Joe Horn shooting controversy

[mattskramer]

I have not seen any comments on this board concerning this controversy.
Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Joe Horn shooting controversy refers to the events of November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burglarizing his neighbor's home.

Did the illegal aliens not understand what Horn was saying? If they would have understood would they have obeyed? Aside from whether or not what he did was legal, did he go “over the top”? Did he do the ethically and morally right thing? Since it was only property that was taken and since it seemed that Horn was not in danger of losing his life, (reports say that the crooks were shot in the rear) was the shooting unnecessary?

On the other hand, did he do the community a service? The crooks were illegal aliens and gang members. If Horn had let them go, it would have been more difficult for them to be apprehended and unlikely that his neighbor would have received his property back. The criminals might have continued living a life of crime and leave people in fear.

I lean toward the notion that he did the right thing, but a small part of me things that the shooting was unnecessary for reasons mentioned above.

Your thoughts?

 

[mattskramer]

Ooops. Sorry. There are several posts on it.

 

[Diuretic]

Yeah but they're deteriorating into name-calling. Might be a good idea to have one that addresses the issues.

On question I have, not knowing much about US laws is that if a grand jury tossed the case can the DA or A-G get an ex officio indictment?

And if one grand jury tosses it this time, does that mean a grand jury in a similar circumstance is bound to follow or can it just make up its own mind (given that no two sets of circumstances are identicial)?

 

[Steerpike]

Diuretic:

I'm pretty sure there'd have to be some substantial new evidence to present to another grand jury. Otherwise prosecutors could just shop cases around from grand jury to grand jury until they got the result they wanted. Not sure on the texas law on that though.

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic:

I'm pretty sure there'd have to be some substantial new evidence to present to another grand jury. Otherwise prosecutors could just shop cases around from grand jury to grand jury until they got the result they wanted. Not sure on the texas law on that though.

Good point thanks Steerpike. The reason I ask is that we don't have (and never have had) grand juries. Instead a case has to go before a Magistrate and if there's a prima facie case to answer then the matter is committed to a superior court. However there have been some instances when a Magistrate refused to commit (some states here call it a "presentment" which I think is the old English law language) and the Attorney-General (of the State) actually preferred the indictment and got the case sent up for trial.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah but they're deteriorating into name-calling. Might be a good idea to have one that addresses the issues.

On question I have, not knowing much about US laws is that if a grand jury tossed the case can the DA or A-G get an ex officio indictment?

And if one grand jury tosses it this time, does that mean a grand jury in a similar circumstance is bound to follow or can it just make up its own mind (given that no two sets of circumstances are identicial)?

It's not going anywhere. He got off on a technicality. The two thieves were on his property when he shot them. That is legal here in Texas if interpretted a certain way.

The actual intent of the law is you can protect your property and your life, and the lives of your family. I believe it is a separate law that states you can use deadly force if necessary to stop a violent crime being carried out on another person.

The short version is, this guy was told to stay inside. Instead, he went outside to confront the two thieves and he shot them both in the back as they attempted to flee. IMO, that is NOT the intent of the law, and only brings the law under attack when idiots like this are allowed to misuse it.

 

[Swamp Fox]

My guess would be that the prosecutors figured no one in Texas would convict the guy so they let it go on a technicality. Arizona law allows for the shooting of people if a reasonable person would be in fear of their life. "Reasonable" allows for a lot of leeway.

 

[Steerpike]

My guess would be that the prosecutors figured no one in Texas would convict the guy so they let it go on a technicality. Arizona law allows for the shooting of people if a reasonable person would be in fear of their life. "Reasonable" allows for a lot of leeway.

The prosecutors didn't let it go. It went to the grand jury, who refused to return an indictment.

 

[jreeves]

It's not going anywhere. He got off on a technicality. The two thieves were on his property when he shot them. That is legal here in Texas if interpretted a certain way.

The actual intent of the law is you can protect your property and your life, and the lives of your family. I believe it is a separate law that states you can use deadly force if necessary to stop a violent crime being carried out on another person.

The short version is, this guy was told to stay inside. Instead, he went outside to confront the two thieves and he shot them both in the back as they attempted to flee. IMO, that is NOT the intent of the law, and only brings the law under attack when idiots like this are allowed to misuse it.

Yep, the Castle Doctrine saved him.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrine in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even though he didn't break the law, I feel property doesn't equal taking human life.

 

[Diuretic]

But the grand jury refused to indict. I know that proceedings of the grand jury are in secret so I suppose that means that no-one will know why they refused to indict. I suppose they just thought that the two crooks got what was coming to them. But also wonder that if the law was a bit tighter would they still have refused to indict? How much is this about a grand jury's interpretation of the allegations compared against the law and how much is it about a grand jury's attitude about crime in their area?

 

[jreeves]

But the grand jury refused to indict. I know that proceedings of the grand jury are in secret so I suppose that means that no-one will know why they refused to indict. I suppose they just thought that the two crooks got what was coming to them. But also wonder that if the law was a bit tighter would they still have refused to indict? How much is this about a grand jury's interpretation of the allegations compared against the law and how much is it about a grand jury's attitude about crime in their area?

I believe he was within the limits of the law, for it to be considered justifiable homicide.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But the grand jury refused to indict. I know that proceedings of the grand jury are in secret so I suppose that means that no-one will know why they refused to indict. I suppose they just thought that the two crooks got what was coming to them. But also wonder that if the law was a bit tighter would they still have refused to indict? How much is this about a grand jury's interpretation of the allegations compared against the law and how much is it about a grand jury's attitude about crime in their area?

The standard joke in America is that a DA could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. Basicly one of two things happen when a Grand Jury does not Indict. One, the DA was an incompetent boob or two, there was no case to begin with.

The accused has almost no rights or protections in a Grand Jury. The DA has all the power, they do not even have to follow the rules of evidence. They can present information that would never be allowed in a court of law. The accused has no power to challenge or contest ANYTHING the DA says in a Grand Jury.

I suspect the reason no indictment occurred is because the Grand Jury saw no LAW had been broken.

Now as to refiling, the DA can in fact refile for just about any reason. Remember Delay, He was subjected to 3 years of repeated grand Juries for the same supposed offense. I believe that DA had him before the Grand Jury 5 times and the first 4 all refused to indict. The DA just kept bringing it up hoping to find a Grand Jury that would agree with him. And then when it got to court most of the charges were thrown out by the Judge.

 

[Diuretic]

I believe he was within the limits of the law, for it to be considered justifiable homicide.

But we won't know that will we? I mean if the grand jury's deliberations are secret.

It reminds me of a case in western Queensland here in Australia some years ago. A cattle station owner was charged with stealing cleanskin (unbranded) cattle from several neighbouring stations. The police stock squad took the case to trial in a large western Queensland town and the trial proceeded before judge and jury. At the end of the case where it seemed that the defendant was indeed culpable, the foreman of the jury (the jury was drawn from locals and it just so happened that nearly all of them were station owners) stood up.

"How do you find the defendant, guilty or not guilty?" Asked the clerk of court.

Pause. The jury foreman looked at the judge.

"Not guilty."

The judge frowned at the jury but before he could open his mouth the foreman continued.

"Only provided he hands all those cattle back, your honour"

 

[Diuretic]

The standard joke in America is that a DA could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. Basicly one of two things happen when a Grand Jury does not Indict. One, the DA was an incompetent boob or two, there was no case to begin with.

The accused has almost no rights or protections in a Grand Jury. The DA has all the power, they do not even have to follow the rules of evidence. They can present information that would never be allowed in a court of law. The accused has no power to challenge or contest ANYTHING the DA says in a Grand Jury.

I suspect the reason no indictment occurred is because the Grand Jury saw no LAW had been broken.

Now as to refiling, the DA can in fact refile for just about any reason. Remember Delay, He was subjected to 3 years of repeated grand Juries for the same supposed offense. I believe that DA had him before the Grand Jury 5 times and the first 4 all refused to indict. The DA just kept bringing it up hoping to find a Grand Jury that would agree with him. And then when it got to court most of the charges were thrown out by the Judge.

Thanks RGS. All I can do is speculate of course but what if the jury decided that, regardless of the evidence, it didn't want to indict?

Again an anecdote, a famous English one. Blackstone one referred to the "pious perjury of the jury".

There was a case where a young servant woman was indicted for stealing a solid gold cup from her employers. The value of the cup meant that there was only one penalty for her should she be convicted and that was execution. The jury were given the facts. But the jury decided that the cup wasn't actually gold, it was just plated so it wasn't worth as much as a solid gold cup. The young woman thus escaped the gallows. But from what I read it was apparent the jury knew it was solid gold but because of the brutality of English criminal law at the time they knew she would hang. They decided solid gold was only gold plate and spared her life.

 

[jillian]

Thanks RGS. All I can do is speculate of course but what if the jury decided that, regardless of the evidence, it didn't want to indict?

Again an anecdote, a famous English one. Blackstone one referred to the "pious perjury of the jury".

There was a case where a young servant woman was indicted for stealing a solid gold cup from her employers. The value of the cup meant that there was only one penalty for her should she be convicted and that was execution. The jury were given the facts. But the jury decided that the cup wasn't actually gold, it was just plated so it wasn't worth as much as a solid gold cup. The young woman thus escaped the gallows. But from what I read it was apparent the jury knew it was solid gold but because of the brutality of English criminal law at the time they knew she would hang. They decided solid gold was only gold plate and spared her life.

And THAT is the third basis on which a grand jury wouldn't indict. To them, this guy killed a couple of crminals who were also illegal immigrants. Wasn't any way they were going to indict for that under these circumstances.

But it wasn't their place to determine if he had broken the law, only if there was enough evidence to send the case to trial. And certainly there was that....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And THAT is the third basis on which a grand jury wouldn't indict. To them, this guy killed a couple of crminals who were also illegal immigrants. Wasn't any way they were going to indict for that under these circumstances.

But it wasn't their place to determine if he had broken the law, only if there was enough evidence to send the case to trial. And certainly there was that....

Except a Grand Jury is NOT a court room and the "defense" has almost no power to say or bring up ANYTHING. Are you then claiming the DA pointed this out? That he torpedoed his own case?

 

[Diuretic]

And THAT is the third basis on which a grand jury wouldn't indict. To them, this guy killed a couple of crminals who were also illegal immigrants. Wasn't any way they were going to indict for that under these circumstances.

But it wasn't their place to determine if he had broken the law, only if there was enough evidence to send the case to trial. And certainly there was that....

And that throws it into stark relief. In my jurisdiction it's entirely probable he would have been sent to trial on the basis of a prima facie case being made out. I would think though that if it had gone to a grand jury (which we don't have) then it could have even gone the same way as it did in Pasadena.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And that throws it into stark relief. In my jurisdiction it's entirely probable he would have been sent to trial on the basis of a prima facie case being made out. I would think though that if it had gone to a grand jury (which we don't have) then it could have even gone the same way as it did in Pasadena.

Jillian is being disengenious a tad. A Grand Jury is completely controlled by the DA. He determines what will be presented, who will be questioned, what will be shown and what questions or information will be provided. He does not even have to call for the accused at all. If the Grand Jury was told these men were illegal aliens then the Prosecutor told them. If they were reminded at any point in the proceedings that the dead men were illegally in the Country, then the Prosecutor reminded them.

 

[Diuretic]

Jillian is being disengenious a tad. A Grand Jury is completely controlled by the DA. He determines what will be presented, who will be questioned, what will be shown and what questions or information will be provided. He does not even have to call for the accused at all. If the Grand Jury was told these men were illegal aliens then the Prosecutor told them. If they were reminded at any point in the proceedings that the dead men were illegally in the Country, then the Prosecutor reminded them.

Thanks for that info, as I say, we don't have grand juries so I'm learning as I go along and it's very interesting. But you know I wouldn't be surprised if the DA didn't mention the illegal status of the offenders, in fact I'd think it would be judicious not to mention it as it has no relevance to the case. Having said that I think I recall reading where you or another poster mentioned that the ordinary rules of evidence don't apply in a grand jury hearing. But again, having said/written that I think a DA would be unwise to introduce totally irrelevant evidence. No, I just sort of think that perhaps the good folks on the grand jury were pissed off at the rate of crime in Pasadena and perhaps the greater Houston/Harris County area and decided that Horn could have been any one of them and that "there but for the grace of God go I".

 

[Gunny]

But the grand jury refused to indict. I know that proceedings of the grand jury are in secret so I suppose that means that no-one will know why they refused to indict. I suppose they just thought that the two crooks got what was coming to them. But also wonder that if the law was a bit tighter would they still have refused to indict? How much is this about a grand jury's interpretation of the allegations compared against the law and how much is it about a grand jury's attitude about crime in their area?

The law is a two-way street. When it was tighter, it was used to convict on technicalities that created the push to loosen it up. Prior to the change, the old saying here was "if you shoot them, make sure you kill them and drag the body into your house."

The problem is not with the law itself. It's with the people allowed to interpret and MISinterpret its intent. Intent no longer applies to law. It gets lost in the game of words. There will never be a lawyer-proof law.

In this case, lawyers didn't even need to touch it. The sentiment of the people is obvious, they just chose a poor example to display their exasperation with crime and illegal immigration.

Lost in teh message of villifying Horn and the grand jury is our elitist representatives in government aren't doing anything to reflect the will of their constituents. They know what's best for us.