Despite pleadings of 911 operator Texas man kills burglars exiting neighbor's house

[Ladewig]

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

The 911 call came from a Pasadena, Tex., resident, who alerted police to two burglary suspects on a neighbor's property. Before he hung up, two men were dead by his hand.

Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.

"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."

Local officials are planning on bringing the matter to a grand jury. Opinion here is very sharply divided. Earlier this year, Texas joined 15 other states allowing citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property (link).

From the first story:

The incident may prove a test for a new law recently passed in Texas which expands the right of citizens to use deadly force.

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

 

[madurobob]

Wow. I wonder how the neighbor feels about two lives snuffed out for his easy-to-get-away-with stuff?

I'm generally OK with folks having shotguns for home protection, but this guy went way to far. Yet another reason I'm happy not to live in Texas (nope, this kind of thing would never happen in NC )

I get the feeling he was a bit trigger happy. He could have simply confronted the bad guys in the yard and they would have dropped the stuff, pooped their pants, and fled. If he had to shoot, a leg shot would completely incapacitate. Sure, its tough to think things through in a firefight... but thats why folks shouldn't get into firefights in the first place. All he needed to do was delay them another 30 seconds.. not forever.

 

[JoeEllison]

So, the guy is a murderer... where's the debate?

 

[MaxHardcore]

from reading the transcript, he knew about the new law and thought it was legal to shoot them. he's lucky that they were actually robbing the neighbours rather than some drunk who'd lost his keys. I'm sure he'll get off.

 

[BPSCG]

He couldn't have planted himself behind a car or truck, fired a warning shot into the air when they came out of the house, and yelled at them to freeze? He had to shoot them?

We'll have to see how this plays out - invoke the 48-hour rule - but if the facts don't change significantly from what we know now, this sounds like murder to me.

 

[Rasmus]

Judging solely from the thread, I don't see why this should be murder. If it is indeed legal to shoot burglars, and if the two were indeed burglars, then no law was violated. (Further assuming it was "night" at the time of the incident.)

 

[JoeEllison]

Judging solely from the thread, I don't see why this should be murder. If it is indeed legal to shoot burglars, and if the two were indeed burglars, then no law was violated. (Further assuming it was "night" at the time of the incident.)

Nope. Still murder. There's no law that says you can kill someone robbing another person's home. I'm sure that the law limits the right of someone to kill a burglar in their own home as well.

From what the guy said to the 911 operator, he fully intended to murder them in cold blood, and that's what he did.

 

[JoeEllison]

He couldn't have planted himself behind a car or truck, fired a warning shot into the air when they came out of the house, and yelled at them to freeze? He had to shoot them?

We'll have to see how this plays out - invoke the 48-hour rule - but if the facts don't change significantly from what we know now, this sounds like murder to me.

He could have triggered his own home alarm, or gotten into his car and turned on the lights and laid on the horn, or a whole mess of other things. He decided that he was going to kill someone as a first choice, and that sounds like murder to me. He doesn't say that he wants to stop them from robbing the house, or prevent them from robbing his house. He just doesn't want to let them get away. That's the clincher.

I think the point of the law that lets you shoot someone in your home is that you should assume that YOU and YOUR FAMILY are in immediate danger if someone breaks into your home. There's no such assumption of immediate danger to a person across the street waiting for the burglars to exit his neighbor's home. There's nothing in the law that allows you to chase people and kill them.

 

[Ladewig]

Judging solely from the thread, I don't see why this should be murder. If it is indeed legal to shoot burglars, and if the two were indeed burglars, then no law was violated.

The law, which went into effect in September of this year, is worded in such a way as to apply only to one's own property. The suspect has to be " unlawfully enter[ing], or attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment" The shooter knew the neighbor wasn't home and that no one was in danger.

(Further assuming it was "night" at the time of the incident.)

I should have posted a more comprehensive link. Editted to remove a specific time because I read the wrong link. Am still looking for time of shooting.

 

[JoeEllison]

I should have posted a more comprehensive link. The shooting occurred at 1:50 on Monday afternoon.

Totally murder.

 

[BPSCG]

There's no law that says you can kill someone robbing another person's home.

And you know this because you've read the applicable law that went into effect on September 1?

Note this from the story:

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

Let's look at that:

"...people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft..."

Why are the last seven words necessary? Why is additional language needed to allow you to use deadly force if someone is trying to burn your house down (arson), when the opening phrase says you "may use deadly force to protect your own property"? Isn't arson an attack against your property?

Similarly with burglary, robbery, and theft. Implicit in the first phrase is the right to use deadly force to protect your own property from burglary, robbery, and theft.

So why is the extra language needed? Why is it in there? It appears to me to be a reasonable conclusion that it's there to allow you to use deadly force to protect someone else's property from arson, burglary, robbery, and theft.

But then we get the legislator who says, "...it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property..."

Maybe not, but if that's how the law was written, then that's what has to apply. What we may be looking at is a badly-written law. Or, as Charles Dickens wrote in Oliver Twist:

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

So we need to know what the law actually says. And, JoeEllison, since you claim "[t]here's no law that says you can kill someone robbing another person's home," could you please locate the actual September 1 statute for us, and prove what you say?

ETA: Posted this before seeing Ladewig's above. Ladewig, do you have a link to the law in question?

 

[Ladewig]

He couldn't have planted himself behind a car or truck, fired a warning shot into the air when they came out of the house, and yelled at them to freeze? He had to shoot them?

We'll have to see how this plays out - invoke the 48-hour rule - but if the facts don't change significantly from what we know now, this sounds like murder to me.

The shooting occurred on Thursday afternoon. The case was sent to a grand jury on Friday.

I should have highlighted the part of the story where the man claims that after he went outside with the shotgun, the burglars approached him and stepped onto his property. If true, that could be a deciding factor in the case.

ETA: This post is entirely wrong - see correction in post 16.

 

[Ladewig]

I had the time correct. It was around 2 p.m. on Thursday.

 

[Ladewig]

ETA: Posted this before seeing Ladewig's above. Ladewig, do you have a link to the law in question?

It is House Bill 284 - http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB00284H.HTM but I am not sure that this link is the final version of the bill.

 

[JoeEllison]

And, JoeEllison, since you claim "[t]here's no law that says you can kill someone robbing another person's home," could you please locate the actual September 1 statute for us, and prove what you say?

This one is easy!

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm

Here's a couple of quotes from the actual law:

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used

Here's the places where someone can use lethal force:

(A) to protect the actor [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.

You can protect yourself in all cases on your property, OR protect others in cases of protecting another person from a crime against their person... NOT the other person's property.

 

[Ladewig]

The shooting occurred on Thursday afternoon. The case was sent to a grand jury on Friday.

I should have highlighted the part of the story where the man claims that after he went outside with the shotgun, the burglars approached him and stepped onto his property. If true, that could be a deciding factor in the case.

This previous post of mine is wrong. I misread the transcript. The man says "they came into the front yard with me." He was referring to the neighbor's yard across the street. He went into the neighbor's fenced yard and when the burglars exited the house, he ordered them to stop and then fired.

 

[JoeEllison]

This post is wrong. I misread the transcript. The man says "they came into the front yard with me." He was referring to the neighbor's yard across the street. He went into the neighbor's fenced yard and when the burglars exited the house, he ordered them to stop and then fired.

He's also not covered by the law because he was tresspassing, and the law specifically says that you cannot also be engaged in a crime at the time of the shooting.

Oops! See you on your execution day, murdering old moron!

 

[Bikewer]

Mere entry on to the other property does not constitute trespassing. (Unless the property is clearly signed against such activity)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, not only in criminal but civil court. As I recall Idaho (that bastion of right-wing thinking) was the first to enact legislation allowing deadly force against the perpetrators of property crime.
Detractors called it the "shoot your neighbors" bill.

Back when I started in law enforcement, in 1968, it was quite legal in most states for police to shoot at "fleeing felons". No presumption of violence or danger was required; just fleeing the scene of a felonious crime like burglary.
This was tossed out by the Supreme court shortly thereafter, essentially on the grounds that the use of deadly force far exceeded any criminal penalty that might conceivably be applied to the perpetrator should he have been apprehended.

Currently, police may only use deadly force against fleeing individuals if there is a strong probable cause to believe that they will commit continued violence. An example might be a bank robber fleeing with gun in hand.

On the civil front, I would expect a "wrongful death" suit in a case like this regardless of prosecution.
Generally, to use deadly force, there must be some indication of danger. In the case of the law (as written) in Texas, the homeowner, finding someone breaking into his occupied residence, has a presumption that the individuals mean him harm. (provided the criminals know the place is occupied! A local man was indicted for noticing a burglar trying to gain entry to his house, then hiding inside. Once the fellow got in, the homeowner shot him. The court found that the homeowner could have easily warned the criminal)
Individuals fleeing a residence burglary would have presented little danger to the neighbor.

He would have been within his rights to attempt to capture them...."Stop or I'll shoot!", but if they simply continued to flee he would not be entitled to fire.

I can see this being a messy court case.

 

[Rasmus]

The law, which went into effect in September of this year, is worded in such a way as to apply only to one's own property.

Fair enough.

I read the OP the samw way BPSCG did, which seemed to allow the use of force on behalf of other peoples' property.

I find it somehow interesting that people are allowed to defend their own property, but not that of others, though.

 

[JoeEllison]

Fair enough.

I read the OP the samw way BPSCG did, which seemed to allow the use of force on behalf of other peoples' property.

I find it somehow interesting that people are allowed to defend their own property, but not that of others, though.

I don't think the law implies protection of property as such.