Activists protest fatal shooting of two burglary suspets in Pasadena

Suppose that instead of shooting the criminals, this guy just tacked them, somehow subdued them, and then called the police. Could they charge him with assault in that case? I would think not.

That's why I'm not totally sure if this would be murder.

 

Trespassers...no.

Burglars...apparently so.

There is a fundamental difference between trespassing and burglary. You often see well intentioned trespassers. You seldom see a well intentioned burglar. They are always there to do something that will ruin you day/weekend/month/year...etc etc.

 

If that were the case, I don't think any charges would need to be filed. Simply subduing a burglar without the use of deadly force is something that probably doesnt need any kind of self-defense justification.

In this case, though, the man's actions were not justified. I could see the fact that the men were committing a crime being used as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing, but I don't know what charge other than murder accurately reflects the man's actions (the unjust, premeditated taking of the lives of two men). The argument of defense of self or of property is something that I think should be used in the trial as a way of arguing that the defendant is not guilty of any crime, not something that should be used beforehand to determine what charges should be filed. Perhaps the prosecution would opt to go with negligent homicide or manslaughter or something as a strategy to make conviction more likely, but I think plain murder is the most accurate description of what happened.

 

You can't shoot someone unless you are protecting yourself, your home, or your car (at night only) in the state of Texas. From the article, I don't think he wasn't protecting himself. He was looking for someone to kill. Its murder because he intended to kill them. Police officers can't even kill burglars without just cause, why do you guys think civilians should get to.

 

This case reminds of the case in Austin between 5 and 10 years ago where a dude chases a guy that was breaking into his girlfriends car and shoots him in the back. He went to prison because it wasn't his car and since the guy was running away, he was no longer in the act of breaking into the car.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but here is how I interpret these sort of things:

Scenario 1: If Mr. Horn had confronted the burglars face to face and subdued them in a physical fight without any lose of life, then I'd think that he had a just cause for his action and used the appropriate amount of force.

Scenario 2: If Mr. Horn had confronted the burglars face to face and killed 1 or more burglar in a physical fight, then I'd think that he had a just cause for his action but might have used excessive force. However, since he was confronting 2 burglars, it would be difficult to argue for the excessive force.

Scenario 3: If Mr. Horn had confronted the burglars from a distance, then killed 1 or more burglars when they tried to flee from him, then I'd think that he had a just cause but he definitely used excessive force.

Scenario 4: If Mr. Horn had not made his presence known to the burglars before firing upon them, then I'd think that he might not have a just cause and it could murder.

Does this make any sense?

-NP

 

You know in the thirty years I was a cop in this great state this situation arose more times than any of you ever have known. Most of these cases go unnoticed and some come to light given the area where it occurred. As far as whether he will be brought up on any charges well that is for the Police, the DA and finally a grand jury to decide.

But as far as a charge of murder is concerned here is what will have to be overcome for that charge to be proven:

This is from our Texas Penal Code:

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

-------------------------------------
Now what may snag this guy up is this little part of the penal code (which has been paraphrased by a website so you don't have to endure anymore "CCP type" lol) I have bolded the relevant paraphrase:

Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost
(Briggs p. 97ff)

"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."

"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."

Personally I think this has about a 60/40 split as far as charged being brought with 60% being "no charges" and 40% being some type of "criminal charge". Civilly (which is a whole other set of complicated rules) though the guy may be up to his neck in whole lotta doodoo this time next year regardless of whether or not criminal charges are brought.

 

^ Thanks for the info rcoleman and some of that law was posted in the other thread.

Since we know for a fact that he shot one of the burglers in the back and that he didn't shoot them in the commission of the robbery but after they had left the house this would seem to be his best defense. But:

He had already given a good description of the robbers, called the police who were on the way and was in position to observe and report which direction they might flee and what vehicle they were driving. Reasonably it seems to me he had enough info to help the police to catch the robbers or it might be possible that the police might get there in time to catch them. Him going out and confronting the robbers could've resulted in his death or serious injury if they happened to have more firepower than him, his gun jammed or the robbers got hold of him before he could shoot.

Anyway its interesting to read about Texas law but personally I find it very disturbing that Texas would allow civillians to use deadly force to protect other's property and to shoot fleeing suspects. To me that's an invitation to getting people shot over misunderstanding a sitaution, putting bystanders at risk and also putting a lot of people who think they are helping at risk too.

 

Ahh good. Two less hoodlums in our society.