Houston man shoots two burglars

[Murph]

Wow, this has been going the rounds, so I thought I would ask for the thoughts on the Fora:

Neighbor who killed two says slayings 'weigh' heavily on him

11/16/2007

By MONICA RHOR / Associated Press

A 61-year-old Pasadena man, who shot and killed two men he believed were burglarizing a neighbor's home, said Friday the shooting would "weigh heavily" on him.

But the tape of Joe Horn's call to 911 reveals his determination to stop the men he saw leaving a neighbor's house against the dispatcher's clear warnings to stay inside.

Horn, in a written statement issued by his lawyers, also expressed sympathy for the families of the two burglary suspects, Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30.

"Any loss of life casts permanent devastation over the lives of everyone involved," Horn said. "The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."

Horn fatally shot the two men Wednesday afternoon with a 12-gauge shotgun after he saw them breaking into a neighbor's house. He confronted DeJesus and Ortiz as they were leaving the home through a gate leading to the front yard.

Horn called 911 first, and told a police dispatcher that he planned to kill the two men — just moments before he opened fire.

"I'm not going to let them go. I'm not going to let them get away with this," Joe Horn tells the dispatcher.

Moments later, Horn tells the operator: "I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there," the dispatcher tells Horn in a calm, measured voice. "I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting someone over this."

The neighbors, who Horn told the dispatcher he did not know well, were not at home.

During the 911 call, which runs about six minutes, the dispatcher repeatedly tells Horn not to go outside or use his shotgun.

"Mr. Horn, I want you to listen to me carefully, OK? I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house and I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when the officers are poking around out there."

But Horn, who tells the operator that he is upset by a robbery happening in daylight, seems to brush those instructions aside, telling the dispatcher:

"I have a right to protect myself. And a shotgun is a legal weapon. It's not an illegal weapon."

Under state law, Texans are allowed to defend themselves with deadly force to protect their own property. The person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings.

However, it is unclear whether that law extends to using deadly force to protect a neighbor's property.

After Horn spotted the men coming out of the neighbor's house, he tells the dispatcher: "I ain't going to let them get away with this. They stole something. They got a bag. I'm doing this."

"Don't go out the house," the dispatcher cautions. "Don't be shooting nobody."

A few moments later, the click of a shotgun can be heard, then a warning barked by Horn: "Move. You're dead."

Three shotgun blasts follow.

After shooting the suspects, Horn again called police:

"Get the law over here quick. I had no choice," a frantic-sounding Horn says. "They came in the front yard with me. I had no choice."

A Harris County grand jury will decide whether charges will be filed against Horn, said Pasadena Police Capt. A.H. Corbett. As of Friday, no charges had been filed and Horn was not in custody.


***Understand that he is not arrested, and has not been charged with anything. The Grand Jury will decide, although I would love to see the Criminal histories of those two dead burglars.***

[KJ Smith]

Here is a link to the Houston Chronicle. The 911 tape can be heard here.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5306638.html

It will be very interesting to see how this works out.
It was not his house,He was not in danger, He was advised against it, and it was daylight.

Kevin

[TXFZ1]

Need to hear the tape in full as a lot is taken out of context. The radio played the full tape this morning and it's different than what was played on the news and the blurbs in the paper.

David

[KJ Smith]

Look below the slider, you can pick the whole tape or the call after,

Kevin

[Murph]

What is the overall opinion in Houston on this???

[Tom]

Two less bad guys.

[KJ Smith]

Well. We are the capital punishment leader.

To be honest, I did not listen to much talk radio today.

I am as Law and Order as anyone, and I hate thieves, but this Man has really pushed the limits on this one.

I think its one thats going to be a bad deal no matter which way it goes, but I believe the Man was wrong.

It's going to be the punishment part ......................?

Kevin

[Shane]

Give him a medal!

[directmk]

He is going to prison, two less bad guys and one less psycho (here soon).

[Tom]

You really think the residents of Stinkadena are going to convict him of anything?

[KJ Smith]

There was the one in the late 80's in Pleasant Grove (Dallas).

Guy's house had been broken into several times, He took to going by his house during his lunch hour. Popped two guys coming out his bedroom window, from his truck, with a deer rifle,

I don't remember the outcome. seemed a little more justifiable.

Kevin

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

You really think the residents of Stinkadena are going to convict him of anything?

I think this Will be a county thing. You take that tape and a DA wanting to make an example, you should get a conviction.

As I said, it's all going to be the punishment ....... ?


Kevin

[Gabby498]

Having had my home burglarized, I think this should happen more often. When my home was broken into it took the police three hours to get here. And as nice as they were, there was no real effort made to solve the crime. The thieves know this. The best they could tell me was that they were glad that I had insurance with a good provider. It may have been the neighbors house but with every insurance claim everybody pays for is in increased premiums. I would go with give him two metals.

[dfwlens]

However, it is unclear whether that law extends to using deadly force to protect a neighbor's property

Actually its not unclear at all. A person has the legal ablility to protect third party property as well, though I havent checked the new castle laws to see if the duty to retreat was lifted from third party property statutes.

Even if it wasnt, though, I will be surprised if the guy gets indicted over it.

[wjmphoto]

Here is the Castle doctrine as enacted:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

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 reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor 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; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

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

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

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

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

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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 an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the 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.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 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.



SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.