Texan Kills Thieves: Hero or Homicidal?

Lisa Denton

Can nipples explode?
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Posts
7,758
I saw this story in the news, its terrible, two burglars dead.

I thought about a 60 year old man facing two younger criminals, and did they lunge at him, were they in his front yard when he went out, but mostly, why in the hell did he say what he did to the 911 dispatcher?

If he hadn't said what he did there would be no charges probably. This is texas and there are laws allowing use of deadly force to stop crimes, almost all of which would have applied to an elderly man facing younger criminals and possibly fearing for his life, if he hadn't said what he did to the dispatcher.

It had a personal impact on me because about 6 months ago I saw my neighbors house being burglarized, right next door. I was armed and capable, and not afraid, but I called 911 and when the police came I talked to them and they found some stuff the burglars dropped when they heard me open the door to let out my dog.

I gave a good description of the burglars and the car they were driving, but even the police figured it was a stolen car and there was little chance of catching the burglars. The lil ol lady who lives next door to me is sweet and is at that age where she makes the decision every year to work one more year before retiring because she wouldn't be able to live on only what she would have coming in.

Me and the cops talked 30 or 45 minutes, they drove around the block a few times, I called 911 back within two hours and told them the burglars were back clearing her house out, and we did the same thing again.

She came to thank me that evening, the cops told her I called, twice, and that both times, my dog scared them off before they got everything, but the look of pain and hopelessness on her face made me feel guilty. She noticed, and said thank god I hadn't tried to stop them and maybe gotten hurt.

And that made me feel more guilty because she was the kind of person who shouldn't have been victimized.

I'm not gonna say what this man did was wrong, I know what he said before he did it was wrong, but I understand why he did it.

Thats my personal JMO.

I know many will disagree, here's the story:
************************************************************

Texan Kills Thieves: Hero or Homicidal?
Published: 11/26/07, 8:05 PM EDT
By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON
HOUSTON (AP) - The cha-chick of a shell entering a shotgun's chamber rattled through the 911 line just before Joe Horn stepped out his front door.

Horn, 61, had phoned police when he saw two men break into his neighbor's suburban Houston home through a window in broad daylight. Now they were getting away with a bag of loot.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

He did.

Admirers, including several of his neighbors, say Horn is a hero for killing the burglars, protecting his neighborhood and sending a message to would-be criminals. Critics call him a loose cannon. His attorney says Horn just feared for his life.

Prosecuting Horn could prove difficult in Texas, where few people sympathize with criminals and many have an almost religious belief in the right to self-defense. The case could test the state's self-defense laws, which allow people to use deadly force in certain situations to protect themselves, their property and their neighbors' property.

Horn was home in Pasadena, about 15 miles southeast of Houston, on Nov. 14 when he heard glass breaking, said his attorney, Tom Lambright. He looked out the window and saw 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and 30-year-old Diego Ortiz using a crowbar to break out the rest of the glass.

He grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun and called 911, Lambright said.

"Uh, I've got a shotgun," he told the dispatcher. "Uh, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher responded. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Horn and the dispatcher spoke for several minutes, during which Horn pleaded with the dispatcher to someone to catch the men and vowed not to let them escape. Over and over, the dispatcher told him to stay inside. Horn repeatedly said he couldn't.

When the men crawled back out the window carrying a bag, Horn began to sound increasingly frantic.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

A few seconds passed.

"Move," Horn can be heard saying on the tape. "You're dead."

Boom.

Click.

Boom.

Click.

Boom.

Horn redialed 911 and told the dispatcher what he'd done.

"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."

Lambright said Horn had intended to take a look around when he left his house and instead came face to face with the burglars, standing 10 to 12 feet from him in his yard.

Horn is heavyset and middle-aged and would have been no match in a physical confrontation with the two men, who were young and strong, Lambright said. So when one or both of them "made lunging movements," Horn fired in self-defense, he said.

Family members of the two shooting victims have made few public statements.

Diamond Morgan, Ortiz's widow, who has an 8-month-old son with him, told Houston television station KTRK that she was stunned by Horn's statements on the 911 tape. "It's horrible," she said. "He was so eager, so eager to shoot."

The Associated Press could not find a telephone listing for Morgan.

The case brought back memories of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker whom some hailed as a folk hero after he shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.

Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault charges but convicted of illegal possession of the gun he used to shoot the youths. He served 8 1/2 months in jail and was ordered by a jury to pay $43 million to one of the teenagers he shot.

Pasadena police were still investigating Monday and planned to present their findings to Harris County prosecutors within the next two weeks, police spokesman Vance Mitchell said. From there, it is expected to be presented to a grand jury. In the meantime, Horn remains uncharged.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they could otherwise be killed. In some cases, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbors' property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

At issue is whether it was reasonable for Horn to fear the men and whether his earlier threats on the 911 call showed he planned to kill them no matter what, said Fred C. Moss, who teaches criminal law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
*****************************************************************

:rose:
 
In the eyes of a jury, or of a hungry lawyer he is guilty because of his statements. He said that he was going to kill them and he did. Wether he actually meant to do so or not is now moot because of his statements. (Hell because of his statements he faces the possiblilty of charges of First Degree Murder.)

Cat
 
While what he did is probably legally wrong, I gotta admire the guy.
 
When the facts come out publicly, and since he hasn't been charged it will probably be what his lawyer says, and if so, what he did was legal.

What he said he was going to do, and then did, may be illegal.

Texas laws are different than other states, I have to know them, I have a concealed carry permit with the state of texas. If he saw a crime, and then the criminals came onto his property he had the right to use deadly force to protect his life and property.

Actually, what he says at the trial will matter, because what he said to the dispatcher and then making a statement to the police afterwards can all be challenged as he was scared when talking to the dispatcher, and probably in shock after when making a statement. His lawyer will be telling him what to say, all he has to do is word it properly and sound believable. He was talking with false bravado to the dispatcher, he peed in his pants before he went out the door, he was just gonna try to scare them with the gun, he never intended to shoot it, he thought one guy had something in his hand, he wasn't sure but he was scared and he thought it might be a gun.

As for whether or not they lunged at him I assume it will be his word against thiers, and they aren't going to be talking, so under texas law at that point he had the right to fire.

He now has to defend what he said and discredit it, and a 60 year old man can probably say he was scared of two younger criminals and sound believable, hell, it might even be true.

I know what to do, I had a 9 mil handgun in my hand when I called the police in my house as the nieghbors house was being burglarized. I have a fenced backyard but my dog was out there barking at them, and I didn't tell the dispatcher but I would have shot them both dead if they pointed a gun at my dog.

Warning shots are to kill innocent bystanders and shooting to wound is what you do right before you die, I would have shot to kill and later never would have mentioned my dog, "they were commiting a crime, saw me open the door to innocently let my dog out and they pulled a gun, I fired to protect myself" end of story.

I did not want to shoot anyone over property, things, even though that lil ol lady didn't have much.

I have no problem shooting, and would never shoot except to shoot to kill, to protect a life and my dog is one animal life that I care deeply enough about that I would re-word what happened to fit into the lawful use of deadly force to protect.

This elderly man in the story, he didn't know the law, what he could and couldn't do, what he should say, and most importantly, what he shouldn't have said.

:rose:
 
R. Richard said:
Amateur. With a shotgun, he should have gone for the legs.

Nope, center mass. Always center mass.

Dead suspects can't sue after you're adjudged to have shot them in self-defense.
 
Lisa Denton said:
When the facts come out publicly, and since he hasn't been charged it will probably be what his lawyer says, and if so, what he did was legal.

What he said he was going to do, and then did, may be illegal.

Texas laws are different than other states, I have to know them, I have a concealed carry permit with the state of texas. If he saw a crime, and then the criminals came onto his property he had the right to use deadly force to protect his life and property.

Actually, what he says at the trial will matter, because what he said to the dispatcher and then making a statement to the police afterwards can all be challenged as he was scared when talking to the dispatcher, and probably in shock after when making a statement. His lawyer will be telling him what to say, all he has to do is word it properly and sound believable. He was talking with false bravado to the dispatcher, he peed in his pants before he went out the door, he was just gonna try to scare them with the gun, he never intended to shoot it, he thought one guy had something in his hand, he wasn't sure but he was scared and he thought it might be a gun.

As for whether or not they lunged at him I assume it will be his word against thiers, and they aren't going to be talking, so under texas law at that point he had the right to fire.

He now has to defend what he said and discredit it, and a 60 year old man can probably say he was scared of two younger criminals and sound believable, hell, it might even be true.

I know what to do, I had a 9 mil handgun in my hand when I called the police in my house as the nieghbors house was being burglarized. I have a fenced backyard but my dog was out there barking at them, and I didn't tell the dispatcher but I would have shot them both dead if they pointed a gun at my dog.

Warning shots are to kill innocent bystanders and shooting to wound is what you do right before you die, I would have shot to kill and later never would have mentioned my dog, "they were commiting a crime, saw me open the door to innocently let my dog out and they pulled a gun, I fired to protect myself" end of story.

I did not want to shoot anyone over property, things, even though that lil ol lady didn't have much.

I have no problem shooting, and would never shoot except to shoot to kill, to protect a life and my dog is one animal life that I care deeply enough about that I would re-word what happened to fit into the lawful use of deadly force to protect.

This elderly man in the story, he didn't know the law, what he could and couldn't do, what he should say, and most importantly, what he shouldn't have said.

:rose:

Lisa,

I wont get into this except to say I grew up in a truly fucked up state. A state where if a person breaks into your house and injures themself, you are liable for their injuries.

I had to defend my actions in a court of law because I beat the living crap out of a guy breaking into my apartment. My apartment was on the second floor, he had to climb a fire escape. He cut the screen and jimmied the window. He was armed with a long knife, I used a Table Lamp. (The first thing that came to hand.) I got 70+ stitches and he had a cuncusion. I was the bad guy in the eyes of the court. I was lucky to get out of there without a criminal record. (The Police by the way backed me up.)

I now live in a state where denfending oneself is expected. Even so if it happens again, they will find the guys body in the intercoastal and I wont be saying a word. Never ever tell anyone what you plan on doing even if it is legal. Someone somewhere will try to find a way to bite you in the ass and make you pay.

Cat
 
Weird Harold said:
Nope, center mass. Always center mass.

Dead suspects can't sue after you're adjudged to have shot them in self-defense.

Yes, center mass is safer, especially for an amateur. However, a leg shot at close range, even with a 12 gauge using heavy gauge shot will normally take the leg off. Then, the SOB bleeds to death on your property and you have self defense. Self defense plays well in Texas, particularly on your own property.

By the way, what the homeowner said on 911 qualifies as criminal stupidity. "Their over in my neighbors house. I went out and they said their gonna' come and get me. I'm gonna' defend my family. Get the police out here and save me!
 
SeaCat said:
Lisa,

I wont get into this except to say I grew up in a truly fucked up state. A state where if a person breaks into your house and injures themself, you are liable for their injuries.

I had to defend my actions in a court of law because I beat the living crap out of a guy breaking into my apartment. My apartment was on the second floor, he had to climb a fire escape. He cut the screen and jimmied the window. He was armed with a long knife, I used a Table Lamp. (The first thing that came to hand.) I got 70+ stitches and he had a cuncusion. I was the bad guy in the eyes of the court. I was lucky to get out of there without a criminal record. (The Police by the way backed me up.)

I now live in a state where denfending oneself is expected. Even so if it happens again, they will find the guys body in the intercoastal and I wont be saying a word. Never ever tell anyone what you plan on doing even if it is legal. Someone somewhere will try to find a way to bite you in the ass and make you pay.

Cat

What freakin state did you grow up in Cat? That is crazy. In texas there are laws, legal ones, to cover most everything, you just have to say it right.

Like it is legal to shoot a fleeing burglar who burglarized your house in texas, after dark. I dunno why only after dark, or why you would be able to shoot someone fleeing, since you would have to shoot them in the back, and I sure wouldn't want to try to defend myself with that one, but its a law.

Its mostly knowing to STATE THE TRUTH when making a statement, if you say you feared for your life, which would be true in almost any situation, the law suddenly comes onto your side, in texas. In texas you have the right to use deadly force to protect your life and property. I know in other states its only to protect your life.

In texas there are still the wide open spaces, yes, its true. There are rural areas where a small rancher could go broke if his cattle were being stolen, so he has a right to shoot to kill to protect his livelihood, things like that.

As for your last paragraph and:
" Even so if it happens again, they will find the guys body in the intercoastal and I wont be saying a word. Never ever tell anyone what you plan on doing even if it is legal"
I saw your warning, and agree ..................... and point out that you need to do the same, he, he.

Mostly what I am saying is wording it to fit the law, and the truth, not something illegal, and I think you should live in a state where its legal to bring a table lamp to a knife fight, though probably not smart.

See ya, Lisa.

:rose:
 
Lisa Denton said:
Warning shots are to kill innocent bystanders and shooting to wound is what you do right before you die, I would have shot to kill and later never would have mentioned my dog, "they were commiting a crime, saw me open the door to innocently let my dog out and they pulled a gun, I fired to protect myself" end of story.

Lisa, Lisa! "They were commiting a crime, saw me open the door to innocently let my dog out and I saw that one of them had a shiny object in his hand. I thought it was a gun. I'm just a poor lady, all alone. I was terrified! I just fired to protect myself [Boohoo! Boohoo!]"
 
Lisa Denton said:
What freakin state did you grow up in Cat? That is crazy. In texas there are laws, legal ones, to cover most everything, you just have to say it right.

Like it is legal to shoot a fleeing burglar who burglarized your house in texas, after dark. I dunno why only after dark, or why you would be able to shoot someone fleeing, since you would have to shoot them in the back, and I sure wouldn't want to try to defend myself with that one, but its a law.
Lisa, Cat lived in the state of Massachusetts.

All through the South and the West it is mostly legal to shoot someone who invades your house after dark. Think, you are a homeowner and some ass hole breaks into your house in the dark where you often can't see what is really happening and you shoot, in panic, to defend your family. So you got the ass hole in the back. So what? [However, never, never reload and keep shooting. That last does not go over well with juries.]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa Denton
What freakin state did you grow up in Cat? That is crazy. In texas there are laws, legal ones, to cover most everything, you just have to say it right.

Like it is legal to shoot a fleeing burglar who burglarized your house in texas, after dark. I dunno why only after dark, or why you would be able to shoot someone fleeing, since you would have to shoot them in the back, and I sure wouldn't want to try to defend myself with that one, but its a law.

R. Richard said:
Lisa, Cat lived in the state of Massachusetts.

All through the South and the West it is mostly legal to shoot someone who invades your house after dark. Think, you are a homeowner and some ass hole breaks into your house in the dark where you often can't see what is really happening and you shoot, in panic, to defend your family. So you got the ass hole in the back. So what? [However, never, never reload and keep shooting. That last does not go over well with juries.]

From what I have read about Mass., it is almost as bad as Calif. The problem in Calif. is not the law on the books, it's the laws passed by Jerry Brown's lunatic supreme court. We were able to vote them all out of office, but the damage was already done. Now, Gov. Moonbeam has been elected AG. California is about to become a paradise for criminals, even more than it already is.
 
R. Richard said:
Lisa, Lisa! "They were commiting a crime, saw me open the door to innocently let my dog out and I saw that one of them had a shiny object in his hand. I thought it was a gun. I'm just a poor lady, all alone. I was terrified! I just fired to protect myself [Boohoo! Boohoo!]"

Well, don't mix up what I said with what I know that guys lawyer will tell him to say.

In the paragraph before what you quoted I said if they pointed a gun at my dog, I wouldn't say shiney object but would be able to tell them exactly whether it was a pistol or revolver and at that range maybe even the caliber and make. I wouldn't lie, I would truthfully say they pulled a gun, just not mention they pointed it at my dog. And that I fired 4 rounds, a two round burst into each ones chest.

Then I would say the "poor lady, all alone" and especially the "boohoo" part before I swooned from the shock and excitement and fell into the big strong policemans arms.

The truth, and nothing but the truth, and not adding any un-neccessary truths to it.

:rose:
 
I'm not touching the story there, your right he will get off, most juries hate thieves and burglars with a passion. ;)

I have a question though, why do you have a conceal permit?
 
emap said:
I have a question though, why do you have a conceal permit?

Let me try to answer the question in a general way. A woman, who is smaller and weaker than most adult males, suddenly remembers she has to go out at night to pick up the quart of milk for the morning corn flakes. She really doesn't want to walk into the supermarket with a gun strapped on her hip. Thus she has a little underarm rig with the gun nicely out of sight under a jacket. As she walks from the parking lot to the store, some drunk ass hole tries to physically stop her.

THAT'S WHY SHE HAS A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT!
 
here in the peoples republic of maryland, my neighbor, an old caucasian widow with a cokehead son, opened fire on two teenage black males when they broke into her house. they were both armed, but neither pulled their weapon and she almost went upstate for shooting them. nothing like the law protecting perpetrators instead of victims.
 
LISA

We had a similar case here. A restaurant was robbed twice. After the 2nd robbery the owner went looking for the bandit, and ran over him with a Jeep SUV.

The state prosecuted him, and the jury cut him loose in about 15 minutes.

All the usual suspects howled about the verdict, but that was the end of it.
 
Crime is now mired in politics. Everyone is an endangered species and belongs to a special interest group. So the cops arrest everyone, the state prosecutes everyone, and the juries cut them loose. Then the Feds wanna get involved, because of civil rights or hate crimes or whatever.
 
emap said:
I'm not touching the story there, your right he will get off, most juries hate thieves and burglars with a passion. ;)

I have a question though, why do you have a conceal permit?

First off, let me state anyone attempting to answer the question you asked me may be well-meaning but wrong. In particular it is illegal to carry a gun strapped to your hip in texas. I know there is one state, arizona or new mexico maybe, where that is legal but not texas. Good ol boys can have shotguns and rifles on a rack in the rear window of thier pick-up trucks, easily visible to a police about to stop them, which is legal, but that is like for going hunting or stuff.

Transporting a handgun in texas without a concealed permit legally is complicated, legal when buying/selling, taking it to be serviced or for target shooting at a shooting range, but there are small things like ammo locked away from the weapon. Like either weapon or ammo, one or the other, in a locking glove box or locked in trunk.

The "concealed carry" permit is what the law is called to carry a loaded handgun in texas outside your home legally. The idea is that hell yes, let the cops handle everything, but they are short-staffed and overworked. With the concealed carry permits it is not just the criminals who carry handguns.

To obtain the permit I had to take classes for 3 days on weekends, 6 hours per day, to learn the laws and how to do it right. When I can shoot, where I can legally carry my weapon, like not to the freakin bank, and safety, safety, safety, like what or who is behind who you may be shooting at, etc. Then a proficientcy test at a firing range. And the permit is issued after an extensive background check.

This means the people who have concealed carry permits are knowledgeable and safety conscious, not likely to open fire in a crowd because they mistakenly thought someone was following them, aware of the hazards, and the laws of when and where they can fire the weapon.

I have had a criminal point a gun at my head when I was unarmed, without a concealed carry permit, luckily a group of people rounded a nearby corner approaching us and the guy ran and never told me whether it was going to be a robbery, rape, murder, or maybe a smorgasborg of all 3 combined.

Here is my answer in one sentence: I have a concealed carry permit and often carry a concealed weapon to have a chance, to survive, to live.

:rose:
 
BOXLICKER

Researching vigilante justice in the 19th and 20th centuries, what I discovered is lynchings and other summary executions increase when the legal system becomes too sympathetic to criminals.

When Florida was a territory, US marshals often hanged suspects and fugitives from the closest tree. Because most felons were hanged (there were no prisons in Florida), juries tended to cut non-violent offenders loose. And the law allowed duelling, if an individual wanted to dispute the jury's verdict with the suspect. I even found a few incidents where disgruntled slaves drowned sadistic overseers. It was an accident! Really!

Later, when do-gooders and reformers got into the system, lynchings went wild.
 
R. Richard said:
Let me try to answer the question in a general way. A woman, who is smaller and weaker than most adult males, suddenly remembers she has to go out at night to pick up the quart of milk for the morning corn flakes. She really doesn't want to walk into the supermarket with a gun strapped on her hip. Thus she has a little underarm rig with the gun nicely out of sight under a jacket. As she walks from the parking lot to the store, some drunk ass hole tries to physically stop her.

THAT'S WHY SHE HAS A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT!
Why not? If she's concerned with har safety, why not advertise that she's lethal?

Lisa Denton said:
In particular it is illegal to carry a gun strapped to your hip in texas. I know there is one state, arizona or new mexico maybe, where that is legal but not texas. Good ol boys can have shotguns and rifles on a rack in the rear window of thier pick-up trucks, easily visible to a police about to stop them, which is legal, but that is like for going hunting or stuff.
Ah. Point taken. Sounds stupid when the opposite as far as I understand would reduce the "let's attack the defenseless broad"-syndrom. But I'm sure there's some kind of rationale behind that. Though I can't figure it out.

And yeah. Hunting.
 
Last edited:
LIAR

Having the weapon on you increases your self-confidence and reduces your stress. Criminals sense it and generally leave you alone. I personally prefer a razor sharp knife with a serrated blade.
 
Liar said:
Why not? If she's concerned with har safety, why not advertise that she's lethal?

Ah. Point taken. Sounds stupid when the opposite as far as I understand would reduce the "let's attack the defenseless broad"-syndrom. But I'm sure there's some kind of rationale behind that. Though I can't figure it out.

And yeah. Hunting.


Liar, the whole point of the concealed carry permit is not to deter criminals from attacking defenseless broads, but to deter criminals from attacking ANYONE because any potential victim may be armed in texas.

Maybe they will go rob, rape, and murder peoples in some other state.

:rose:
 
JBJ, I have you, and only you, on my ignore list. So when you post I don't see your post but it does say you posted.

I don't have you on ignore merely because I find your posts offensive, you have personally insulted me numerous times. You can post wherever you like, even on a thread I started, but when I see multiple posts by you on a thread I started I start to wonder if you are attempting to harass me.

Please if a subject on a thread I started interests you, go start a thread and discuss it there.

Thats just a polite request.

Thank you to everyone who is respecting my wishes and not quoting what he says.

See ya, Lisa.

:rose:
 
JAMESBJOHNSON said:
BOXLICKER

Researching vigilante justice in the 19th and 20th centuries, what I discovered is lynchings and other summary executions increase when the legal system becomes too sympathetic to criminals.

If you want a sort of summary of what happens when the law won't deal with criminals, read "Rifle For Rent."
 
Back
Top