Police say Horn shot 2 men in the back

Houston Chronicle ^ | Dec. 7, 2007 | Cindy Horswell

[End Times Crusader]

Two men suspected of burglarizing a neighbor's home were shot in the back by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn after the suspects ventured into his front yard, Pasadena police disclosed Friday.

Also, for the first time, investigators revealed the Nov. 14 shooting was witnessed by a plainclothes Pasadena detective, who had pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-guage shotgun.

The detective's name was not released as the new details emerged about the controversial shootings that have outraged minority activists but also brought an outpouring of support from others.

[GeronL]

Pasadena TX, near Houston

They needed shooting =o)

[Ditter]

Yes I know. ;9)

[ovrtaxt]

	80R664 RMB-F
	By: Wentworth	S.B. No. 378

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

       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 [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 knew or had reason to believe that the

person against whom the force was used:

             (1)  unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter

unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business

or employment;

             (2)  unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove

unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or

place of business or employment; or

             (3)  was committing or attempting to commit aggravated

kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,

robbery, or aggravated robbery.

       (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 [he] would be justified in using force

against the other under Section 9.31; and

             (2)  [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation

would not have retreated; and

             [(3)]  when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably

believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

                   (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.

       (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 knew or had

reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was

used:

             (1)  unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter

unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business

or employment;

             (2)  unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove

unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or

place of business or employment of the actor; or

             (3)  was committing or attempting to commit an offense

described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by

Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against

a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense

of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

       (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.  AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.  It is an affirmative

defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death

that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was

justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,

Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the

time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry

in the habitation of the defendant].

       SECTION 5.  Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is

amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:

       Sec. 83.002.  COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER

EXPENSES.  A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative

defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff

all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was

lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

       SECTION 6.  (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, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and

Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply 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 7.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[Joe Boucher]

I think it was a good shoot.
These scumbags broke in to someones home and were in the process of taking things they didn’t earn from someone who did earn them.
They did not know for sure that the home was empty and broke in to steel.
This guy did what he thought was right in protecting a neighbor and his own life.
If I were on the grand jury I’d refuse to indict.

[2ndClassCitizen]

The Black Klan thanks you.

You are expressing an opinion which is reprehensible to me.

No one is questioning that these were most likely professional burglars. Burglary is the crime that most often turns violent when it is discovered. Just ask Sean Taylor.

61 year old Mr. Horn could have had a heart attack or stroke when confronting these criminals.

Please do not fear that an armed citizen who shoots criminals is a bad thing for gun owners. It is really a good thing. The Black Klan only hates it because a white guy or gal wasn’t raped, killed, or mugged. That is the ultimate truth here.

[BuffaloJack]

Well, the happy ending is that they won’t be robbing any more houses. Getting killed is an occupational hazard that is well documented for law breakers.

[kittymyrib]

The Texas “Castle Law” went into effect Sept. 1, just in time for Joe Horn to protect his property from two illegal aliens who were burglarizing the neighborhood. He will not be indicted in Houston, Texas, and burglars plying their trade there will know there is a very good chance they will be shot.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

The rapes and home invasions they had scheduled in the coming weeks will have to be handled by others.

[BlazingArizona]

I think Joe Horn is about to be in big trouble.

Not after the Taylor killing. We used to be able to assume that burglars were only after the easy loot and could be scared off by the sudden appearance of people. A homeowner today has no way of knowing whether he is dealing with MS-13 bloodthirsty savages who will slaughter for no reason whatever.

Let it be open season on them.

[humblegunner]

Was it dark?

That is my recollection.

No, it was mid day, about 1:00 PM.

[southern rock]

I guess cops are okay with people running away after committing a crime

Okay with it? They prefer it.

[SauronOfMordor]

There'll be radio logs, which document his arrirval on scene. There's no reason the cop needed to speak out before all the other testimony was collected, especially since this latest evidence contradicts the shooter's story and the neighbor that backed him up.

The police want you to make all your statements first, before they reveal which of your statements they can show to be false

[WL-law]

(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) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means... Sounds like if I can't outrun him to catch him (can't recover the property) and think he might be armed, it's a justified shoot.

According to the facts, the perps weren't committing any of those crimes. It was theft in the daytime, breaking and entering, but not robbery or burglary.

[SauronOfMordor]

How much do you want to bet that the “plainclothes detective’s” name is something like “Jose Gonzales Ortega Ruiz Quintana Ramirez? In other words, in South Texas, a “friendly” witness for the “shooting victims” who are now dead.

Or conceivably the lookout and accomplice for the criminals. If he was there to track the thieves down, then you would have expected uniformed officers to be nearby.

[FES0844]

He needs to hire the DREAM TEAM.

[SauronOfMordor]

Investigators believe a third person may have driven the men from Houston to the Pasadena neighborhood. Police could find no vehicle belonging to the pair parked in the area.

...

The fact that a police officer witnessed the shooting but did not arrest Horn is further evidence that he acted in self-defense, he said.

“You’ve got a trained police officer sitting there watching this, and he doesn’t arrest Horn,” Lambright said. “If the (plainclothes) officer thought it was not a righteous shooting, maybe the Pasadena Police Department would have arrested Mr. Horn for murder.”

I find the above combination of facts interesting. No vehicle found, mysterious police officer on the scene in vehicle.

[spunkets]

"It was theft in the daytime, breaking and entering, but not robbery or burglary."

It was burglary, not theft.

[CindyDawg]

Ah....gotcha.

[spunkets]

Day time... Thanks.

[VOA]

“That’s a good law, but this incident took place in the early afternoon,
around 2PM. The article below mentions the afternoon.”

Yep, that is what the article says.
I don’t know who is right, but the couple of news reports I’ve heard
on national TV said that it happened around 1AM-2AM.
And I thought he was reported to be in his 60s, while the article
says 71.

Looks like some of the news media needs to do some fact-checking.