A Bridge Too Far?
November 20th, 2007 by Syd
Here’s the situation:
Two men suspected of burglarizing a residence in a southern Pasadena [Texas] subdivision were shot and killed by a nearby resident Wednesday afternoon, police said.
This, after the elderly [? 61] man confronted the pair with a firearm in the 7400 block of Timberline in the Village Grove East neighborhood.
The owners of the targeted home were out at the time of the incident.
Capt. A.H. Corbett said the alleged shooter called authorities to report a burglary in progress next door around 2 p.m.
“The resident heard what apparently sounded to him like breaking glass,” said Corbett. “He assumed that there was possibly a burglary in progress, and he found the source of the disturbance was right next door to his residence.”
The man went outside armed with what authorities believe may have been a shotgun and attempted to stop the suspects, who reportedly refused to comply as they exited the neighbors’ backyard. He allegedly fired two rounds at the men. Both were fatally wounded.
“One of the suspects expired on the north side of the street while the other died a little further south,” said Corbett.
Authorities stated one man allegedly carried some property as the pair made their way out of the home… Law enforcement questioned the man. It is unknown what repercussions he will face, but law enforcement officials explained that it is possible that a Harris County grand jury will look into the matter. Source
News reports:
ABC News video report is here.
Complete 911 tape of the incident is here
Neighbor May Face Charges After Shooting
Man Kills Suspects While On Phone With 911
From the Texas District and County Attorneys page:
“Wednesday’s shooting “clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law,” said defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor. If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in his favor, LaFon said.
“If the homeowner comes out and says, ‘My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,’ that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role,” LaFon said.
The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else’s property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.
The neighbor, however, would have been on much safer legal ground if he had been trying to protect his own property, LaFon said….
…Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.
But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.
A state senator who authored a law passed this year giving Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force said he did not believe the legislation he spearheaded would apply to the Pasadena case, based on the sketchy facts that have emerged so far.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, said the so-called castle doctrine law he wrote doesn’t apply to people protecting their neighbors’ property.
The measure “is not designed to have kind of a ‘Law West of the Pecos’ mentality or action,” Wentworth said. “You’re supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle.” “
Observations
Caveat: I’m speculating based on the various news reports and the 911 tape. I wasn’t there and this one will have to be sorted out in court. Whenever we talk about these kinds of cases based on biased MSM news reports, we have to be careful because we may not be getting all of the facts or the facts may be violently skewed to cast the shooter in the worst possible light.
Let me say at the outset, unequivocally, that I would not have shot these guys if they were fleeing. If I have them in “feet don’t fail me now mode” I’m going to declare it “mission accomplished.” In this case there is some dispute about whether the burglars were fleeing or advancing toward the shooter. In the jurisdiction where I live, deadly force can only be applied to stop a violent felony, but not non-violent property crimes. Rape, kidnapping, arson, and the threat of imminent bodily harm can all be answered with deadly force, but I can’t shoot someone for income tax evasion. Even if I see a guy carrying off my television set, deadly force is not justified. In most jurisdictions, this is the standard for armed self defense. I know that Texas laws are different in regard to property crime and lethal force, but I think that even in Texas, the shooter in this case is on extremely thin legal ice.
The shooter did something that is going to enable attorneys for the deceased bandits to paint him as a blood-thirsty vigilante who was eager to shoot someone: he called 911 and reported the burglary and then said, “You guys better get here quick or I’m going to go when you hear the click of the shotgun,” and he racked the slide of his pump action shotgun. Soon you hear, “Move and you’re dead,” and two shotgun blasts. This was all recorded on the 911 tape. I can’t help but believe that this unnecessary and ill-advised bravado will come back to haunt the shooter in the civil proceedings which will surely follow.
Even if he is “no-billed” by the grand jury, I think he will be liable in a civil suit, despite the new “castle doctrine” law in Texas. The plaintiffs will be able to argue persuasively that the shooter was under no threat and that he wantonly killed two people who were fleeing. After all, he left the safety of his own home, went to a neighbor’s property and ordered the suspects to stop. He said, “Move and you’re dead.” Apparently, they moved and he shot them both. The “castle doctrine” extends and clarifies the use of deadly force for self defense, but it does not deputize citizens to do ad hoc law enforcement on any sort of crime anywhere. For that matter, I have a hunch that even police officers might be in trouble had they done this shooting in this way. I find it hard to believe that unarmed burglars would have advanced on a shotgun.
Problems
I see a number of problems with the way Mr. Horn approached this problem. My intention is to chart out those issues and you can make your own judgments.
Tactical: To leave a secure defensive position to take on two criminals in the open with no knowledge of their armament or capabilities is foolhardy from a tactical point of view. Had the two criminals been armed or had an armed lookout, Mr. Horn would be the one in the funeral home right now. U.S. Army battle doctrine has traditionally held that offensive actions should only be undertaken in conditions where the force ratio is 3:1. 1:2 gets you into Little Big Horn territory. Police don’t take on teams of bad guys alone, and armed citizens would be well advised to follow their example.
Legal: The Texas Castle Doctrine law doesn’t actually address the use of deadly force to protect property. Texas Penal Code Title 2, Chapter 9, Section 42 allows for the use of deadly force to prevent theft of your own property under tightly limited circumstances. It does not appear to extend to the use of deadly force to prevent theft of the property of others unless you have been hired to do so or have a pre-existing agreement with the property owner. If the grand jury buys the claim of self defense, Mr. Horn will be in the clear, but if not he could be in a whole lot of trouble, both criminal and civil. From the reading that I have done, the legal minds in the jurisdiction where this incident took place are not at all decided that Mr. Horn is completely ok, “within his rights” and that his is a correct and legal application of the castle doctrine. I think he will be at least indicted.
Conceptual: People have widely varied feelings about this, and feel free to disagree, but I don’t ever want to kill two human beings over a handful of stuff, even if they are criminals. Under the circumstances, I would rather let the police and the courts sort it out. If a person is being assaulted, that’s a different matter. I would feel compelled to intervene, but not for a handful of stuff. It is my belief that the taking of human life has profound implications – legal, moral, emotional, and financial – and it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. I’m not sure that this shooting was really necessary. Part of my problem with Mr. Horn’s solution is that, based on the tape, he seems a little too eager to engage and shoot. His decision to intervene in this crime will certainly cost him in grief and money, even if he escapes prosecution. Consequently, I would question the wisdom of interjecting oneself into a situation like this when it was not completely necessary.
Other Viewpoints
This incident has triggered heated debate. Some feel that by breaking into a home in broad daylight, the two burglars showed themselves to be potentially violent predators, and consequently, Mr. Horn performed a public service by getting them off the streets. Some feel that once Horn was in the situation and had told the suspects to stop, he was in a self defense situation. Perhaps they advanced on him, thinking that he was bluffing or that they could disarm him. Some feel that he was being a good neighbor by protecting his neighbor’s property and should be shielded under the law for attempting to stop the burglary.
What’s your take on this one? Is Horn a hero or vigilante? Use the comments to share your thoughts.
See Also:
Non-Castle, Non-Doctrine
Defense of Property, Round 2
Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill
Hero or vigilante? Mr. Horn risked his own life to keep two burglars from escaping. He had observed them committing burglary which is a felony. I think that would fall under the definition of heroic.
If Mr. Horn was only attempting to stop the felons from departing with their loot, he was not a vigilante. If he was intending to punish the two felons for committing the burglary, then he might be a vigilante or even a murderer.
Calling 911 and talking to the 911 officer (at length) while waiting for the police to arrive, is not consistent with the vigilante characterization. A vigilante would have skipped the 911 call and simply waited for the burglars to come out of the window so that he could kill them. Does that sound like the sort of man Mr. Horn is?
My impression is that Mr. Horn was frustrated. He did the right thing in calling the police. Then he waited for the police to arrive. And waited. And then waited some more. When it became apparent to him that the police were not going to arrive in time to keep the felons from departing with his neighbor’s property, it sounded like he felt that he had to do something. Lots of folks feel that they have an obligation to protect their neighbors and their neighborhood. Once a burglar departs, it is unlikely that they will ever be apprehended or that the property will be recovered.
Mr. Horn should have stayed inside of course. But I doubt that he woke up that morning hoping for the opportunity to kill the two felons. What he did was foolish but based on the little bit that I know about the case, it wasn’t criminal.
Once outside, he suddenly found himself in the presence of two criminals. He had good reason to be afraid. Anyone in their right mind would have been afraid. If those fellows were 10 or 20 feet from him, he was in mortal danger. When they were that close, they could have been on him in a flash. And it is totally possible that the criminals saw an elderly man and underestimated him. Maybe they decided to do something about the only witness that could put them behind bars. If Mr. Horn believed that they were coming at him, he was totally justified in using deadly force.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. My guess is that activists and politicians who believe that criminals should be protected from physical harm while committing their criminal acts will be doing lots of shouting. They aren’t going to get a lot of support from the victims or the criminals they want to protect.
In the final analysis, I doubt that any Texas jury would convict Mr. Horn of committing a crime. Prosecutors may decide that going after Mr. Horn would be waste of time. And if they go after him and Mr. Horn wins, as he probably would, it might encourage people who actually are inclined to be vigilantes.
I doubt that a jury in a civil trial would be sympathetic towards the criminals. It would probably be difficult to find someone to serve on a jury that had not been the victim of crime. Of course, any trial would be even more of an ordeal for Mr. Horn. I hope that doesn’t happen.
I feel sorry for Mr. Horn. I’m sure that he wishes that he had handled things differently. I can’t feel sorry for the two criminals but I do feel sorry for their friends and familys.
If the choices are hero or vigilante, I’m firmly on the side of vigilante.
There is nothing ‘heroic’ about this reckless act. Mr. Horn was not in danger of his life. He was (apparently) aware that his neighbors were not home, and thus, they were not in mortal danger. Without imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury to himself or others, we’re talking about a threat to property, and that limited to what two men could carry.
By leaving his “castle” to engage, Mr. Horn created (or at the very least ‘escalated’…) a very dangerous situation for both himself and the criminals.
Is simple theft of property ‘worth’ two human lives? No. The punishment is vastly greater than the crime.
Mr. Horn, and all armed citizens, would have been much better served had he simply informed the police and been as good a witness as possible.
Sudden death is a hazard of being a criminal, as these two yahoos found out the hard way. Mr. Horn performed a public service and should get a medal and parade in his honor. I’m not going to waste any sympathy on these two dimwits who decided to violate someone’s home because they were too lazy to work for a living. In my opinion, they got what they deserved.
Hero.
I would say HERO!
My feelings reflect what Bruce said.
I also believe there is a good chance that the families of the deceased will try and sue. If I were to sit on that jury I would be thinking of the times my home had been burglerized and had to make the police report over the phone because they couldn’t be bothered to come out and review the scene.
No money for you.
Technicalities of the law be damned. If the two were actually burglarizing the neighbor’s house- “Goodbye and good riddance”! If they happened to be family members borrowing the TV, stereo, VCR (DVD?), etc, then that’s a different matter altogether. Far too long the justice system has been giving criminals more rights than citizens. It’s bad enough defending yourself or your family from harm will drag you through a horrendous time dealing with courts, prosecutors, lawyers, etc. and with the associated financial burdens. How long must we sit back and just watch thieves repeatedly steal our possessions which were paid for by honest sweat, and do nothing except call the police and wait for a response?
If your hurt or killed during the commission of a crime, it should just be a hazard that comes with the job. Sucks to be you.
I am my brother’s keeper, and he, mine.
Most of this has been covered well with all salient points covered. I listened to the tape as well and I to heard him say he would kill them. I also heard the shotgun being racked followed by the sound of two shots.
I’d say this old gentleman is in deep trouble from the recorded statements he made on the 911 tape and the advice the dispatcher gave him not to go out.
I agree wholeheartedly that a property crime is no reason to take a life even if they are the scum of the earth. Back in the 1970’s when I first started in police work in was common to shoot suspects caught in a burglary if they ran away. This changed in the 1980’s. I made a personal decision of my own that as long as there was no danger to my person or another person I would not kill someone over a property crime. It’s just not worth living with that. It’s hard enough to live with taking a life even when the suspect gives you no choice.
There was a time when horse thieves were hung if they were caught.
Now, the horse is the automobile. Many families live paycheck to paycheck, and a stolen automobile, for instance, could ultimately result in the family being homeless.
I have to agree that when someone commits a crime, the are accepting certain repercussions. In the case of a daylight or strong armed burglary, the robber knows that he might be met with lethal force.
I feel for the families of these maroons, but I hope that the grand jury votes for a no bill.
BTW - simply sitting by and watching and “being a good witness” will typically account for zip. The police will simply ask the homeowner if he or she has insurance, and drop the matter. If more criminals feared for their lives while liberating the possessions of the average guy, they might just break down and do something radical - - like get a job.
Seems to me the criminal justice system was saved a
bit of money and the time of 12 otherwise busy jury
pool members. As a routine way to deal with this type
of situation I’d have to say in general I oppose shooting
some low grade criminals. Burglars however are in a class that have occasion to escalate to violence. This particular incident could have a positive effect on reducing the burglary rate in that area for quite a while
(should the gunman’s fellow citizens fail to indict him).
I myself would give the shooter a warning against any
such future folly, a pass, and then an unseen pat on the back for good marksmanship.
Ned,
One point I’d like to make is the comment about asking if the homeowner was insured and the police not going any further with the investigation. Rich or poor makes no difference.
I have arrested many a burglary suspect or suspects. We take this crime very seriously. The majority of the time after getting a description I would know who the suspects were and proceed from there. More often than not the suspects would be arrested within 24 hours although I have arrested them as soon as one hour after the burglary took place.
I felt that the comment you made was not fair to the officers who put their lives on the line each day to serve the public regardless of the type of crime.
Sincerely,
Sgt. Phil White (ret)
This is a very sad situation Mr Horn was faced with. The two criminals should not have been there in the first place. I personally applaud him for his bravery in facing the two thugs and making the decision to stop forever the crimes of these two criminals. Never again, will any homeowner ever have to come home to a house burglerized by these two, never again will they add to any crime statistic.
Mr Horn should not be indicted, he should not be tried for wrongful death suits and he should not be made to pay any attorney fees to defend himself in any court actions that he may face. The familes of these two criminals who will most likely hire attorneys and come after him should be the ones made to pay for allowing the crimes to take place in the first place. They will scoff at this and say they were not at fault and place blame on all manor of societies failues. However, society has a means to protect themselves when family fails and that is a shotgun and a brave man (or woman)
God bless you Mr Horn
Legally, there is little question this man is in trouble. Morally, ethically, I side with the folks who observed that the deceased invaded a home in broad daylight…by doing so, they show themselves to be the potentially dangerous thugs they most likely were. In such circumstances they were running the risk of encountering Mom at home with the kiddies…what would have happened then? Remember, the two untermenschen who invaded the Connecticut home, terrorized, raped, stole, and ultimately murdered the family of a prominent doctor had up to that point committed only property crimes. Undoubtedly emboldened by the leniency of the ‘justice’ system that repeatedly put them on the street, they decided to fry some bigger fish. Mr Horn’s ‘trophies’ will never upscale their targets…
[…] You can hear the complete 911 tape here. I didn’t hear “I’ll shoot. Stop!” I heard “Move, n’yer dead!” followed by shotgun blasts. Syd had a lot more on the event here. John Lott had this to say: I am however bothered by the advice given by the 911 operator not to go outside to intervene. It appears as if the 911 operator is giving advice that would cover all such cases and I don’t see how that is at all responsible. […]
I would be proud to have Mr Horn as my neighbor.
I think it was all fine until the actual shooting. And to decide should have shot them or not all hinges on : Did the perps turn to run, or did they in fact think it was a bluff and came at him clearly putting him on the defense of his welfare? I would not shoot a perp (as much as I may want to) who was trying to flee the scene. And I only because of the legal hell Mr. Horn may be facing. I have no sympathy for the perps. This would not have been their last robbery. And sooned or later they would have confronted someone at home. Like someone’s fifteen year daughter home sick from school. Maybe an elderly gentleman that is bedridden. I have no doubt that someone would be injured/killed by these two in time. I wish Mr. Horn the best and thanks for helping with prison overcrowding.