Texan a vigilante or brave law abider? ( Called 911 and ask for cops before burglars escaped....)

Los Angeles Times ^ | November 25, 2007 | Miguel Bustillo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

[El Gato]

His neighbor was being stripped of some property. A serious crime, which has serious legal consequences. Death, however, is not one of the consequences.

It can be, under Texas law. True, the legal penalty can not be, although the law once hung horse thieves, but under Texas Law, deadly force can be used to stop the sort of property crime these men were committing. It can also be used in self defense. The Grand Jury will decide, if the DA even bothers to take the case to the grand jury, which is still fairly likely, even if the DA feels there is no real reason to prosecute the defender. Think of it as tying up loose ends. A "No Bill" from the Grand Jury can help with any resulting civil case, which given the involvement of "activists", and the existence of a wife and young child for one the burglars, there is likely to be.

[El Gato]

one need agree

Oops, meant to say "need not agree".

[El Gato]

when you hear "Cha-Chink! Don't move!", the only thing you may safely move is your bowels. :D

True, but in this case the "Cha-Chink" came while he was still in the house, and still on the phone with the dispatcher.

It would be the height of folly to walk out the house with a firearm with an empty chamber, unless that firearm is a revolver, and the chamber is the one under the hammer, even then I'd cock a single action before going out and maybe a double action as well, just as he racked a round into the shotgun chamber before going out.

[Jeff Head]

As I understand it, the perps were coming at him. Apparently witnesses stated that when he told them to stop, they came at him and he shot.

[Jeff Head]

No problem, it apparently was in the middle of the afternoon. So, he went out during the day and tried to stop an ongoing robbery. He took his gun because he was determined to stop them and determined to protect himself if necessary. When he told them to stop, witnesses say they came at him. All of that other wnet out the window at that moment. Coming at him, he correctly perceived his life in danger and shot. You can do that any time.

[roamer_1]

i>True, but in this case the "Cha-Chink" came while he was still in the house, and still on the phone with the dispatcher.

K... But the absence of "Chachink!" would lead me to assume a pistol or a bolt-action... slightly less bothersome than a shotgun, but worthy of respect all the same.

In this case, however, one took it front-on, and the other in the side, AFAIR, so they could no doubt see their accuser and the justice in his hands... Bad mistake on their part.

[El Gato]

But the absence of "Chachink!" would lead me to assume a pistol or a bolt-action... slightly less bothersome than a shotgun, but worthy of respect all the same.

Not when you clearly see that humongous hole in the end of the barrel. I'm sure it was quite clearly visible at 2 in the afternoon. You could be stone deaf and still know there was a shotgun pointed at you.

[roamer_1]

Not when you clearly see that humongous hole in the end of the barrel.

LOL! Yep.

[HamiltonJay]

Esecalated an event???

He confronted criminals, they escalated it when they decided to go after him.. THey are dead by their own poor actions.. your attempt to blame him is nonsense.

Death indeed is a consequence for these two, because they decided no only to steal, but to go after the person who rightfully tried to stop them... they are dead and society is better off for it.

What cowards our nation has become if we as a people sit here and call the one standing up for his own life and halting a criminal act is the one in the wrong.

[supercat]

His neighbor was being stripped of some property. A serious crime, which has serious legal consequences. Death, however, is not one of the consequences.

There are some good reasons not to have the state impose the death penalty on thieves. A few of them:

1. The accused may have had reason to believe that the item he possessed was legitimately his, that it was abandoned, or that the owner would have willingly given the item, but would likely have preferred having him take it to having him ask (e.g. if someone regularly buys food at a restaurant and eats it at the office, taking some extra ketchup packets and stashing them at the office may technically be 'stealing', but if such use is kept within reasonable limits I suspect the staff would just as soon not have to field requests). Of course, particularly in the latter case, some people's perceptions of what is reasonable might be sufficiently far off as to merit punishment, but would not demonstrate a complete inability to live in society.
2. The accused might have been falsely identified, and in fact have nothing whatsoever to do with the stolen item.
3. If someone knows that prosecution for a crime means death, then once they've committed the crime they'll have nothing to lose by any action which would reduce the odds of such prosecution.
4. At least in theory, a live crook, once caught, might be forced to provide more restitution than a dead one could provide.

There is a big difference between telling a thief, after he has committed a crime, that further actions could get him in bigger trouble (implying that he's not already in so much trouble that he's marked for death), and telling a prospective thief that there is any upper bound on what his crime might cost him (including his life). The former message might discourage a thief from committing further crimes; the latter would, if anything, encourage him.

[supercat]

Your contention aside, I would be willing to submit that the witness of folks on the ground is of more worth than anything else regarding what happened in that split second. I consider it the height of folly to gainsay what they have committed to (regardless of any motive on their part, btw).

Without casting aspersions on Mr. Horn or his neighbors, I would expect the neighbors to be inclined to provide a narrative friendly to Mr. Horn regardless of what actually transpired. That is not to say I doubt Mr. Horn was, in fact, justified, but merely that I would not regard the neighbors' testimony as having overwhelming probative value. They're probably telling the truth, but it's not hard to imagine that they might possibly be shading things a little.

[fabian]

then God bless him....

[roamer_1]

Without casting aspersions on Mr. Horn or his neighbors, [...] They're probably telling the truth, but it's not hard to imagine that they might possibly be shading things a little.

Indeed, and precisely what I meant by:
(regardless of any motive on their part, btw)

Probative or not, there is a certain value in their "shading" of things. If they are willing, that goes along way toward Mr Horn's credibility and their opinion that he is a "good joe". After all, if he were a problematic sort, prone to causing dangerous situations, I doubt his neighbors would "shade" anything.

Now, had there been injury to other than the obvious perpetrators, The DA may feel the need to be more probative. But considering the unified nod of the witnesses, if their testimony can be reconciled well to the audio tape, and to the evidence on the ground, I would be stunned to see the DA press the issue. This guy is close to hero material, and would make for a mighty unpopular DA.