Can 1st degree murder be aquitted as self-defence. Joe Horn is a murderer, hiding behind the sham of righteous self defence.
This is a perfect story of Texas attitudes meet modern civilizaition. This is why the 2nd amendment grants the rights to firearms to QUALIFIED state militias, not any cowboy wannabe with a violent streak and a heart full of hate.
Here's the link to the AP story. Essentially, Joe Horn saw two men climbing out the window of his neighbors house with bags. The two men were illegal immigrants and, yes, they were burglarizing his neighbors house. That's a crime. But here's what's interesting. Joe had enough time to call 911. During this phone call, he told the operator that he had a shotgun and was going outside to shoot them and to send the authorities. The operator pleaded with him to stay in the house, the police were already on their way.
"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."
After the shooting, he redialed 911.
"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."
Horn had shot both men in the BACK with a 12 guage shotgun. Both men were unarmed.
Now, those are the facts. Here's where I get op/ed on you:
Horn's lawyers plead that he had 'no choice' and acted in self defence. My problem with that is that Horn was told repeatedly to stay in his home by the 911 operator. He refused, and told the operator that he was going outside to kill them. I'm sorry, Joe, even if they're criminals, you're not the law, and that's called premeditated murder.
So you went outside with your mind set on killing them. I'm not sure what part of "self-defence" involves shooting two unarmed men in the fucking BACK with a shotgun... but apparently Texas is still shoot first and ask questions later territory.
You didn't have to go outside and confront them. You'd already done your part. You notified the police. That's all you should have done. It wasn't your house, they weren't threatening you, even when you went outside with a gun. Obviously they'd turned their backs to you. Right before you killed them both. God Bless America, right?
Here's where it becomes obvious that I'm a liberal, not a conservative -
I just don't see why you killed them, Joe. Shoot into the air, shoot AT them, scare them off, whatever... I just don't think that unloading both barrells into unarmed men for a few hundred dollars worth of SHIT makes any sense. The owner of the house had insurance, he can replace his SHIT - these two men had families, friends, etc. Yes, they were committing a crime... a crime they would have gone to jail for a few years for. They were stealing materalistic SHIT. You stole their lives.
Texas may have different attitudes about justice than most of the world - Here's to hoping they've got a different God as well...
cause by any religion I can think of - you're going to hell, Joe.
I'm guessing Hernado Torres and Diego Ortiz will be there waiting for you.
7 comments:
Wow! I don't really know what to say....
This story is just crazy. This seriously happened?!
Forget being liberal or conservative, how about being human with a respect for life.
I bet you they were a lot more scared of Joe with a gun... hence why they were running away (backs turned to him) then he was of two hispanic/latin guys with bags trying to get away.
As much as I want to throw the race card.. forget it. It's a human and Joe you really didn't need to kill them. If you felt like you "had" to do something-shot someone because you were scared for your life... aim for the leg. Something tells me you have a bit more target practice than the average person.
How sad.
you dangled the bait, so....
The second amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."; thus securing 2 rights -- both legality of a the militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any legislation that would prevent the people access to arms is thus unconstitutional.
That said, it is true the 2nd amendment offers no defense to Mr. Horn since he, as you point out, clearly indicated his intent PRIOR to engaging the thieves. As you also note, it does appear that TX state law affords him the right to use force against thieves-in-the-act. The question that will arise w/the Grand Jury will be was he entitled to use DEADLY force. (see texas state penal code 9.41 (force) which must be met to get 9.42 (deadly force))
Finally, as a bit of an aside: which is better for society at large - the neighborhood where criminals caught entering a home are afforded the right to retreat and steal another day? or a neighborhood where they run the risk of getting killed when committing the crime? what if they decide to throw in a rape or two for good measure, does that change things?
Interestingly, as I was looking for the TX laws on this I learned that, in some states, the VICTIM has the obligation to attempt to retreat from the aggressor before they are entitled to use deadly force...
before i put together my thoughts on the rest of it, one item.
how does the shooter know the two criminals are unarmed? they have broken into someone's house in the night. if he is going to shoot, he should shoot for center mass. 'shoot into the air' does nothing other than speed their retreat. and if they have weapons, it leaves them an opportunity to use them. that is what police officers are taught. if they are in a situation where deadly force is required (which may not be the case in this situation) they are to shoot for center mass. No aiming for a leg, or shooting them in the shoulder, or shooting the gun out of their hand like in the movies.
and how does he know that they are not coming to rob his house next?
All great points. I was going to play devil's advocate in my post, but it was already way too long.
Good point on the 'level' of crime - what if it was rape? People who know me know that's the one and only thing I'd kill another man for, its the main sin on my conscience, but even worse that I've already thought it through, and I know in my soul that I'd still do it. Am I better than Joe? Probably not.
The other point - not shooting to kill. All good points. What if they ARE armed?
A point I didn't want to make because it was a little dark, but still true --
Will people be less likely to rob a house if they know that anyone walking by who sees them crawling out of the window can kill them on site? Yes.
Only, what happens when I come home at 2am, realize I've locked my keys in my house and decide to crawl in through an open window and Vigilante Justice Inc. drives by, sees it, and kills me for trying to get into my own house?
This is why I blogged this story. So many good points to be made on both sides of the issue.
take your friggin key, you are scaring me.
good point on the b/e into your own home.... i think that's basically what happened in the Diallo case in NYC.
also, I agree w/middleson on the futility/risk of shooting for a purpose other than to neutralize the target.
God forbid I'm ever in a real situation where deadly force is even considered; but once there - I wouldn't consider any half-measures.
Post a Comment