Posted on 12/13/2007 8:32:57 AM PST by BradtotheBone
In Joe Horn's now-infamous 911 call reporting the burglary of his neighbor's home last month, there's a particularly disturbing refrain that made many of us cringe.
"I'm not going to let them get away with this," the Pasadena homeowner tells the dispatcher several times in various ways in the moments before he shot to death the two burglars, Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 28, and Diego Ortiz, 30.
To many of us, Horn's preoccupation with stopping the crime and recovering the stolen property — "a bag of loot," as Horn described it — seemed irrational and vengeful rather than heroic. We agreed with the dispatcher, who repeatedly pleaded with the 61-year-old computer consultant to keep himself and his shotgun safe inside his own house while police headed to the scene.
"Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over," the dispatcher told Horn.
Property versus human life Human life is worth more than property. It seems like a universal truth. But apparently not in Texas, or other states with similar laws.
Over the past week, I've researched the Texas Penal Code and discovered some provisions that were surprising even to this fifth-generation Texan.
The law of our land seems to place more value on the property being stolen — even if it belongs to a neighbor — than on the life of the burglar stealing it.
A review of our state's protection-of-property statutes suggests that Horn's repeated declarations about not letting the burglars "get away with it" may be the words that ultimately set him free.
If Horn doesn't get indicted, don't blame the grand jury. And don't blame Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal. Blame the section of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code that deals with protection of property.
Justifiable homicide Under the section, which has been in place at least since 1973, a person is justified in using deadly force to protect a neighbor's property from burglary if the person "reasonably believes" deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
Now, one might argue that, since the dispatcher told Horn that police were on their way, Horn should have reasonably believed authorities would nab the bad guys.
But the escalating anxiety in Horn's voice as he sees the burglars emerge from his neighbor's window with the goods, and his reiteration that "they're getting away" moments before he fires his 12-gauge may indicate to a grand jury that Horn didn't believe police would arrive in time.
Rosenthal wouldn't discuss the particulars of the Horn case, which he is still waiting to receive from Pasadena police. And police haven't revealed all the facts. A police spokesman disclosed last week that, according to a plain-clothes detective who witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings, Horn shot the two men in the back after they'd ventured into his front yard.
The fact that they were on his yard may provide Horn with even more protection.
Rosenthal said he's gotten about 50 letters and e-mails, including out-of-state inquiries from California to Minnesota, split about even in favor and against Horn being indicted. Rosenthal said he won't let the controversy surrounding the case — including a death threat against Horn called into the DA's public integrity division on Sunday —influence his office's handling of it.
He said he's not assigning any particular prosecutor, saying "whoever's working intake (when Pasadena files it) gets to be the person in the bucket."
And the prosecutor won't make a recommendation to the grand jury, which Rosenthal said is standard for such cases.
"We'll take it to a grand jury; we'll present it straight up, and whatever the grand jury does, we'll follow it. And if they decide they want to indict the guy, we'll handle it and we'll suffer the slings and arrows, but that's part of the territory," Rosenthal said.
Texas isn't unique in allowing the use of deadly force in the protection of property during felony crimes such as burglary, but the experts I talked with weren't aware how many states allow deadly force in the protection of a neighbor's property.
And for those of us tempted to dismiss such laws as backward or antiquated notions in a trigger-happy state, experts suggest states are moving closer to Texas' model than away.
"My sense is that the reason, not just Texas, but other states have been enacting statutes more and more like this is because politicians are afraid to vote against them," said Steven Goode, a law professor at the University of Texas.
"They don't want the next attack ad to be one where they are criticized for voting against someone's ability to protect themselves in their home."
"In a calmer and less politicized environment we might have different laws," Goode said. "But campaign ads don't allow for particularly nuanced discussions of issue."
Even if they don't indict him, it doesn't mean Horn's actions were morally right. He chose to kill; he didn't have to. His own life and property were not in danger until he confronted the burglars.
There's a difference between what we can do and what we should do. Without careful judgment and discretion, the law can be a dangerous thing.
The same law that may protect Horn from indictment could also protect someone who, in the dark of night, discovers a group of teenage girls wrapping his front yard trees with toilet paper.
To a rational person, this is a harmless prank. Under Texas law, in a world without discretion, the girls are engaging in criminal mischief and the homeowner would be justified in mowing them down with a shotgun.
I wonder if this dimwit ever heard the phrase "Crime doesn't Pay" ? Of course more value is placed on someone else's property over a criminal's life.
You wanna' know how I know? See all those prisons, filled with all those convicts, there's a bunch of them in for robbing and stealing. Believe it or not, stealing is a crime. And to hammer that point home, if you rob someone and get caught, your freedom will be taken from you and you will be locked away in a cell.
oh, except if you're an undocumented citizen/guest that wouldn't leave, they get do overs and Mulligans
She just doesn’t get it.
My life is worth more to me than my property.
My property is worth more to me than the life of a thief.
Mr. Horn was morally correct in teaching this truth to the burglars, even if they did not live to profit by the lesson.
Human life is worth more than property, yes.
But, burglary, robbery, theft, is also about more than just property. It’s a question of will you stand up for your rights to be secure in your life and property. Letting them get away with it when you can shoot them is an abdication of both your rights to your life and property, and your moral obligation to defend them, both for yourself and others.
Count on liberals to ignore the moral dimensions of any argument.
They apparently thought it was worth the risk of losing their lives to steal from others. If they value their lives so little, why should anyone else value them more?
Lets suppose he let the burglars escape. A few weeks later
they are burglarizing someone else’s house and are surprised
by the unarmed homeowner and they kill him! I think Mr. Horn
just saved that homeowner’s life without knowing it. Think about it.
I don’t value the thieves lives very highly at all. What I have a problem with is that Mr. Horn had no intention of stopping them - he had every intention of killing them. He even told the dispatcher “I’m gonna kill ‘em.” Then he walked outside and gave a “warning” but didn’t give the perps sufficient time to comply with his warning before opening fire on them. On another thread a week or two ago, everyone was supporting Mr. Horn because some witness said that the robbers charged him and that’s why he fired. Now the truth comes out - they were both shot in the back. Unless they were running backwards at full speed towards Mr. Horn, I’d say we have a case of a neighbor lying to protect Mr. Horn.
The reason for that is simple - property is life, because someone had to expend a part of their life energy to obain it. It is exactly the same as the criminals taking a meat cleaver and trying to whack the property owner's arm off. And had that scenario occurred the author would not be faulting Joe Horn for shooting the criminals.
Liberals have trouble with this concept because many of them don't earn much money nor own much property, and when they do someone else like spouses and parents are usually the ones who paid for it, so they don't get the connection. They think property is something the government creates out of thin air and ought to distribute fairly to everyone. If that were actually true there would in fact be no reason to shoot at thieves.
I have a strong inkling that her sudden concern for human life fades quickly if the topic were unborn children or the sick and elderly........
Bets?
I have no doubt he saved some Americans life. Those two could have pawned all that stuff gotten loaded and killed an American by driving drunk as well.
The guy is a hero plain and simple.
Come to Colorado and test out our "Make My Day" law.Steal here, die here.
; )
real name(TigersEye)
I believe that was in response to the dispatcher telling Horn that he was going to get killed.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
If he had wounded them , they would have turn around and sued him.
Rofllllllllll
Damn sight easier to say when it's somebody else's property.
If I were to find the guy who stole my truck a few years back, I wouldn't have hesitated to shoot him down, and Texas law would back me up.
Remarks like this serve only to show how out of touch Lisa Falkenburg is.
See, democracy DOES work!
Falkenburg is just FULL of crap!
Doesn't she realize that property IS human life?
MY life?
I go to work, giving up a part of my life, to earn money to buy stuff.
My stuff therefore has an equivalency to my life; if I have to work a year to pay for a car, that's what it represents - a year of my life.
Someone stealing it is stealing a year of my life, and I'd take pleasure in offing the culprit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.