Houston Burglar killer Joe Horn cleared by Grand Jury

Status
Not open for further replies.

LanceOregon

Moderator
I don't know about the rest of you, but I found this to be a most troubling case, as one can easily see both sides of this controversy. A retired 62 year old man by the name of Joe Horn spots two illegal aliens ( both with records ) burglarizing his neighbors home. The 911 operator advises him to not go outside and confront them, and let the police handle the situation.

But when he sees the men leaving with over $2,000 worth of his neighbors property, he decides to confront them with his 12 gauge shotgun. The two men are unarmed, but come onto his property as they are leaving. Horn feels threatened for his safety as they approach and fires. Both men are killed by shots to their back.

Here are mug shots taken previously of the two dead men, who were both from Columbia and illegally in the country. Both had prior arrests:


600xPopupGallery.jpg


600xPopupGallery.jpg



This story really divided the Houston community deeply, as black and latino activists claimed racism and murder by Horn. Protests were held at his home, and it was picketed. And the largest protest event, though, protesters found themselves overwhelmed with people from all over Houston, who came out to counter-protest on Horn's behalf.

Here is a photo taken during this confrontation:

600xPopupGallery.jpg


The crowd of Horn supporters totally overwhelmed the protesters:

600xPopupGallery.jpg



The protests actually caused the Houston City Council to pass an ordinance banning demonstrations and picketing at residences, thus putting an end to the confrontations. It was feared that if they had continued, that violence might eventually break out.

Here is a link to the first report by the Houston Chronicle about the Grand Jury's refusal to indict Joe Horn:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5864151.html

The hearings were held in secret, so no one can report on what specifically took place during them. But it was noted that in order to return a charge against Horn, 9 of the 12 jurors would of had to agree to charge him. So that obviously did not take place. So even if a simple majority of jurors agreed that Horn should have been indicted, that would not have been enough to make it happen. The actual vote count is also secret.

The above web page also has a recording of the 911 call that Horn made to police. So you can actually hear everything that was said by both Horn and the 911 operator during the burglary. Listening to this tape does shed a great deal of light on the issue.

For the operator repeatedly warned Horn during the call to not go outside, and to let the police handle the matter. And as Horn finally left to confront the men, he actually made the statement: "I'm going to kill them."

Here is a follow-up report by the Houston Chronicle, with additional information:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5865155.html

Would you have done what Horn did, if you had been in his shoes? And if you did, do you think that your local community would have supported you, as Horn received so much support in Houston?? Burglary apparently went up significantly in Houston last year, according to the city's crime statistics. And many folks are becoming frustrated over problems involving illegal immigration.

It is hard to know if the Grand Jury really followed the letter of the law here, or if jurors simply did not feel comfortable in putting the 62 yr old Horn through criminal charges. One would normally think that shooting people in the back is a major no-no when it comes to self defense.

Hopefully we can have rational discussion about this most difficult case, and not get too emotional about it.

.
 
Morally speaking I'll pat Joe on the back. Its always a good day when folks like that get deported permanently. Legally is a whole other matter. That said, this is probably the best outcome.
 
Who said the picket folks had anything to do with the community? I lived in Berkeley, and, the truth comes out that a bunch of those groups would bring folks from anywhere to make a scene.
Is it to far to stretch and say Brady?

With the Heller case and result coming out, such crap makes great news media stuff. Heck, could have been the media that got the folks to picket.

Just run an add:
"New Commercial. 80 bucks a day. report at...3 free meals a day, for more then 1 day..."

And, you have your, 'protest'.
Don't even think this kind of stuff doesn't happen all the time. Welcome to TV...

My guess is the police investigated, reported, and, the ordnance was passed when it was found the protestors were from out of the constituent area...
 
Where I live shooting a man in the back would have gotten me charged with murder regardless of the circumstances. Guess Ill be moving back to Texas when I retire.
 
I seem to remember reading somewhere that one man was on Mr. Horn's lawn when shot. That and also something about it being legal to defend a neighbors property. I do agree that frustrating as it is he probably had no justification for lethal force. But since it is his word against nobody's...


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/national/main3511528.shtml


Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.
 
I have read so many articles written about this story that it makes my head spin. Each one leaving out or adding another element to the story. The grand jury would have heard the whole story at once and they decided not to indite, and that was in one of Texas's most liberal areas, so maybe thy know more than I have been able to gather from the written articles.
 
Indictment by a grand jury requires a relatively low standard. If an indictment was not returned, then I consider the man innocent.
 
Regardless of the outcome, this case should be used as an example for every CCW class. Mr. Horn's intent was clear. He had pre-determined that the crime of burglary was punishable by capital punishment, which it is not. These two thieves were far from innocent, but this particular crime did not justify the shooting. Horn was clearly over-motivated to shoot someone.
 
Last edited:
Morally speaking I'll pat Joe on the back. Its always a good day when folks like that get deported permanently. Legally is a whole other matter. That said, this is probably the best outcome.

Well said.
 
It was a legal shoot. Texas law states:

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;

I'm not saying I would have shot them in the back but they were tresspassing when he shot them.
 
Shooting someone in the back seems extreme. Shooting someone in the back with a shotgun seems sadistic. However, if that is Texas law then I guess that saying "Don't mess with Texas" is a hell of a lot more than just a stupid bumper sticker slogan. I would think crime rates in Texas are going to plummet after this.
 
He told them: "You move, you die." Having been told this, a reasonable man would have stopped moving. They decided to run. Clearly an error.


You might say, "They didn't understand English." Well, then they should have taken the trouble to learn our language. If you're going to sneak into our country and steal our stuff, at least have the courtesy to learn English.
 
I doubt I would have acted as he did however I certainly will not condemn him either,the law failed to have these two bad guys in jail or deported so I suspect Mr Horn right or wrong prevented future crime.

If I decide to break in to someone's home then in my opinion I have given up my rights and as our society continues to grow along with percentage of bad guys we will be faced with decisions like this. In the end who would you rather have as a neighbor, Mr Horn or the bad guys its just that simple.
 
the law failed to have these two bad guys in jail or deported so I suspect Mr Horn right or wrong prevented future crime.

Actually one of them was deported back in '99 for drug charges...just made his way back like many others. :mad:
 
I think he acted wrongly (not illegally) by shooting them once they turned and ran. I have always been taught to shoot to stop the threat, not kill. They were no longer a threat to Horn. Thant being said, I'm glad they are gone, and he got off.
 
First off, none of us know every facet of this case, as it was presented to the Grand Jury.

Then, considering the so-called truism that any decent D.A. can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich, this tells me there are facts about this that none of us, including the news reporters, know about. I conclude that those facts are such as to preclude the Grand Jury from indictment.

Whatever we might think about this whole affair, bottom line in this case, the man (while possibly not innocent) is not guilty of committing a crime.
 
Couldn't agree with you more Antipitas. I think what might be so shocking about this is that when Texas lawmakers passed this law, apparently they really, really meant it. I gotta admit "Get Caught, Get Shot" sounds a lot more menacing than "Three Strikes You're Out".
 
First off, none of us know every facet of this case, as it was presented to the Grand Jury.

Then, considering the so-called truism that any decent D.A. can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich, this tells me there are facts about this that none of us, including the news reporters, know about. I conclude that those facts are such as to preclude the Grand Jury from indictment.

Whatever we might think about this whole affair, bottom line in this case, the man (while possibly not innocent) is not guilty of committing a crime.

ive heard that the D.A. didnt want the indictment(possibly for political reasons) and presented the case to the grand jury as such.

anyway,this "rambo wannabe"(because i like AR's,hi-caps,etc:rolleyes:)...

...is pretty shocked by this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top