HOUSTON — A grand jury on Monday refused to indict a 62-year-old man who fatally shot two burglars last November as they fled his neighbor’s house.
In a case that raised questions of ethnic bias, self-defense and property rights, the jury rejected charges against the man, Joe Horn, who is white. Both victims were illegal immigrants from Colombia.
“Joe is not some wild cowboy,” Mr. Horn’s lawyer, Charles T. Lambright, said at a news conference on Monday. “He was put in a place where he didn’t have any other choice.”
But others reacted angrily to the decision. “There is not a snowflake’s chance in hell that an African-American man could do what Joe Horn did and get away with it,” said Quanell X, a local black activist. “The message that Harris County sent to the entire world is that Houston, Tex., is God’s city. There is no longer a need for the criminal justice system, police, judge or jury. You can be all of that on your own.”
Mr. Horn, a retired computer manager who testified before the grand jury, called 911 on Nov. 14, saying two men were burglarizing his neighbor’s house in Pasadena, a Houston suburb. He described the men as black.
“I’m not going to let them get away with it,” he told the emergency operator. “I’m going to shoot.” He added, “I’m going to kill them.”
The operator repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to shoot, and the police had just arrived at the scene when Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs.
The men — Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30 — ran short distances before collapsing and dying, leaving behind a tire iron used to break a window and a pillowcase holding jewelry and about $2,000 from the neighbors.
Many questions went unanswered, including the events that transpired before Mr. Horn told the operator, “I had no choice,” adding, “Man, they came running in my yard.”
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the “actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.”
One lawyer, while endorsing the grand jury’s decision, raised questions about the process.
“I wonder if Joe Horn were black if he would be free tonight or in the Harris County Jail,” said the lawyer, Joseph Gutheinz Jr., of the National Republican Lawyers Association. “It’s a sea of white faces that doesn’t look anything like the county,” Mr. Gutheinz said.
In a news release, District Attorney Kenneth Magidson of Harris County said the grand jury had “conducted a thorough review of the evidence and testimony” and noted that every case involving deadly force “stands or falls on its own particular facts.”
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the “actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.”
with that being the law then he wasn't actually legally in the wrong. I don't know the man, nor do I know the specifics as far as evidence goes. Hopefully race didn't play a part in his decision and it was based entirely on the robbery fact as mine would have been. As far as did he have to shoot, noone is asking the questions, has he ever been robbed before, had his neighbor been robbed before, is the community he's in seeing a rise in gang related violence, is drug use/sales increasing causing more crime in his area. Has any of his children or family been past victims of robbery/rape/murder. A lot of factors at play when you're talking psychological state.
I just heard on the news that one of the robbers wounds was not in the back but actually closer to his side and couldn't be confirmed if the entry wound was in the front or the back. This in itself allows for the benefit of the doubt that the man was in fact thinking he may be in danger. With it being proving beyond doubt it becomes difficult to prove or disprove what someone is thinking. And if there are no other actual eye witnesses then it is a his word against theirs. And since they are no longer alive it's not much of an argument. Not meaning for that to sound harsh but it's reality. In the military that code was basically followed. If you and one other person were alone and something happened i.e. the other guy fell down the ladder/stairs and broke his nose. It was your word against his. Without evidence to the contrary you were not likely to be charged.
As for justification, the simple fact of, if he did think, his life or safety was in danger was the justification of his actions. On a broader scale however, actions such as these on a broader scale I will guarantee you will decrease the rate of crime in the areas where such things are allowed or take place. Such is the same in the Middle Eastern cultures where the price of crime is so high, this is not my personal suggested way of doing things but you have to admit they do have a lower rate of crime. Taking away of course the extremist element. But when you lose a hand when you steal or you get hanged when you kill etc.. then you have a lot more to consider before performing the act and many more are less likely to take the chance.
this is with that kind of situation that you fully understand how hard it is to create a fair law
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink
But when you lose a hand when you steal or you get hanged when you kill etc.. then you have a lot more to consider before performing the act and many more are less likely to take the chance.
even if it's right in facts, i disagree with it by principal
killing somebody to punish him to kill ... it's the eternal debate
At this point I think referring back to http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/8...-morality.html would probably be good. I mean in the particular instance of the man shooting them, was he really defending himself and in complete compliance with the "Social Contract" or did he simply get away with an unjust act due to the morally based laws of the community?
i would go for the second solution but who knows ?
but speaking of morality i find i pretty immoral to low the value of human to less than objects is pretty immoral (i'm refering to the right to kill to protect your property)
Is your safety and way of life and continued ability to be safe and prosperous worth defending with deadly force? Yes.
What did I mean by the second statement? Well lets take for example someone breaks into your house while you're home, that right there makes a situation that could make you fear for your life as you have no real way to determine their intent. As for them just stealing things from your home there are different levels of how that can affect you. I mean if you have a home business and they are stealing your computers that have all of your personal and financial information on them as well as your sole ability to make a living. Not to mention the years of work you've put in to get to the point that you are for the business. Then your way of life and ability to prosper is definitely threatened. The personal and business financial information alone is enough to cause for months or even years of identity theft and the consequences there of. That could put you out of business and make you not be able to provide a home or food for you and/or your family right there.
So it depends on how you look at it I suppose. I mean are a few necklaces, a flat panel Television, and some silverware reason to kill someone over? I don't think so, but is the immediate physical safety or the future ability to provide for my family and myself cause for deadly force to defend. Then I would have to sway towards yes. That's not even considering the long term psychological trauma brought on to others such as children and the like with such a thing as someone forcefully entering the home(the safe zone) and getting away with it.
i just think that there are other way to defend yourself and your property other than using deadly weapons
if everybody starts to make his own law through the use of deadly weapons this is the anarchy
give a gun to somebody that is in a dangerous situation , he won't have the time to fully appreciate whether he is legally allowed to use his weapon or not and could then be jailed for his behaviour even if at first he did nothing wrong
Without deadly weapons the situation would have been fully different and you could still defend yourself through other way (pepperspray or such )
But i guess we don't see things the same way because we didn't live in the same country , nor seen the same things . I, for myself, have never had my life threaten for exemple
But i guess we don't see things the same way because we didn't live in the same country , nor seen the same things . I, for myself, have never had my life threaten for exemple
True, different countries, different cultures, and different experiences. But here in the States it is not an uncommon thing for those who commit crimes do so armed with weapons such as guns. And these weapons they obtained illegally. So you the innocent citizen not having the right to have one properly is just wrong. Be it for going out to the range and having fun target shooting, or rifles to go hunting if that is what you enjoy.
Also another way to view it is, if someone entered your home and they were armed with a sword, you yourself were trained with a sword and had one readily available. Would you defend yourself and your property with your sword? Is it just guns that you are against? Then there is the stun gun, another non lethal weapon, if the person comes into your house with one and wants to use it on you, do you have the right to use one in return, use a knife or gun or whatever is at hand to defend yourself from it? I mean it's non-lethal but once they use it on you you are unable to defend yourself or respond. Then they can do whatever they want to you, kill you, rape you, hold you hostage, torture you or worse those in your family...
Without deadly weapons the situation would have been fully different and you could still defend yourself through other way (pepperspray or such )
But i guess we don't see things the same way because we didn't live in the same country , nor seen the same things . I, for myself, have never had my life threaten for exemple
Seriously do you really think pepperspray will stop criminals?
I was unaware of that and i must admit i'm pretty shocked that you can kill somebody for material purpose
things can be paid back , not lives don't you think
You got a point about the psychological factors but it can explains things but not justify them
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions
i would go for the second solution but who knows ?
but speaking of morality i find i pretty immoral to low the value of human to less than objects is pretty immoral (i'm refering to the right to kill to protect your property)
what do you think ?
I can see why people are having a hard time with the shooting in the back of two fleeing suspects.
I think if more people were proactive, crime would be less of a problem.
Everytime I see an article on this subject I think how much the lack of credible law enforcement encourages wrong behavior.
At the very least this man should have to account for his actions before a judge. It is not sufficient to simply accept the word of an individual that he "felt" he was in peril. In the example shown it seems clear that a prudent or fearful individual could simply have stayed inside his home and avoided the burglars.
It is a sad day when we tolerate people killing with impunity, even worse to think that racism makes it easier to accomplish.
I have a question for you. When I read the article it states that a cop was sitting in the drive way. Was there any public outrage about the officer was just sitting there instead of exiting the patrol car to intervene.
True, different countries, different cultures, and different experiences. But here in the States it is not an uncommon thing for those who commit crimes do so armed with weapons such as guns. And these weapons they obtained illegally. So you the innocent citizen not having the right to have one properly is just wrong. Be it for going out to the range and having fun target shooting, or rifles to go hunting if that is what you enjoy.
Also another way to view it is, if someone entered your home and they were armed with a sword, you yourself were trained with a sword and had one readily available. Would you defend yourself and your property with your sword? Is it just guns that you are against? Then there is the stun gun, another non lethal weapon, if the person comes into your house with one and wants to use it on you, do you have the right to use one in return, use a knife or gun or whatever is at hand to defend yourself from it? I mean it's non-lethal but once they use it on you you are unable to defend yourself or respond. Then they can do whatever they want to you, kill you, rape you, hold you hostage, torture you or worse those in your family...
well i'm against killing somebody , i think you have the right to defend yourself but not to kill if you can avoid it
and i do think pepperspray is an effectiv tool
you can use that kind of weapon to paralyze or blind somebody wich can save your life in some situation
but once again it's hard for us to speak as i probably won't face somebody with a gun and you guys could
I just think that it's because weapons are freely available that so many criminals have access to it and therefore use it and this is the core problem
