotgun put your hands up and do not approach them unless instructed to do so. If you don't what to surrender, put your hands up anyway and then turn your back to the shotgun and walk away. As you walk away, make up lies and tell the guy with the shotgun that you were hired to move stuff out of the house, or that you're an undercover cop, anything to raise doubt in the mind of the guy with the shotgun. If the guy with the shotgun follows after you, then walk toward cover while telling the guy your cover story. Once you can take cover you can now take out your own weapon and dispatch the fool. Lesson to the guy with the shotgun: If someone puts their hands up and turns and walks away from you, let them go. It's not your job to capture them, nor do you have the training nor the legal status of a police officer. You'll only get into trouble with the law or end up shot.

An important point to remember and a promenade subject in the training I took was that if you use deadly force you are likely to be sued in civil court by the relatives of the perpetrator even if you were justified in using deadly force. It costs nothing for such relatives, or the perpetrator themselves if they survived, to bring a law suite as there are many attorneys who will do the work for some large percentage of any money that may be awarded. On the other hand, you'll have to fork out many thousands of dollars to defend yourself and you may still lose everything in excess of what your state allows someone to keep under their bankruptcy laws. You better by certain your life (of a family member's life) is on the line before you take someone else's life. Mr. Horn may yet have to defend his actions in civil court.

Mac: "Mr. Horn may yet have to defend his actions in civil court."

He may not have to worry, Mac:

CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE (TEXAS)

CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

§ 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 4, eff. September 1,
2007.

Tom,

My first reaction on hearing about Ronnie White was "fine, good." Then I learned a bit more. Yes, Ronnie White was accused of dragging an officer to his death; he had not been convicted of doing so. Second, he was murdered (strangled) in his solitary jail cell, meaning that either he was strangled by a prison guard, or he was strangled by an inmate with the collusion of at least one prison guard.

Even if Ronnie White was guilty, that is unacceptable and the guard(s) must pay for their own crime, once it is determined who did the deed. I certainly don't think we want to live in a society where being accused of a crime means that you can be murdered with impunity by law enforcement officers.

-jeff

A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code

The question is, was the force justified under chapter 9? Apparently, the local prosecutor didn't think so or they would never have brought it before a grand jury. Unless there's case law that establishes that a grand jury indictment is required to negate the civil immunity law, then Mr. Horn may still find himself in civil court, first to establish civil immunity, and if that fails, then for each of the perpetrators to convince a jury he was fully justified in shooting them. That could be difficult in the case of the perpetrator who was fleeing him before he was shot.

Civil court is a lot different than criminal court and the burden of proof is much less. It's less about facts and more about emotions and the jury can grant awards on a continuum from nothing to huge amounts. It's far less certain and that's why lawyers work for nothing but a chunk of the potential prize.

"The argument I have heard so many times when the subject of killing of criminals is "no material possession is worth more than a human life.""

What exactly did these two thugs steal?
Well, apart from the material possessions they took from the neighbors house, they also:
-stole a bit of national security and soverignty from America. They illegally crossed our borders.
-stole a sense of security in the neighborhoods where they were committing their crimes.
-stole a part of our lawful society by thumbing their nose at our laws.

Those two scumbags were an invading foreign army who terrorized America with their crime sprees. Good riddance.

In actual practice Mac, this one will probably not last long in civil court. The climate means no one will take up this case because of the fallout - the Right does not want to pursue it, and the Left will worry about the difficulty getting a win (suing and losing sets a bad precedent in their minds, and as individuals trying to sue a grandfather and losing would be damaging to their image); few attorneys will want to try their reputation on this case.

The feds will be reluctant to pursue the 'Civil Rights' card in this case for similar reasons. As the decedents were illegal aliens with criminal records, there would be fallout even for the Justice Department if they tried to push this. Under Obama it could happen, but the timing is such that no, it won't happen this time.

I should also mention that there really was no attempt to "flee", as you suggested. The officer who witnessed the shooting testified that the two men advanced towards Mr. Horn after he challenged them, making it difficult to argue they were fleeing, even though they turned away once they realized Horn was going to shoot. A key component is the fact that Horn only shot each man once, demonstrating restraint which, along with the fact that Horn called 911 in the first place and all the other circumstances, makes this a weak case for any plaintiff.

Emotions work both ways. In this case, even with the lower standards it would be likely that Horn's attorney could make sure he got a jury sympathetic enough to prevent a judgment against Mr. Horn. Harris County is definitely not in the mood to enable thugs and illegal aliens, at least so far as the jury pool is concerned.

Many people have killed themselves in solitary jail cells. If it is a typical cell that the inmate is put in by himself then it is relatively easy to do so. If it an actual solitary confinement cell then it tends to be sparser and is more difficult to do. It can be done nevertheless. Some techniques make it look like a strangulation.

One irony I have seen is some who condemn Horn for doing the police job by protecting his neighbor's property also complain in instances when people don't. For example when someone is getting gang up on or someone gets hit by a car and people set around and watch. Bus driver gets attack and no one does anything about it. There have been videos a plenty showing this effect then commentators exclaiming why didn't someone do something. It is because they were taught not to. It is the police or emergency personnel responsibility.

I am amazed that there was any question about Horn's innocence. In looking at the facts of the case, he clearly had reason to fear for his life, as this was an almost entirely White neighorhood and the perps were either black or very dark skinned. The odds of two black criminals being unarmed are not worth taking, so shooting first was the right course of actions.

Many have pointed out that they were shot in the back. I say so what. Perhaps they were advancing towards Horn by backing up? I can walk backwards, I'll bet these animals could too.

Given that the vast majority of crimes in this country are comitted by blacks, race has to be a factor when you are dealing with a life-and-death situation. I would have shot them too.

"no material possession is worth more than a human life."" Has always been a lame argument. It is not the cost of the material possession but the cost to your rights and freedom. You have the rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. You have a right to possession. You have the right to privacy and to be secure in your home. When someone steals from you many of these freedom and rights are violated. Freedom and rights are not only worth dying for but also worth killing for.

It would be like saying "just let them rape you or if you see someone getting rape don't get involved. It is only sex and sex isn't worth getting violent over".

DJD,

I agree that the feds won't pursue a 'Civil Rights' case, which would be a criminal case, not a civil case.

Civil action against Mr. Horn has nothing to do with the left or the right. To bring a civil suite the plaintive must have standing, that is, they suffered damage due to the actions of Mr. Horn. That limits the field to the families of the persons killed and it's unlikely they give a rats ass about the political implications.

I should also mention that there really was no attempt to "flee", as you suggested.

Sorry, but being shot in the back is strong forensic evidence that the person was in fact fleeing and eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Mr. Horn may have been justified in shooting in self-defense, but only while the guy's were coming at him. The moment one of them showed him their back Mr. Horn lost that justification for that person. Even in Texas you can't shoot someone in the back and claim self-defense. It's a cowardly act and has long been regarded as such. Now if the police says the guy was doing back flips toward Mr. Horn then that's another matter.

The fact that police were close enough to witness the shooting may work against Mr. Horn in civil court. Police rushing to a crime in progress make their approach known by loud sirens and flashing lights that Mr. Horn could obviously hear, if not see. At that point there would be no justification for a civilian shooting someone fleeing any crime scene; force would not be justified under chapter 9 and Mr. Horn may be subject to civil action.

Personally, I think Mr. Horn did the world a favor, but I also think he was reckless and foolish. Mr. Horn had no way of knowing who the burgers were or if they were armed themselves. Even with a shotgun, the outcome against two armed opponents is not guaranteed. If they know what they are doing they will move apart and tell you BS to raise doubt, then try to distract you (is that your wife on the sidewalk?), then simultaneously draw and fire. If you are good and your adrenaline is not too high you may get one of them, but the other may get you.

No Mac, you are wrong on both counts. Because no crime has occured in the deaths of these mean, Chapter 83 will prevent civil action. It would take a perverse judge to rule otherwise, and while such judges exist, the political tone I mentioned will influence even such judges.

And being shot 'in the back' does not indicate flight, for the reasons I cited. The testimony of the witness, the fact that the men were on Horn's property when shot, and other salient data all factor in to the decision - a lawyer may try to argue that the men were fleeing (and only 1 was shot in the back, by the way), but the forensics in total do not support that contention.

And no, you are quite wrong about the 'police arriving'. The undercover officer was on the scene, but in an unmarked car and he made no effort to intervene (strange behavior, but there are reasons for that). There were no sirens or lights for several minutes after the shooting - in fact it's a matter of record that Horn called 911 again to ask for the police, because they had not arrived for some time after the shooting.

I have said all this before, so I am wondering if you are now ignoring direct evidence in order to make a subjective claim, one which was long ago disproven. If so, I must direct you to the fact - again - that the grand jury saw and heard ALL the evidence, from the forensics to the 911 tapes, to the testimony of the officer who witnessed the confrontation and shooting, to all the parties concerned, and despite the desire by some to pretend otherwise, this was a multi-racial, both-gender panel of jurists who took their time to reach a decision based on all the evidence. Assuming they got it wrong just because you do not like the verdict is not clear thinking, sir.

DJD,

No crime needs to be committed in order to bring a civil suite. The only requirement is that the actions of the plaintive were damaging to you. To win a judgement, however, means you have to prove your claim, but only by the preponderance of the evidence. Remember, OJ was acquitted of all crimes, yet lost in civil court.

The fact that one (and I believe I indicated that) perpetrator was shot in the back is indisputable. Unless the wintness is going to claim that the man was running backwards toward Mr. Horn, that means the perpetrator had at least started to flee when he was shot. No weasel word will change that FACT.

Ok, the police were not obviously present, but it's unlikely that helps Mr. Horn at least with the perpetrator he shot in the back. Was it an undercover officer or a plain clothes officer? If undercover than the officer may not have wanted to blow his cover. If plain clothes, then that officer will have to answer some questions about why he didn't intervene. The City itself could face a lawsuit under the theory that the perpetrators would still be alive had the plain clothes officer done their duty. It's unlikely the perpetrators would have charged someone identifying themselves as police and it's unlikely Mr. Horn would have felt he needed to defend himself if a police officer was on scene.

Apparently you don't understand that what a grand jury or even a trial jury sees, hears, or decides is generally irrelevant in a civil case. Once again consider the OJ case. As I said before, unless there's case law that establishes that a grand jury indictment is required to negate the civil immunity law, then Mr. Horn may still find himself in civil court.

My intent here is not to belittle what Mr. Horn did, but to show you that his actions were reckless and foolish and may yet cost him far more that the burglars would have gotten away with. For civilians deadly force is for defending your own life or the life of others. Anything other than that and you may find yourself on the wrong end of a civil lawsuit.

Mac, all you are doing here, is proving you cannot pass a bar exam.

DJD,

I didn't say I could, but it's clear from many examples, such as the OJ case, that even being acquitted in criminal proceeding doesn't immunizes a person from civil lawsuits. They are not considered the same court system and that's why the constitutional protection against double jeopardy doesn't come into play. What is done in one system is mostly irrelevant in the other (not the evidence, but the actions and findings). If you're making the opposite claim then it's you who are proving you cannot pass a bar exam.

Just because I have the time, Mac, I will once again correct your incorrect statements:

"No crime needs to be committed in order to bring a civil suite [sic]. The only requirement is that the actions of the plaintive were damaging to you."

Actually, the presiding judge is the first test for a civil case. He can throw your case out before opening statements. That's what I meant about the political climate - right now there is zero chance a Harris County judge will not nail a civil suit as 'frivolous'.

"The fact that one (and I believe I indicated that) perpetrator was shot in the back is indisputable."

You keep ignoring that the forensic conclusion comes from the totality of evidence, not just one aspect. That both men were shot on Horn's property and further the act was witnessed by a law officer who has already testified that they were advancing on him makes the location of the shots irrelevent even in the eyes of civil law. As I said, a plaintiff's lawyer may try to persuade a jury with that part of the evidence, but it would provoke an objection from the defense, one the judge would uphold.

" it's unlikely Mr. Horn would have felt he needed to defend himself if a police officer was on scene."

As I have made abundantly clear, Horn had no reason to believe any police were on scene or nearby. There is substantial evidence on that point.

"Apparently you don't understand that what a grand jury or even a trial jury sees, hears, or decides is generally irrelevant in a civil case."

That's just not true. Yes, a civil case is much different from a criminal case, in procedure, rules of evidence, and how a jury decides a verdict. However, you do not seem to understand the process for civil trials in Texas. There is almost no chance that a judge would allow such a case to even opn, given the political climate. But even if he did, Horn's lawyers would file for Summary Judgment on the basis of Chapter 83 even before a jury was seated, and on the evidence a judge would be extremely likely to grant just such a judgment. This is largely because there would be significant support for the case to be closed, and effectively no compelling reason to proceed. As you noted, damages must be shown, and it would be all but impossible for a plaintiff's attorney to convince the presiding judge that the known character and prior conduct of these men was not at the very least a major contributor to the circumstances in their deaths. The point is, what a jury might think is only relevant if a jury is asked to make the decision.

"Once again consider the OJ case."

A different set of conditions, in another state with a differing political climate. The starting point alone makes comparison absurd, as the victims in the Simpson case were demonstrably innocent and therefore suffered a fate they did not bring to pass.

Scowcroft, a former Air Force general and national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush disagrees with you.

He has stated that the next president should absolutely talk with leaders such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Snocroft is pretty smart. In 2002 he correctly predicted "Don't Attack Saddam...could turn the whole region into a cauldron and thus destroy the war on terrorism"

Do you also think Scowcroft ascribes to your ridiculus notion of "Duty to Retreat"?

Fascinating, how you are impressed with rank rather than reason, Dave.

Snocroft was wrong about Iraq. So are you.

Actually, the presiding judge is the first test for a civil case. He can throw your case out before opening statements. That's what I meant about the political climate - right now there is zero chance a Harris County judge will not nail a civil suit as 'frivolous'.

Assuming the judge is that political, the plaintive can then appeal to a higher court. The Harris County judge knows that and also knows that the next judge up the line may pay more attention to the law than to local politics. Judges hate being overruled on appeal because it demonstrates they aren't doing their job correctly, so even a Harris County judge is going to follow the law.

You keep ignoring that the forensic conclusion comes from the totality of evidence, not just one aspect. That both men were shot on Horn's property and further the act was witnessed by a law officer who has already testified that they were advancing on him makes the location of the shots irrelevent [sick] even in the eyes of civil law.

A good lawyer would easily tar apart such nonsense. Forensic evidence, such as the wound in the back is not a conclusion, it's a fact and it's not irrelevant. The first move anyone makes once they decide to flee is to turn around. One of the perpetrators did just that BEFORE Mr. Horn shot him and that's a fact as proven by the forensic evidence. It's the officer's testimony that's irrelevent unless he's going to claim the guy was running backwards toward Mr. Horn.

" it's unlikely Mr. Horn would have felt he needed to defend himself if a police officer was on scene."

As I have made abundantly clear, Horn had no reason to believe any police were on scene or nearby. There is substantial evidence on that point.

I see you missed the part about if a police officer were on the scene.

But even if he did, Horn's lawyers would file for Summary Judgment on the basis of Chapter 83 even before a jury was seated,

Yes, and then there would be a hearing on that point. Mr. Horn would then have to show that he met the conditions under the law for justified homicide. Tough to do when you shoot someone in the back on your lawn even with testimony that the guy was coming for your before he turned around and then you shot him. If Mr. Horn cannot demonstrate he met the conditions as specified in the law then the case would proceed. I'm not saying the plaintiffs would win, but Mr. Horn would have already spent several thousand dollars to defend himself.

A different set of conditions, in another state with a differing political climate. The starting point alone makes comparison absurd, as the victims in the Simpson case were demonstrably innocent and therefore suffered a fate they did not bring to pass.

You missed the point. The jury in the criminal trial acquitted OJ of the crime, but that finding was irrelevent to the bringing of a civil suit. The point is that the fact that Mr. Horn is not being criminally charged is irrelevent to bringing a civil suit.

That's my main thrust here. For civilians at least, deadly force should be reserved to protect your own life or the life of another person. You only needlessly put yourself in harms way when you go out and confront someone who's committing a property crime. Call 911 and let the cops deal with it. If you have a camera discreetly take photos of the perpetrators through a window. Police are trained, equipped, and authorized to deal with such people and their standard for using deadly force is much lower and their immunity from civil action much higher.