What will this guy face?

A

Another User Name

New member
This link is to a story and 911 call of a guy seeing 2 people breaking into his neighbors house. He calls 911, he grabs his shotgun and tells the dispatcher he isn't going to let these guys get away....it's not right.

Eventually the robbers come out of the house he tells the dispatcher he is going out there, and then you hear 3 shots.

What do you guys think will happen with this case?

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780
 
I believe he got charged. I think in Texas if they are on your property and you are threatened you are in the right. It sounded like he claimed the guy came at him and ended up on his property.

Now if he just went out there, told them to stop, then the robbers took off running in the other direction and he shot them at that point, then he is doomed.

I also think his comments about shooting them when the dispatcher told him not to go out there, will be very bad for him. They will have to prove that he didn't have the intent to kill. I sure hope the DA doesn't really go after this guy hard. I can't blame him for going out there and trying to stop it. I probably would've done the same thing. If they charged at him, he was in the right to shoot.
 
A very complicated situation

I can't speak to Texas law, but in Arizona, the Castle Doctrine give me the right to defend MY house, not my neighbor's. I do have the right as a CCW holder to shoot to protect the life of a third party, but I don't think property.

The next question is whether or not the burglars were armed. If he confronted them, and they pointed a gun at him, all bets are off. If he shot them because they moved after he told them not to, he's the turkey at the table next week.
 
I think that in all honesty he should be charged. From the sound of it he was itching to go out and confront these two guys, and from the sound of it he wanted to shoot.

If either of the burglars were armed, then I retract my statement, but as it stands, this guy is guilty of something.
 
Something to consider.

If the neighbors had an agreement to 'keep an eye on each other's property', then the shooter may actually have a legal 'right of possession' having been authorized an 'ownership role' by the actual homeowner. If so, he may be justified in his action regardless of whether the burglars threatened him.

RE: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00
§ 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; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Click to expand...

Problem I see is absent any witnesses, that recording doesn't help his case much.
 
Here we go! The gentleman trying to detain parties of a crime, 70 years old I believe, is rushed by the suspects! Shot gun and phone in hand he defended him self ! The families of the poor drug addicts only trying to obtain there next fix will sue him for everything he has and then some. :barf:


God I hope I can still swing a shot gun when I'm 70!:rolleyes:
 
Here we go! The gentleman trying to detain parties of a crime, 70 years old I believe, is rushed by the suspects! Shot gun and phone in hand he defended him self ! The families of the poor drug addicts only trying to obtain there next fix will sue him for everything he has and then some.
Click to expand...

Only problem with that is.........

"On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

..... and another problem ..........

""Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street...."

.... "he almost run [sic] down the street" is not something that screams "self defense."

In law school this is what they called "slitting your throat with your own tongue." :(
 
If he gets in trouble then there is a problem with the law. 2 scum bag thieves confronted by a good neighbor, and shot. Good thing as far as I am concerned. I can't believe anyone thinks he should be in trouble. What the heck is wrong with us.
 
If he gets in trouble then there is a problem with the law. 2 scum bag thieves confronted by a good neighbor, and shot. Good thing as far as I am concerned. I can't believe anyone thinks he should be in trouble. What the heck is wrong with us.
Click to expand...

Yes, because this not even being his house he has perfect information on who they are and what they are doing. Perfect enough that I'm comfortable having him enforce an on-the-spot death sentence for a property crime.

Oh wait.

No.

Of course, it's possible they attacked him...in which case he was justified in shooting them. Of course, unless he has a camera outside his house it's kind of hard for us to know if this was the case.


Now, it's entirely possible that his shooting of these guys was perfectly justified. But I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that given what details I've seen here, it's probably best that this is investigated, and perhaps that determination should be made by the justice system in the form of a jury of his peers.
 
If he gets in trouble then there is a problem with the law. 2 scum bag thieves confronted by a good neighbor, and shot. Good thing as far as I am concerned. I can't believe anyone thinks he should be in trouble. What the heck is wrong with us.
Click to expand...


The only thing wrong here is that people think they SHOULD shoot people over property. Especially if the property is not yours.

These people that were looting the house were no threat to this man, this man ran outside looking for confrontation, he got what he was looking for, and If he is found guilty of a crime I hope the law comes raining down on him and anyone that thinks like him would think twice. Some people on this forum think that having a gun will solve everything.
 
This probably doesn't help his case any:

The Houston Chronicle said:
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."
Click to expand...

So the author of the "castle doctrine" law passed doesn't seem to think it applies here (despite what Horn asserts while on the line...I'm guessing he's not a lawyer). And while seems that under the law he may be authorized to use deadly force if he had an agreement with his neighbor to protect the property...well, unfortunately he's heard on the recording saying he doesn't particularly know those neighbors. So that might be a hard route to go.

It's also interesting that the dispatcher and Horn both seem to repeat the same thing over and over...Horn says he will not let these guys get away with this, and this dispatcher advises him about three hundred times to stay in his house.

There's a good chance that when the justice system (which he was so eager to bypass) is done with him, he'll wish he'd have listened.
 
JC and Beretta, your attitudes will only further increase the spread of lawlessness in our country. It isn't property that they are being shot for it is the total disrespect for anyone other than themselves. If scum realize that the may very well be KILLED by breaking into someones home then perhaps they will reconsider. And hey, if they choose to go ahead and do it any way why should I care if they get shot stealing?
 
JC and Beretta, your attitudes will only further increase the spread of lawlessness in our country. It isn't property that they are being shot for it is the total disrespect for anyone other than themselves. If scum realize that the may very well be KILLED by breaking into someones home then perhaps they will reconsider. And hey, if they choose to go ahead and do it any way why should I care if they get shot stealing?
Click to expand...

I'll start off by saying you probably shouldn't. I know I don't particularly. You won't find me mourning the loss of a couple petty burglars.

But that's not the issue.

You speak of "lawlessness." We have laws in this country that dictate when you can and when you cannot kill another human being...and in Texas I've been led to believe that they're pretty relaxed. It appears that this gentleman may have still actually broken those laws. Which, ironically, would make his crime more severe that theirs: homicide vs. theft.

There are all manner of reasons why we might not want people taking it upon themselves to shoot people over property crimes, especially other people's property. Most are hypotheticals (some likely, some less so) that don't apply in this case, so I'll abstain. I'll just say that we have a criminal justice system for a reason, and seeing people shot dead in the street for burglary, especially by uninvolved third parties, is not generally a part of it. We generally like to either have all the relevant facts (and maybe even a jury), or at least have another person placed in bodily danger, before we execute people.
 
This guy was a complete idiot who unnecessarily put himself in harms way and killed two guys for property theft. This guy is not an ambassador for the gun culture, he's an idiot who will hopefully see some serious jail time.

The guys who think he is an outstanding citizen and should be rewarded are probably the militia members that the far lefties talk about so much.

Those guys could have been hardened criminals or stupid teenagers...the fact is this old white guy was scared to death two black guys breaking into a house in "his" neighborhood and was mortified that it might be him. That's fair enough.

Kidnapping in progress, murder about to happen, rape, or anything else that calls for the death penalty I'm all for stopping, petty theft is not. Anyone who would kill someone running away in cold blood having done no bodily harm to anyone is no better than the meth freak who shoots someone in the head for their next fix.
 
JC and Beretta, your attitudes will only further increase the spread of lawlessness in our country. It isn't property that they are being shot for it is the total disrespect for anyone other than themselves. If scum realize that the may very well be KILLED by breaking into someones home then perhaps they will reconsider. And hey, if they choose to go ahead and do it any way why should I care if they get shot stealing?
Click to expand...

This is the problem, there is law, and law enforcers that are trained in high tension situations. He should of avoided the altercation, he acted like judge and jury, his comments alone will damn his defense. He acted out of emotion, emotion is something we as gun owners must learn to overcome, we accepted a hugh responsibility when we became gun owners, the same responsibility we accept when we became licensed drivers. Doing the pit maneuver on someone that's speeding can be compared to this situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top