When the law can't protect you

[sailaway21]

You be the judge. Read 'em both.

Man Kills Suspects While On Phone With 911, Two Men Shot In Texas By Joe Horn Who Saw Suspects Leaving Neighbor's House - CBS News

The American Spectator

[sailingdog]

Thanks sway. Personally, I think Joe Horn rocks...

Two guys coming out the window with a big bag of loot have basically admitted that they don't care for society or its rules...so why coddle them. Shooting them on the spot, caught in the act, is a good way to save the taxpayers the cost of a trial, the cost of housing and feeding them, and it certainly prevents them from committing any future crimes.

Prison today is a pretty good deal for most inmates. They get three square meals a day, a roof over their heads, free health care, free access to satellite/cable television, free access to "health club" facilities like a weight room, free access to a library and education—and in most cases at no cost to themselves.

IMHO, if a person is convicted of a felony, they should be left on a desert island with a bare minimum of tools and supplies. If they want to eat, they should raise the food themselves...if they want a roof over their heads, they should build a lean-to or house. If they don't know how... too damn bad.

Unfortunately, the damn courts are so careful about the rights of criminals that they've basically walked all over the rights of citizens and crime victims.

[SEMIJim]

Mr. Horn is damn lucky he got away with that. In many states, even some with Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws, he would've been prosecuted. I'm not saying what he did was intrinsically wrong, but your title, Sway, isn't quite accurate. Arguably, Horn was not under any imminent threat, himself, until he went out and played neighbourhood cop. As the legislator who authored Texas' "Castle Doctrine" law said: Enabling amateurs to play cop was not the purpose of that law.

Am I glad there are two scumbags my taxes won't have to house and feed for their (probably) too-short stay in prison? You betcha. Am I glad there are two less scumbags that'll be about, terrorizing law-abiding citizens. Right again. But that doesn't change the fact that what Joe Horn did, especially after being repeatedly asked not to do so by the cops, was questionable, at best. I'm glad he wasn't prosecuted for his actions, but I fear this kind of behaviour may provoke others to act similarly precipitously, and end-up getting Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws revoked .

Jim

[sailortjk1]

I remember the roits in Benton Harbor of just a few years ago.
The police were trying to pull over a man on a motorcycle.
He rufused to stop and ran from the authorities.
The police persude him, he crashed his motor cycle and was killed in the crash. The community was in uprage at the police for persuing the chase and rioted for several days.

I don't understand the people that have sympathy for those that break the law or who disregard the authorities. Peolpe are going to say that this man had no right to shoot the criminals that violated his neighbors property just like the riotors of Benton Harbor who say the police should not have persuded a motorcycle operator who refused to stop.

The peolpe that do these things do not care about your rights, why should we care about their rights?

[Sailormon6]

Mr. Horn is very lucky that he lives in Texas, because, in almost any other state he would be going to prison. The policy of most states in such matters is that one has no legal right to use deadly force to protect property. You can only use deadly force to protect people. Horn was never in personal danger, so long as he remained in his own home. He exposed himself to danger when he confronted the burglars.

I had a personal experience similar to this one. When I was a teenager, my friend and I were on a double date. At about midnight, we took my date home. When we arrived at my buddy's date's house, he went up on the screened-in porch with her to say goodnight, and I stood in the driveway and smoked a cigarette. Her neighbor arrived home, went inside his house, and came running out seconds later with a shotgun, screaming at me to freeze, with his finger on the trigger and hands shaking. If he had simply opened fire, as Mr. Horn did, I wouldn't be here now, sharing this wisdom with you. The law shouldn't protect fools like Mr. Horn from criminal prosecution for their stupidity. The law should protect people like me from fools like Mr. Horn, and I don't think Texas law does that adequately.

[danjarch]

Being in Texas, I can attest that it was not a case of just a teenager hanging out in the wrong place. We have an on going case about that too. Me personaly, I think that not only was Mr Horn in danger but his entire neigborhood was in danger. Criminals tend to come back to the easy pickings. It could have been his house next time, or that old lady down the street. Once a guy starts breaking into homes in broad daylight it a safe bet that he's become a career criminal and isn't just a teen prowling around for easy money.

Personaly, I think when thieves become increasingly aware that they stand a real chance of being shot and that there is a better chance that the home owner or neighbor will get off without any charges, We'll see a real drop in crime. for to long we've tied the puplics hands. Cops can't be every where. Law abiding people shouldn't have to hide in they're houses when they're friends and nieghbors are being robbed. It's simply immoral to tell a man he can't step up and defend other peoples property, then cry when know one helps you when your in trouble.

[sailaway21]

The legal constructionists are heard from as anticipated. The trouble with their interpretation is; one they apparently didn't follow directions and read both links, or did so inadequately. The case in Miami was within the citizen's own home (found in the second link) and two, they did prosecute Mr. Horn in that they convened a grand jury and that grand jury refused to indict.

Now that I've vented a bit, let's look at things a bit more calmly.
Mr. Horn was not himself in any apparent demonstrable danger. But Dan's argument is persuasive as well as the AmSpec author's argument. What good is it to us if our own house is a fortress while the rest of the neighborhood is under siege? And we do have a tradition of protecting each other's property in this country; cattle rustling comes to mind. Btw, we used to hang people for that.

I'm sure that erps will be along shortly to provide a perspective from law enforcement (non-prosecutorial division). In his absence I'll attempt to justify my titling of the thread. In the case of Mr. Horn the one indisputable fact is that the police were not only unable to protect his neighbor's property, they were unable to respond in a timely fashion after being notified that his neighbor's property was being invaded. Do the critics of Mr. Horn's actions acknowledge that citizens should have the right to protect life and property in the absence of police ability to do so?

It is certainly questionable about the level of force that Mr. Horn used, but then a shotgun is hardly a surgical instrument of destruction. And similarly to the Bernhard Goetz incident on the NY subway years ago; a frightened man is a dangerous man.

I find, with all due respect to Mon6 and the fact that I was not there, Mon6's story unpersuasive. When you elect to leave your home, especially in the dark, to investigate suspicious activity you'd be well advised to do so armed lest you become a victim of that activity. And that neighbor might have had every reason for expecting nefarious events taking place. The bottom line was that he did not shoot and presumably Mon6 did the right thing by freezing in place until matters were adjudicated as it were. The dog that didn't bark in that case is hardly an indictment of dogs.

What is surely evident, especially given the recent Supreme Court decision addressing what is a travesty of criminal activity in DC, is that the pendulum of public opinion has shifted within the country. For almost a century the country has shown a preponderance of deference to the police in such matters. For various reasons, not the least judicial in nature, many people no longer feel that such deference is neither warranted nor effective any longer. Florida's concealed carry permit law is a prime example. And the wolves are changing their dinner shopping plans based on the knowledge that many of the sheep are now armed.

As the AmSpec author noted, even a warning shot can have negative consequences. So the case, and the fear, can be made that if you're going to carry a firearm you'd best be prepared to use it. I'd expect that there are far more cases where the presence of the firearm alone deterred and helped apprehend the criminal than there are case where the innocent were shot and killed. Of course we know which ones make the evening news.

As has been said, an armed society is a polite society. I find nothing to argue with in the sentiment.

And it seems that the events in Texas with Mr. Horn took place, post shooting, just as they should have. In fact, remarkably similar to how they would have taken place had an officer of the law been the shooter. Mr. Horn was brought before a grand jury, perfectly appropriately, and the grand jury examined all of the evidence, which from what I read did cast some doubt upon his actions, and they refused to indict. And one might note that the fecklessness of law enforcement was evident in that the 911 dispatcher at no point gave Mr. Horn any indication when officers would be arriving to relieve him of the situation. That's not an indictment of law enforcement, that's an indictment of a society that has grown so tolerant of criminal behavior that it is impossible to have enough officers about to protect all who need protecting. The actions of Mr. Horn and the gentleman in Hialeah should serve to lighten that load.

I'd be glad to have Mr. Horn for a neighbor and I'd expect that the divorced mom with four kids next door to me would too.

[sailingdog]

One thing I'd point out... Warning shots don't make much sense in a hand gun or urban close combat situation. If the bad guys are clearly armed... they've asked to be taken out like the trash that they are. Buh-bye...

As for Mr. Horn... I'd buy him a box of 12 Ga. shells. Unlike the police in many instances, Horn seems to know how to use his gun effectively and without injuring innocent bystanders or requiring a large amount of ammo to effectively get the task complete.

For example: this story about an unarmed man shot by police, who fired 50 bullets to kill him. This wasn't a running gun battle...one officer fired 31 times... that's basically two high-capacity magazines of bullets.

The Amadou Diallo case is another good point. Out of the 41 bullets fired by four cops at a man in a doorway who was unarmed, only 19 hit the man. That's a hit rate of less than 50%... pathetic.

[sailaway21]

Even the police are scared, Dog. And over-react. But the problem, as I think you know, is that we've allowed a society to develop where this is so.

Here's an interesting thought. If more citizens were armed the police could go unarmed. (Let the donnybrook commence!)

[funsailthekeys]

In the early 80's I worked as Deputy Sheriff in Mohave county Arizona. There were basically no gun laws. If you wanted one you walked in showed your ID that you were a resident of Arizona and bingo you had a 44 magnum. It is legal to wear your gun as long as everyone can see it. The interesting thing comes as to the fact that we only averaged one shooting a year. Since everyone had one your common sense will tell you to behave. They don't believe in 32's or 9mm or the like. They like to be able to shoot thru the planet, so everything is magnum this or magnum that.