Texas man cleared of killing suspected burglars
A Texas grand jury has cleared a 62-year-old retiree who who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home last fall in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.
Joe Horn saw the men crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house and called 911. He told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with Horn not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men and shot both in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun as they fled.
The suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.
Civil rights activists organized protests, saying that the shootings were racially motivated and that Horn engaged in vigilante justice.
"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said after the grand jury declined to indict Horn. The Pasadena Citizen has the DA's statement.
The Houston Chronicle has the story, a photo gallery and audio of the 911 call Horn made.
____________________
when this happened last fall i was sure this guy was going to be guilty......
nice to to see the system works right from time to time......
Full Version: A win for hte good guys!
QUOTE (RangerM9 @ Jun 30 2008, 09:53 PM) 
Civil rights activists organized protests, saying that the shootings were racially motivated and that Horn engaged in vigilante justice.
In my opinion, when you do or attempt something that violates someone else's rights (attempting to break into someones home), you forfeit your rights in doing so. So screw those guys and their "rights". Not that they really had any, being here illegally and all.
Hello
This was REALLY the "litmus test" case for the Castle Doctrine in Texas. The different groups that oppose it (for whatever reasons) better shut up and take notes, 'cause it is laying down some new laws for armed property owners in this State. And the thugs that think they can do what they want are the ones it's aimed at.
Joe Horn got off because the crimigrant career criminals he harvested elected to park on the other side of his yard, prompting them to cross Joe's yard with their pillowcases of loot. He was therefore able to convince the Grand Jury that he or his property was also in jeopardy as they walked across his property.
That's all it took.
Thugs, take heed of this. If you are around the property of others with bad intentions, just remember where you are. This ain't some pussy state like California. This is Texas, and we'll shoot yer' ass!
YEE-HAW!!! JOE HORN for GOVERNOR!!!
Enthusiastically posted,
guido2 in Houston
This was REALLY the "litmus test" case for the Castle Doctrine in Texas. The different groups that oppose it (for whatever reasons) better shut up and take notes, 'cause it is laying down some new laws for armed property owners in this State. And the thugs that think they can do what they want are the ones it's aimed at.
Joe Horn got off because the crimigrant career criminals he harvested elected to park on the other side of his yard, prompting them to cross Joe's yard with their pillowcases of loot. He was therefore able to convince the Grand Jury that he or his property was also in jeopardy as they walked across his property.
That's all it took.
Thugs, take heed of this. If you are around the property of others with bad intentions, just remember where you are. This ain't some pussy state like California. This is Texas, and we'll shoot yer' ass!
YEE-HAW!!! JOE HORN for GOVERNOR!!!
Enthusiastically posted,
guido2 in Houston
Yeah!!
what Guido 2 said!!!
'cept I live in Ohio, we just got our castle law!
what Guido 2 said!!!
'cept I live in Ohio, we just got our castle law!
On another forum it was stated that the castle doctrine didn't actually apply in this case and that it was other penal codes that have been in place for a long time. He might have been legally justified but I don't think it was a good decision of his behalf, not for someone else's STUFF. Is there a detailed description available about what took place right before the shots were fired? I just don't understand how one could find himself having to shoot two people in the back. I know that one guy ran in his direction before changing course and getting shot. What about the other guy?
QUOTE (bigj480 @ Jul 1 2008, 12:02 AM)
On another forum it was stated that the castle doctrine didn't actually apply in this case and that it was other penal codes that have been in place for a long time. He might have been legally justified but I don't think it was a good decision of his behalf, not for someone else's STUFF. Is there a detailed description available about what took place right before the shots were fired? I just don't understand how one could find himself having to shoot two people in the back. I know that one guy ran in his direction before changing course and getting shot. What about the other guy?
Who the fuck cares? They committed how many felonies up to that point? Buckshot might cost $0.50 a shot, but how much taxpayer money did he save?
he should be glad he's in TX, over here he'd be in prison for life...FL is a stand your ground state, but shooting guys in the back who are unarmed?
Hello
Relevant data:
1) Castle Doctrine is absolutely what has Mr. Horn a free man today. He was not saddled with the burden of proving that his life was threatened and he had no recourse. He simply stated that he believed his property was at risk by the (quite obviously) criminals who were in his yard at the moment he first approached them.
2) The first of the trophy bucks was harvested when he stopped, turned to face Mr. Horn, started toward him, Mr. Horn racked a shell and shot him under his left arm as the crimigrant realized this guy wasn't playin' and had begun to turn back toward the street.
3) The second tropy buck was harvested with a single clean kill shot to the back, at a "loping trot" speed. Since he did not want to release his heavy bags of burgled loot, he was not able to gather a full head of steam.
Since there was no weapon displayed by the crimigrant thugs, and they were, in fact, on their way from Mr. Horn's neighbor's house to their car which was parked on the far side of Mr. Horn's property (fatal mistake on their part) without the Castle Doctrine Mr. Horn would be facing manslaughter at the least.
What is relevant here as well, is that we have the Supreme Court affirming our rights as Americans to have firearms to protect our safety and property, and we have well-reasoned Grand Juries such as this one, backed by rational state statutes, that provide protection from prosecution for someone exercising those rights.
Quanell the tenth, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, all the LULAC scumbags, those are the morons who are too busy running their mouths to open their eyes and ears and see what's taking place here. If thet really cared about their "constituents" (yeah, whatever....) they would be advising them that maybe the tables are beginning to turn, and the criminal may have to think twice about whether or not it really pays...
Here in Texas, they will likely be the last to figure it out, but they will be the most impacted.
Let the games begin.
Joe Horn needs a Saiga.
Respectfully posted,
guido2 in Houston
Relevant data:
1) Castle Doctrine is absolutely what has Mr. Horn a free man today. He was not saddled with the burden of proving that his life was threatened and he had no recourse. He simply stated that he believed his property was at risk by the (quite obviously) criminals who were in his yard at the moment he first approached them.
2) The first of the trophy bucks was harvested when he stopped, turned to face Mr. Horn, started toward him, Mr. Horn racked a shell and shot him under his left arm as the crimigrant realized this guy wasn't playin' and had begun to turn back toward the street.
3) The second tropy buck was harvested with a single clean kill shot to the back, at a "loping trot" speed. Since he did not want to release his heavy bags of burgled loot, he was not able to gather a full head of steam.
Since there was no weapon displayed by the crimigrant thugs, and they were, in fact, on their way from Mr. Horn's neighbor's house to their car which was parked on the far side of Mr. Horn's property (fatal mistake on their part) without the Castle Doctrine Mr. Horn would be facing manslaughter at the least.
What is relevant here as well, is that we have the Supreme Court affirming our rights as Americans to have firearms to protect our safety and property, and we have well-reasoned Grand Juries such as this one, backed by rational state statutes, that provide protection from prosecution for someone exercising those rights.
Quanell the tenth, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, all the LULAC scumbags, those are the morons who are too busy running their mouths to open their eyes and ears and see what's taking place here. If thet really cared about their "constituents" (yeah, whatever....) they would be advising them that maybe the tables are beginning to turn, and the criminal may have to think twice about whether or not it really pays...
Here in Texas, they will likely be the last to figure it out, but they will be the most impacted.
Let the games begin.
Joe Horn needs a Saiga.
Respectfully posted,
guido2 in Houston
I think one big point that is being swept under the rug is that these were ILLEGALS in this country.
One even had a prior cocaine conviction!
They should have NO rights in this country!
One even had a prior cocaine conviction!
They should have NO rights in this country!
QUOTE (Vultite @ Jul 1 2008, 03:11 AM)
he should be glad he's in TX, over here he'd be in prison for life...FL is a stand your ground state, but shooting guys in the back who are unarmed?
Can't think of a more perfect ending for a cowardly pos thief. With any luck they lingered a bit and had time to contemplate their lifetime of bad decisions.
Anything I or anyone else owns is more valuable than the life of the thief trying to steal it.
Castle Doctrine might have come into play, but I think with a sympathetic jury he would have been cleared on the old laws. And the guy crossing his yard really has nothing to do with it... I trimmed out the unessecary passages to make this more readable but if you want the full context go here:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/...0.000009.00.htm
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property: i.e. it is legal to kill somebody
§ 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:
Also note that it is a defensible act to shoot somebody for committing "criminal mischief during the nighttime" (AKA vandalism after dark), if you can convince the jury that otherwise stopping them (yelling out the door) would have put you in danger (they looked like they had a gun).
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/...0.000009.00.htm
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property: i.e. it is legal to kill somebody
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(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 i.e. to stop them from stealing shit
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(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.
i.e. if you think they may be armed and/or dangerous
§ 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;
Also note that it is a defensible act to shoot somebody for committing "criminal mischief during the nighttime" (AKA vandalism after dark), if you can convince the jury that otherwise stopping them (yelling out the door) would have put you in danger (they looked like they had a gun).
Hello
Well, Texas legal experts are hailing it as an affirmation of the Castle Doctrine. The beauty of it, is he was "No-Billed" by the Grand Jury.
No different than a LEO harvesting a thug in the line of duty. No charges ever filed. No defense really necessary.
Simply put, no question that any laws were violated.
A beautiful thing!
guido2 in Houston
Well, Texas legal experts are hailing it as an affirmation of the Castle Doctrine. The beauty of it, is he was "No-Billed" by the Grand Jury.
No different than a LEO harvesting a thug in the line of duty. No charges ever filed. No defense really necessary.
Simply put, no question that any laws were violated.
A beautiful thing!
guido2 in Houston
QUOTE (Fob Magi @ Jul 1 2008, 08:53 AM)
Castle Doctrine might have come into play, but I think with a sympathetic jury he would have been cleared on the old laws. And the guy crossing his yard really has nothing to do with it... I trimmed out the unessecary passages to make this more readable but if you want the full context go here:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/...0.000009.00.htm
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property: i.e. it is legal to kill somebody
§ 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:
Also note that it is a defensible act to shoot somebody for committing "criminal mischief during the nighttime" (AKA vandalism after dark), if you can convince the jury that otherwise stopping them (yelling out the door) would have put you in danger (they looked like they had a gun).
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/...0.000009.00.htm
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property: i.e. it is legal to kill somebody
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(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 i.e. to stop them from stealing shit
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(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.
i.e. if you think they may be armed and/or dangerous
§ 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;
Also note that it is a defensible act to shoot somebody for committing "criminal mischief during the nighttime" (AKA vandalism after dark), if you can convince the jury that otherwise stopping them (yelling out the door) would have put you in danger (they looked like they had a gun).
Thanks for the news RangerM9. This is just speculation, but Mr. Horn may have been no-billed due to a combination of the "castle doctrine" and pre-existing Texas law. For those who may be interested, here are some excerpts from the Texas Penal Code:
9.41(a): A person in lawful possession of land or tangible movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
9.42: 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)....; 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)....; 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.
Add to that the content of 9.32©: A person who has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
In any event, I think that it is generally best to use deadly force only when it is reasonably necessary to protect yourself or another from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; that is, if you are in fear for your life or the life of another. That way, you are well protected both criminally and civilly. Mr. Horn probably won't be facing a civil suit, since the criminals were illegals from Columbia. However, if they were U.S. citizens with surviving family members, he probably would be sued. Not only do you not want to go to prison, but you don't want to end up in the poorhouse due to a civil suit either.
Sorry about the redundancy, Fob Magi posted pretty much the same info while I was typing (too slow, I guess). Also, he correctly noted that 9.43 might have been relevant too.
9.41(a): A person in lawful possession of land or tangible movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
9.42: 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)....; 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)....; 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.
Add to that the content of 9.32©: A person who has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
In any event, I think that it is generally best to use deadly force only when it is reasonably necessary to protect yourself or another from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; that is, if you are in fear for your life or the life of another. That way, you are well protected both criminally and civilly. Mr. Horn probably won't be facing a civil suit, since the criminals were illegals from Columbia. However, if they were U.S. citizens with surviving family members, he probably would be sued. Not only do you not want to go to prison, but you don't want to end up in the poorhouse due to a civil suit either.
Sorry about the redundancy, Fob Magi posted pretty much the same info while I was typing (too slow, I guess). Also, he correctly noted that 9.43 might have been relevant too.
QUOTE (bigj480 @ Jun 30 2008, 11:02 PM)
On another forum it was stated that the castle doctrine didn't actually apply in this case and that it was other penal codes that have been in place for a long time. He might have been legally justified but I don't think it was a good decision of his behalf, not for someone else's STUFF. Is there a detailed description available about what took place right before the shots were fired? I just don't understand how one could find himself having to shoot two people in the back. I know that one guy ran in his direction before changing course and getting shot. What about the other guy?
Well, let me see. In Texas, your "stuff" can be a cow or a horse. It could even be a whole herd of cows or horses. This is some peoples livelihood ( and one reason the property protecion laws are on the books ). Shoot someone over an iPod or a television? Not me ( depends on how big the TV is, really
)QUOTE (Vultite @ Jul 1 2008, 02:11 AM)
he should be glad he's in TX, over here he'd be in prison for life...FL is a stand your ground state, but shooting guys in the back who are unarmed?
In Texas, it ain't about "armed or unarmed", it's about fear for your life. A 100lb woman can shoot a 300lb unarmed man (or an opposing woman of similar stature 
) dead, if she feels her life is in danger. Mr. Horn did not know they did not have a knife/gun/icepick/brass knucks/etc/etc in their pockets or bags ( they DID just burglarize a house, you know ) and he was making sure they weren't gonna be able to show him.
QUOTE (Twinsen @ Jul 1 2008, 02:00 AM)
QUOTE (bigj480 @ Jul 1 2008, 12:02 AM)
On another forum it was stated that the castle doctrine didn't actually apply in this case and that it was other penal codes that have been in place for a long time. He might have been legally justified but I don't think it was a good decision of his behalf, not for someone else's STUFF. Is there a detailed description available about what took place right before the shots were fired? I just don't understand how one could find himself having to shoot two people in the back. I know that one guy ran in his direction before changing course and getting shot. What about the other guy?
Who the fuck cares? They committed how many felonies up to that point? Buckshot might cost $0.50 a shot, but how much taxpayer money did he save?
Again, I agree with the verdict, I just don't think it was a smart decision. I would take action if someone's LIFE was in danger or MY stuff was being stolen, but I would not do it for someone else's stuff. Those two factors together minimize the justification for me risking my life. What he did was legal and I'm glad that he was acquitted, it makes me proud to live in a location where the tables are stacked against the criminals, instead of the other way around. I just would not make the same choice. Yeas, the guys were complete losers.
QUOTE (nalioth @ Jul 1 2008, 09:14 AM)
QUOTE (bigj480 @ Jun 30 2008, 11:02 PM)
On another forum it was stated that the castle doctrine didn't actually apply in this case and that it was other penal codes that have been in place for a long time. He might have been legally justified but I don't think it was a good decision of his behalf, not for someone else's STUFF. Is there a detailed description available about what took place right before the shots were fired? I just don't understand how one could find himself having to shoot two people in the back. I know that one guy ran in his direction before changing course and getting shot. What about the other guy?
Well, let me see. In Texas, your "stuff" can be a cow or a horse. It could even be a whole herd of cows or horses. This is some peoples livelihood ( and one reason the property protecion laws are on the books ). Shoot someone over an iPod or a television? Not me ( depends on how big the TV is, really
)I hear ya, and I agree. I wonder if the neighbors helped with the legal costs?
Oh yeah, FUCK Quanell X and everyone who protested!
fuck, i need to move to TX
This is the reason I live in Texas. If I see someone climbing out of my neighbor's house with an arm-full of stuff, I would not hesitate to confront them and I would expect my neighbors to do the same for me. If they hit the ground and stay spread-eagle until the cops arrive (probably a good 20+ minutes where I live), then they will live. If not, "Oh, well". They made their choice. If they are stupid enough to make a run for it, they are stupid enough to try and break into my house next time. There is no way I am giving them that opportunity.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.