Joe Horn shooting controversy

[Diuretic]

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.

I have some sympathy for the latter point. It used to be that law was what our rulers used to run their bailiwicks (eg check out the real rationale behind the famous Carriers Case in England) but when we booted out the rulers and we thought we were getting democracy it seems that it was a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But having said that we have to agree on a few basic rules. I mean "self defence" should mean "self defence" (or defence of another's life/safety) and not be construed as a hunting licence for crooks. That's the disconcerting message in the Horn case. Does every Texan think they can just go out crook hunting now?

 

[Gunny]

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.

I'm not seeing your point. Jillian merely stated what the grand jury's responsibility is, and that is my understanding. I don't see what's disengenuous about that.

IMO, you overstate the DA's power. Even here in Texas, we have cable TV. These people were aware of what happened before ever being selected. Public sentiment is this guy "took out the trash" without looking too closely at the means.

There obviously was/is enough evidence to at least take the case to trial.

 

[Gunny]

I have some sympathy for the latter point. It used to be that law was what our rulers used to run their bailiwicks (eg check out the real rationale behind the famous Carriers Case in England) but when we booted out the rulers and we thought we were getting democracy it seems that it was a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But having said that we have to agree on a few basic rules. I mean "self defence" should mean "self defence" (or defence of another's life/safety) and not be construed as a hunting licence for crooks. That's the disconcerting message in the Horn case. Does every Texan think they can just go out crook hunting now?

No, and THAT is the crux of the problem. In every thread on this board is some comment referring to "Don't mess with Texas, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk ..." (which is an anti-littering slogan for those who don't know). People here are like everywhere else; which, means amongst the many are the loons that we all get judged by. This is such a case.

People here in general don't think like that. Yes, we've got a lot of guns, and yes most of us will protect ourselves. But minus the 10% of unhinged morons that lurk in the midst of all populations, I don't see anyone looking for an excuse to just start shooting at crooks. Most people I know interpret self-defense as just that.

 

[Diuretic]

No, and THAT is the crux of the problem. In every thread on this board is some comment referring to "Don't mess with Texas, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk ..." (which is an anti-littering slogan for those who don't know). People here are like everywhere else; which, means amongst the many are the loons that we all get judged by. This is such a case.

People here in general don't think like that. Yes, we've got a lot of guns, and yes most of us will protect ourselves. But minus the 10% of unhinged morons that lurk in the midst of all populations, I don't see anyone looking for an excuse to just start shooting at crooks. Most people I know interpret self-defense as just that.

Fair points. But here we have a regional grand jury making its decision. If the incident had happened in Austin might it have been different? I've only spent a couple of weeks in Texas so I can't profess to know the state but in the time I spent there I was surprised at the regional differences. I just wonder if perhaps Pasadena is a bit more conservative than, say metro Houston or Austin or, I don't know, Mesquite or Arllington.

 

[indago]

A few years back I wrote an article about George Lee Kindred and his experience with a Grand Jury:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. George Lee Kindred, living in Pinckney, Michigan, had traveled about the country giving lectures concerning the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and various governmental functions. On the date 25 March 1977, a "swat-like raid on the home and environs" of Mr. Kindred and his family was conducted by "personnel from the United States Marshal, the Internal Revenue Service, the Michigan State Police, the Livingston County Sheriff's Department, and the Pinckney Village Police, with shotguns and other automatic weapons at the ready." There was an entourage of nine cars and twenty-four men. Mr. Kindred was arrested and taken to Detroit to the federal District Court for arraignment on an indictment from a federal Grand Jury in Iowa, charging him with aiding and abetting the filing of false and fraudulent W4 forms with several individuals, named in the indictment. Mr. Kindred explained that while he was in the holding area waiting for arraignment, he met two individuals who had been there for "a couple of weeks and hadn't been up to court for arraignment or anything." They had asked if there was something that they could do. Mr. Kindred explained the process of Habeas Corpus to them, and told them to ask the trustee for a pad of paper and a pencil, and he would make one out for them. Mr. Kindred noted: "You know, they were out before I was the next morning!"

Upon arraignment, Mr. Kindred received a copy of the indictment, and claimed that he did not know any of the individuals mentioned. He pled not guilty to the charges, obtained a recognizance bond, and went home to begin the process of motion hearing. Mr. Kindred explained that he had sought removal of the case from Iowa to Michigan so that he would not have to travel so far, and at the removal hearing, in Michigan, one of the witnesses for the government, Thomas Walton Jr., who was listed as one of the individuals that he had helped in the filing of "false and fraudulent W4 forms", stated, on the witness stand, that Mr. Kindred was the one who had helped him to do this. Mr. Kindred, without counsel, and acting "in my own proper person", cross-examined the witness, and determined that the individual had been in an audience where he had spoken, along with other speakers, and when Mr. Kindred asked him if he had sat down with him and had shown him how to fill out and file a W4 form, Mr. Walton said that he had not; that he had only been in an audience, and was not even sure that Mr. Kindred had even spoken about W4 forms; that it might have been one of the other speakers. Mr. Kindred was informed, by the judge, that the removal hearing was for identification purposes only, and that the witness, having identified Mr. Kindred as the one listed in the complaint, he would have to appear in Iowa for trial. Mr. Kindred then applied for a copy of the material that would be used against him at trial. He was told that his own law course, which was on tape, would be used against him. He knew that if the prosecutor had listened to the tapes, they would know that he discusses against the filing of fraudulent W4 forms, and proceeded to write to the prosecutor, and the federal district judge, of his findings at the removal hearing, and of his statements in the law course. The prosecutor then filed, in the federal district court in Iowa, a motion for dismissal of the charges against Mr. Kindred, complaining that it was the Internal Revenue Service that had instigated this whole affair against Mr. Kindred. Mr. Kindred found that the individuals declared in the complaint as those who he was supposed to have "aided and abetted", had been indicted for the false and fraudulent filing of W4 forms, and for their cooperation with Internal Revenue Service, and a lesser penalty, they would implicate Mr. Kindred in "aiding and abetting".

Mr. Kindred then filed a criminal complaint. He charged, on behalf of the United States, the crime of perjury, as defined in 18 USC § 1621, "and making false declarations before a federal grand jury, as defined in Title 18 United States Code, Section 1623". He described, in the complaint, the indictment made against him, and filed a copy of it with the complaint. He stated that the indictment was based upon testimony, given under oath, by the persons named therein. He enclosed a copy of the order of dismissal of the indictment made against him, and a copy of the motion for dismissal entered by the federal prosecutor, which had declared, in part, that Mr. Kindred "did not actually counsel or induce said witnesses to file the false withholding statements with their employer, and that witnesses will state that their filing of the false statements was not directly the result of anything George Kindred said or did." Mr. Kindred filed, along with the complaint, and the attached documents, a letter to the magistrate, which declared:

"Dear Sir, You will find attached hereto a criminal complaint for perjury naming those cited in the five count indictment , CR 77-1004, filed against myself March 24, 1977. A cursory perusal of the three exhibits attached hereto can leave no doubt that at least the crime of perjury was committed before a federal grand jury by the parties named in my complaint. Also, you will find attached hereto a petition for a grand jury investigation because their is a distinct probable cause that the crime of subornation of perjury has been committed, as well as the crime of conspiracy against the rights of the citizens. I have complied with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Quote "The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be made upon oath before a magistrate." Now I trust you, the United States attorney, and the grand jury will do your duties to justice with the same enthusiasm and dedication which was evidenced in obtaining the erroneous indictment against me."

The complaint was notarized, and copies were sent to the press. He filed, along with the complaint, a petition for a "federal grand jury inquiry and investigation with the purpose of discovering evidence which will lead to indictments against certain personnel of the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Attorneys office, and others, charging Subornation of Perjury, as defined in Title 18 United States Code § 1622, and Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens, as defined in Title 18 United States Code § 241." He explained, in his petition:

"That as a result of the fraudulent indictment, which was premised on perjured testimony, the Petitioner was subjected to false arrest; false imprisonment; assault with dangerous and deadly weapons; unlawful trespass upon his person and property; defamation of character and taints of ill repute as a result of press releases by the Internal Revenue Service which were published in the local press and elsewhere; mental anguish; disturbance of family peace of mind and tranquility; personal mental anguish; expense of defense; and the injuring, oppressing, threatening and intimidating of the Petitioner in his free exercise and enjoyment of the rights and privileges secured to him by the Constitution of the United States of America, and the laws in pursuance thereof."

The matter was referred to the United States attorney for the district. On the date 8 February 1978, Mr. Kindred received a letter from James H. Reynolds, United States attorney, explaining that the matter would be submitted to a federal grand jury convening in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on the date 13 February 1978; and he explained that it was not mandatory that Mr. Kindred be present. Mr. Kindred did attend. He explained that the first thing that he had to do was to find out who the foreman of the grand jury was. Mr. Reynolds had taken over the jury and was giving the oath to the witnesses. Mr. Kindred lectured the grand jury on their rights and duties, admonishing them for their ignorance. He believes that as a consequence of his lecturing, and with a little help from the United States attorney, the jury voted not to indict; the whole thing was just a "big mistake"; Mr. Kindred was not harmed; he didn't have to go to trial. Mr. Kindred noted that, although he was disappointed with the outcome, he learned a lot from the experience. He just wished that jurors had more backbone than they do; and that the foreman would handle the examinations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-

 

[editec]

No, and THAT is the crux of the problem. In every thread on this board is some comment referring to "Don't mess with Texas, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk ..." (which is an anti-littering slogan for those who don't know). People here are like everywhere else; which, means amongst the many are the loons that we all get judged by. This is such a case.

People here in general don't think like that. Yes, we've got a lot of guns, and yes most of us will protect ourselves. But minus the 10% of unhinged morons that lurk in the midst of all populations, I don't see anyone looking for an excuse to just start shooting at crooks. Most people I know interpret self-defense as just that.

It's mostly just online bravado bullshit, GunnyL.

People, particularly men, who have never had a shot fired at them or been in a real fight of any kind, like to posture macho in places like these.

Of course nobody blames homeowners for wanting to protect themsevles.

But the loser who shot those fleeing suspects in the back is the worst kind of coward.

Only fellow cowards could not see that.

 

[indago]

Bernhard Goetz, the "Subway Vigilante" was not indicted by a Grand Jury, but was charged in a civil lawsuit.

Bernhard Goetz' "self-defense" crumbled when it was learned that after shooting one of the predators, the predator fell to the floor of the subway car. Mr. Goetz, then, went over to him and said, "Well, you don't look so bad; here's another", and let him have another round, this one hitting his spine. I would say that it was self defense up to that point.

But then, like he said at his interview with the prosecutor's office: "You just had to be there."

 

[editec]

Bernhard Goetz, the "Subway Vigilante" was not indicted by a Grand Jury, but was charged in a civil lawsuit.

Bernhard Goetz' "self-defense" crumbled when it was learned that after shooting one of the predators, the predator fell to the floor of the subway car. Mr. Goetz, then, went over to him and said, "Well, you don't look so bad; here's another", and let him have another round, this one hitting his spine. I would say that it was self defense up to that point.

But then, like he said at his interview with the prosecutor's office: "You just had to be there."

A wildly different case, I think.

Bernie was personally assulted by those thugs before he drew his weapon and started shooting.

In other words his blood was up and with good cause, too.

I give anyone under those conditions one hell of a lot more leeway to start firing than I do the clown in the recent case in Texas.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

Yeah, you're right. Ronnie Earle. Forgot about that.

Also, the Prosecutor usually picks who is on the grand jury (unlike a regular jury) and they often pick people who have a habit of returning an indictment.

 

[Gunny]

Fair points. But here we have a regional grand jury making its decision. If the incident had happened in Austin might it have been different? I've only spent a couple of weeks in Texas so I can't profess to know the state but in the time I spent there I was surprised at the regional differences. I just wonder if perhaps Pasadena is a bit more conservative than, say metro Houston or Austin or, I don't know, Mesquite or Arllington.

Everything in Texas is more conservative than Austin. I can only speculate like everyone else. The crime rate in Houston is one of the highest in the Nation and Texas is one of the biggest points of entry for illegal aliens and the law does little to prevent either. The people are frustrated as Hell.

Regardless the means, this guy struck back at both at the same time and it would be my guess that it didn't go much further in their thought process.

Then there IS the fact, like it or not, he was technically within the law. Two thieves entered his property and he shot them.

What separates him from the rest is that he pulled the trigger when he clearly did not have to. IMO, most people won't pull the trigger unless they absolutely have to, and some not even then.

 

[Charles_Main]

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".

It is relevant because by being illegal they broke the laws of this nation, so it goes to their basic disrespect of our laws.

 

[Gunny]

It's mostly just online bravado bullshit, GunnyL.

People, particularly men, who have never had a shot fired at them or been in a real fight of any kind, like to posture macho in places like these.

Of course nobody blames homeowners for wanting to protect themsevles.

But the loser who shot those fleeing suspects in the back is the worst kind of coward.

Only fellow cowards could not see that.

I totally agree. I think if any of these "people" had to look at a few bodies with their heads blown half off they might change their gungo-ho opinions a bit.

 

[editec]

I totally agree. I think if any of these "people" had to look at a few bodies with their heads blown half off they might change their gungo-ho opinions a bit.

Or worse, had to deal with somebody who is trying to cope with the lifelong damages they're going to have to cope with

Loads of posturing macho bullshit in places like these.

Two really good way to truly understand what guns are all about:Either learn what its like to get shot at or have to deal with those who got shot.

Either way, all that movie/TV shoot out delusional romanticising about how cool guns are very quickly evaporates when you deal with the real outcomes of the use.

Your guns are not making you safer, folks.

Civilization is making you safe, (if you live someplace that is still civilized, that is.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Or worse, had to deal with somebody who is trying to cope with the lifelong damages they're going to have to cope with

Loads of posturing macho bullshit in places like these.

Two really good way to truly understand what guns are all about:Either learn what its like to get shot at or have to deal with those who got shot.

Either way, all that movie/TV shoot out delusional romanticising about how cool guns are very quickly evaporates when you deal with the real outcomes of the use.

Your guns are not making you safer, folks.

Civilization is making you safe, (if you live someplace that is still civilized, that is.)

Ya, guns don't keep civilization civilized. I assume some pretty blue helmet is all we need? Tell your fantasy to the Bosnians, the Somalias. the people in Chad and else where around the world. I am sure they will agree not having guns sure made them safer and more civilized.

 

[editec]

Ya, guns don't keep civilization civilized. I assume some pretty blue helmet is all we need? Tell your fantasy to the Bosnians, the Somalias. the people in Chad and else where around the world. I am sure they will agree not having guns sure made them safer and more civilized.

None of those places was truly civilized, of course.

 

[Diuretic]

Everything in Texas is more conservative than Austin. I can only speculate like everyone else. The crime rate in Houston is one of the highest in the Nation and Texas is one of the biggest points of entry for illegal aliens and the law does little to prevent either. The people are frustrated as Hell.

Regardless the means, this guy struck back at both at the same time and it would be my guess that it didn't go much further in their thought process.

Then there IS the fact, like it or not, he was technically within the law. Two thieves entered his property and he shot them.

What separates him from the rest is that he pulled the trigger when he clearly did not have to. IMO, most people won't pull the trigger unless they absolutely have to, and some not even then.

That's an objective analysis and now I understand it much better - much appreciated.

 

[Diuretic]

It is relevant because by being illegal they broke the laws of this nation, so it goes to their basic disrespect of our laws.

Yes, they were of a status "illegal immigrant". But I don't see that as being relevant to their actions and Horn's actions vis-a-vis them. They were crooks, they couldn't give a shit about anyone's laws and they were in full flight breaking the laws of Texas. But that's not the point is it? The point is was Horn legally and/or morally justified in killing them. I don't know if he was justified because he isn't going to go to trial because the grand jury wouldn't hand down an indictment. So Horn is, due to the presumption of innocence, not guilty of any crime. That's the legal position. The moral position is different.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes, they were of a status "illegal immigrant". But I don't see that as being relevant to their actions and Horn's actions vis-a-vis them. They were crooks, they couldn't give a shit about anyone's laws and they were in full flight breaking the laws of Texas. But that's not the point is it? The point is was Horn legally and/or morally justified in killing them. I don't know if he was justified because he isn't going to go to trial because the grand jury wouldn't hand down an indictment. So Horn is, due to the presumption of innocence, not guilty of any crime. That's the legal position. The moral position is different.

As I have said I do not think Horn was Justified in shooting them, Infact going by the 911 call I think he should be charged with Murder 1 as he basically told the operator he intended to kill them.

That said I still think their illegal status was relevant to the case.

 

[jreeves]

As I have said I do not think Horn was Justified in shooting them, Infact going by the 911 call I think he should be charged with Murder 1 as he basically told the operator he intended to kill them.

That said I still think their illegal status was relevant to the case.

Under the castle doctorine it wasn't murder. But morally speaking he should have been convicted of 1st degree murder.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I disagree. The law ALLOWS you to shoot to kill anyone fleeing with property if you believe that property will not be recovered. READ the law.