Deadly Force in Texas

[randi2007]

What is the name of your state? Texas

What are my rights in Texas if somebody breaks in my neighbor's house and I catch him? Any differences in day or night?

I'm worrieed about this story. Any chance this guy goes to jail if the facts reported below are true?

(11/15/07 - KTRK/PASADENA, TX) - A dramatic 911 call from the Pasadena man who allegedly shot and killed two men accused of burglarizing his neighbor has been released. The dispatcher tried to talk him out of it.

At about 2pm Wednesday, Joe Horn called 911 from inside his Pasadena home. He says he saw two men break into his neighbor's house. Horn tells police that he is armed with a shotgun.

"Hurry up, man. Catch these guys, will ya? I ain't gonna let them go, I'm gonna be honest with ya," said Horn on the 911 call. "I'm not gonna let them go. I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)."

"(Expletive), they just stole something," said Horn to the dispatcher. "I'm sorry. I ain't gonna let them get away with this. They got a bag of something. I'm doing it."

The dispatcher can't stop Horn, who takes the phone with him as he goes outside.

"Move, you're dead," Horn, who took the phone outside with him, could be heard saying to the suspects.

Then three gunshots could be heard.

Horn admits later on the 911 call that he did, in fact, fire those shots. The names of the two men shot have not yet been released pending identification and notification of their next of kin. Horn has not been arrested or charged with any crime. A police investigation is still underway.

 

[quincy]

Texas law says that a person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect his own land and property and also the land and property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, this force is necessary to prevent or stop trespass or unlawful interference, or this force is necessary to reenter the land or recover property, or this force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft at night or criminal mischief at night. He must reasonably believe this property cannot be recovered or protected in any other way.

The actor must reasonably believe that this third person requested the protection, or he must reasonably believe that he has a legal duty to protect the property of this third person, or this third person is related to the actor, or this third person resides with the actor, or is under the care of this actor.

Texas law seems to give more leeway when the actor uses force or deadly force at night. I have a feeling the Pasadena man in the story you quoted will probably avoid jail time.

This new law, covered in Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code, has been dubbed by some as the "shoot first" law.



Texas, quite frankly, scares me.

 

[mike_lee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0
(randi2007 cut and paste this link into your original post if you wouldn't mind)

I think he deserves jail, and I think it's first degree he had time to premeditate, he indicated he "didn't like this sh*t" not I'm scared for my life. 911 told him not to shoot and he willfully hinted he was gonna shoot them anyway.

It was daytime, so he could see they were not armed. no one was at the house so there was no dire need to stop this crime police were about 2 minutes away, But I couldn't finish the video it's just too upsetting for me. You won't have any problem. You can hear the blood lust intensify through the 911 call. He killed unarmed men because it made him feel good.

But at the end of the day it's Texas and the bad guys were black So like the macho maniac that killed 16 year old exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori for knocking on his door he'll probably get off.

 

[CdwJava]

I have to agree with Mike, to me this seems like a pre-meditated assault. The key will be (or SHOULD be) whether the shooter had a reason to fear for his life. I can see a reasonable argument for attempting to detain someone at gunpoint, but to shoot them simply for being burglars?!? That seems to be an execution, plain and simple.

Hopefully, the part of the story that has yet to be told has the suspects reaching for something - possibly a weapon. Otherwise, Texas would seem to be a throwback to the lynch mobs of days gone by.

- Carl

 

[msiron]

I heard the audio when they first released it and I felt the old guy was aching to shoot some gangbangers and stepped over his line. It will all depend on the mentality of the prosecutor or the grand jury?

 

[CavemanLawyer]

This is big news in my area. The legal talking heads keep talking about how this was not done at night so how he might be guilty on that technicality, but I don't see why that's really an issue. The statute says that the theft or criminal mischief must be a night, but if its burglary it doesn't have to be. This seems pretty clearly to be a burglarly of a habitation.

I think there's two key points to this case, one for and one against him. He says on the audio recording, "I can't see them from here," yet then says, "I'm going to kill them." It seems like he made up his mind to kill them before he could evaluate that he reasonably needed to. But he also claims, and you can make out some screaming to back it up, that after he tried to stop them they ran right towards him and onto his property. That lends some justification to what he did simply because it makes it more likely that he would shoot instinctively.

My final take is that this guy pushed it over the line and beyond what the law allows but that he was still within the spirit of this legal exception. At one point he even references the law change that he thought he was falling under. I think the Grand Jury will sympathize with him, and despite what alot of people are saying I don't think it has the slightest thing to do with him being white and the burglars being black. They were the bad guys because of what they were doing, not because of the color of their skin.

 

[BoredAtty]

This is big news in my area. The legal talking heads keep talking about how this was not done at night so how he might be guilty on that technicality, but I don't see why that's really an issue. The statute says that the theft or criminal mischief must be a night, but if its burglary it doesn't have to be. This seems pretty clearly to be a burglarly of a habitation.

I agree with your analysis. In order for a third person to use force against another to protect property, the actor must believe a theft is taking place (it was, and Horn referenced it). So he's okay to use force.

In order to use deadly force, a crime such as arson, robbery, burglary, or "nighttime" theft must be taking place in addition to the ordinary theft referenced above. Clearly a burglary was taking place (no nighttime requirement for that).

 

[mike_lee]

The black/white thing happens at a level below consciousness. Like when we overcompensate for someones disability and our attempts at accommodating them ends up drawing attention to their problem. Blacks make up 11% of the state population but 40% of prison population.

 

[HomeGuru]

The black/white thing happens at a level below consciousness. Like when we overcompensate for someones disability and our attempts at accommodating them ends up drawing attention to their problem. Blacks make up 11% of the state population but 40% of prison population.

**A: another lame response.

 

[outonbail]

So long as 100% of prison populations are made up of criminals, who cares what color they're skin is?

 

[outonbail]

As far as this case goes, there seem to be a lot of people supporting what Mr. Horn chose to do.
I however, have always been under the opinion that no one is justified in taking another persons life unless they were in immediate fear of their own life. If you kill someone out of true fear for yourself or a family member, you do it without being concerned with what the law dictates because you are trying to remain alive.
But when you take another life out of anger, you should expect to be convicted of murder.

I appears that in Texas, with this new law, they are not so concerned with the persons state of mind as they are his location. They just assume that if someone is burglarizing your home, that you are in fear for your life.
It will be interesting to see if property crimes go down because of this new shoot first ask questions later law.

I'm not sure how Mr. Horn's case will end up. I think he may get off with a slap on the wrist just because he's in Texas. However, I don't think it's justified to knowingly place yourself in a position where you may have to, or plan on using deadly force. Mr. Horn was safe and out of harms way while inside his home and these two were stealing property from someone else in the neighborhood, not threatening lives. Hell, he even claimed he didn't know this neighbor very well, if at all.
Even the dispatcher told him that property or items these thieves were removing from the home were not worth risking, or taking a life over. He was told the police were close by and to remain inside the home. While there may not have been any legal authority that would force him to obey the dispatcher's recommendation to remain in his home and wait for police, I don't believe Mr. Horn was ever fearing for his life or any other innocent citizen when he shot these two idiots.
He's claiming that when he confronted them, they came after him. I find this hard to believe. Maybe one of them came at him, but I can't see both of them doing so. They already had the loot and wanted to get away from there asap.

One interesting point I haven't heard anything reported on, is who these burglars were to the resident they were stealing from. Did they know these two? How did they know this money was there or where to find it? Just a lucky guess?

If Mr. Horn isn't charged with a crime, Texas just may turn into shooting gallery where taking out a petty thief will win you a cigar.

 

[BoredAtty]

I appears that in Texas, with this new law, they are not so concerned with the persons state of mind as they are his location. They just assume that if someone is burglarizing your home, that you are in fear for your life.

The law that may get Horn off the hook doesn't have anything to do with fearing for one's life.

The law in question allows somebody to protect the property of a third person with deadly force under certain circumstances (Penal Code 9.43). There is a good argument that Horn's use of deadly force was justified under the law because the crooks had just committed burglary and were fleeing with stolen property.

A lot of people think the above referenced law is inapplicable unless the crime was committed at night (I even heard a defense lawyer make that claim), but in my opinion, those people haven't analyzed the statute very closely.

 

[outonbail]

Yeah, I realize the law doesn't consider fearing for one's life, that's what scares me. I think Texas is in for a flood of angry people killing whoever they believe is there to steal from them or a neighbor.

I wonder when security guards or loss prevention personnel will be allowed to pick off shoplifters?
Maybe they can just make those door alarm sensors hit you with a bolt of lightening and fry you to a crisp rather than sound an alarm.

Pretty soon Texas will have their officers driving a vehicle like the new waste trucks that are equipped with a boom that can just reach out and scoop up the corpse, so they can streamline the whole process.

Like the Monty Python movie, they'll drive around in the morning announcing, "Bring out your dead, Bring out your dead!"

A bit facetious? Yes of course, but this law opens some doors that may be hard to shut in the future. Here in California I have a friend who ended up paying some derelict $40,000.00 for his dog biting him, when he shouldn't have been on the property in the first place. But in Texas you can hit this same person with 00 buck and there's a parade thrown in your honor.
I just hope these people all take some shooting courses and spend time at the range so they can have some control over where they're bullets are headed. It's scary enough that the police don't hit their intended target about eighty per cent of the time, I don't want live near any citizens who will end up doing even worse than that.....

However, I don't want to pass judgment on this new law until I see how much crime decreases, versus how may innocent people are mistakenly shot in Texas.

 

[Silverplum]

I wouldn't worry about TX too much...Colorado has had, for years, the "Make My Day" law (named for good ol' Clint Eastwood's signature line in some dumbass macho movie/s), and no one has gone nuts killing everyone in sight.

Yet.

 

[CJane]

I just hope these people all take some shooting courses and spend time at the range so they can have some control over where they're bullets are headed. It's scary enough that the police don't hit their intended target about eighty per cent of the time, I don't want live near any citizens who will end up doing even worse than that.....

Well, if they miss their target, as you claim cops are wont to do... there's a whole new set of statutes that I'd imagine apply. This law only applies if they HIT and KILL their target.

MO (my state) has very similar laws to what TX has and apparently CO has. But we don't all just shoot anyone who sets foot on our property. And those with the propensity to do-so are gonna do it anyway.