What Are Your Thoughts On The Joe Horn Incident?

[Ash Wednesday]

I've been following the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy"]Joe Horn incident[/url] and wanted to get your thoughts on the incident and the Castle Doctrine.

It's on Wikipedia for those who don't know and if you google news you'll find related articles.

Audio file of the 911 call [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0"]from YouTube[/url] (WARNING, graphic audio of shootings taking place)

In summary, last month, Joe Horn shot and killed two people breaking into the neighbor's house. From what I've read, in Texas there is a law known as the Castle Doctrine where a person can apparently use deadly force to protect his or a neighbor's property. (If someone knows more of the details of this law please discuss!)

My fiance and I discuss this from time to time. We both agree that he should have handled it differently. I think he was very angry, perhaps even frightened when he realized he really is outside and facing two burglars on the lawn coming towards him but the as far as the long-term effect this may have on his conscience, he may come to regret what he did. I think a lot of people can sympathize with his outrage (I certainly can, being a victim of a break-in and theft myself) But we disagree as far as what the future holds for Mr. Horn. My fiance thinks that he's going to get charged and is in big trouble -- and I don't think he will be charged. At the very worst it would be manslaughter with a light sentence like probation or something. But I'm doubtful that he will be held accountable, certainly not on a local level.

As I see it, perhaps by law Joe felt justified, and he may even technically be so -- but I question whether or not the Castle Doctrine as I understand it is morally justifiable. Killing in self-defense is justifiable, yes, but killing over property? I don't see how property is worth killing someone over and I certainly don't see how it jives with God's law.

I think Horn is probably a good man and will be very much troubled by what happened for the rest of his life. But it's a very interesting case and I wanted to get people's thoughts. I've heard either "He's a cold-blooded murderer" to "he's a hero!" but I really want to hear what you phatmassers think. I don't think he's a hero but I don't think he woke up that morning and just felt like killing someone.

I have a lot of thoughts and questions about this, like perhaps he felt it was his duty to try and stop them and was genuinely scared -- but then there's the question of how is it then, that the burglars were shot in the back? My fiance pointed out that Horn almost shot an off-duty officer who witnessed the event and reported the shots being fired from the back -- and I asked in response then, why wasn't Joe arrested on the spot? I'd be really curious to know exactly what the officer witnessed that led to his decision.

So I don't think my viewpoint on this is entirely clear, and I know I sound really flippy floppy -- but that's why I am taking it here. I wanted to get some of you "learned folks" opinions on this, especially from a Catholic perspective.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Ash Wednesday

[Groo the Wanderer]

A big part of the Castle Doctrine lies in the historical precedent that a person's property is in many cases his livelyhood. If you take it, you in effect, take his life.

Case in point - in the Old West, to steal a man's horse was to ob him of the ability to do his work and provide for his family. Stealing a rancher's cattle did the same. As such, the death penalty was proscribed for those caught and convicted. The law being sparse and stretched thin, the concept of defending one's property rights was developed and it was therefore justifiable to kill to protect one's property.

The relevance today is questionable. I for one would not hesitate to empty a glock into someone breaking into my house if I felt I or my family was threatened in any way. I would not however, cap the perp I caught leaving my [b]empty [/b]house with the TV. My computer, on the other hand might be worth a kneecap....




sidenote: due to rustling problems on the range, it is STILL a capital offense in Texas to be caught with wire fence cutters in one's back pocket

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1434803' date='Dec 16 2007, 12:04 AM']-- but then there's the question of how is it then, that the burglars were shot in the back?[/quote]


Dunno there - might wanna ask Vince Foster about that....or Hillary

[Spamity Calamity]

Well I dont want to see the guy prosecuted. I know that.

[Autumn Dusk]

The question is really about who we are given the lisence to kill. If every tom, Johnsonville brat and harry are allowed to protect their and their neighbor's property it can easely be misunderstood.

Fact remains that two people are dead at this man's hands! They were thieves, but what about if they had been kids playing a prank? Or part of the new "how safe is your house" reality show.

He was told by medical personal NOT to shoot. He shot and killed. He's not only civially guilty, he's morally guilty. He acted upon impulse. He was not protecting himself. He had no indication that these men would harm him, and he knew his neighbor had not been harmed.

I don't think he should get a life sentence but he NEEDS to be punished. He acted out of order.

[st-annes]

Oh for pity's sake. How far are we going to take this? If I see somebody ogling a car parked by my neighbor's house, can I gun down that person? This case involves shooting someone who was on [i]another person's property[/i], doesn't it? We already have a remedy for this. It's called the police department. Apparently in Texas, your right to shoot someone is paramount.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Witnessing a theft does not justify murder. Leaving aside the particulars of this situation (which I know nothing about) I don't see how theft calls for immediate execution. Even by Islamic law I think you'd just lose a hand. Killing someone on the spot for stealing is hardly just or moral, I would call it sick. Sure one might suggest that the fellow was scared or whatever but this would not make the act other than evil. Prayers for the penitence of those murdered thieves.
I have no interest in judging the heart or culpability of the fellow who did the killing since I have absolutely no basis for attaining judgment on the matter (in other words I refuse to speculate). I surely hope it was a strange and unfortunate accident and not an act of brute hatred. Either way I’m sure this fellow could use some prayers.

[Socrates]

This is a tough issue.

While I simply cannot bring myself to shed any tears for these burglars killed willfully commiting a heinous crime, there is the problem of property vs. human life.

I keep a shotgun to defend against intruders if needed, though I would use it more for threat than for killing, unless a gun is pulled on me.
Pointing a gun at burglars and firing warning shots (if possible) would be a more moral alternative to killing them on the spot.

However, I do strongly feel that someone who willfully robs another person deserves whatever he gets.
And threat of getting shot is a strong deterrent to crime (yet another reason I'm in favor of gun rights).
And the law should not favor criminals over those defending property.

I'm not a legal expert, but I'd say maybe give Joe a light jail sentence, but not charge him for first degree murder.

Again, tough issue.

[hyperdulia again]

The lives of men and women wrought in the image and likeness of God are of infinitely greater value than property. The man is a murderer.

[infinitelord1]

I dont think we can justify calling him a murderer. His intentions were not to kill someone for pleasure or for some off the wall reason. He knew his rights, and thats why he did what he did. The question should be...what would he have done had this law not been in place?

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1435175' date='Dec 17 2007, 07:03 AM']I dont think we can justify calling him a murderer. His intentions were not to kill someone for pleasure or for some off the wall reason. He knew his rights, and thats why he did what he did. The question should be...what would he have done had this law not been in place?[/quote]

Ummm. Murders don't always kill for pleasure. Some people know its the wrong thing but do it becuase they believe they are in the right. Like this man. No one's life was at stake. Even if the thieves took a good amount of stuff his livelyhood was not at stake. (eg. these men were not stealing cattle)

The law is obviously meant to protect the welfare of a neighboring property. Even if the damage was in the thousands, the damage was still minimal (all things considered), and what was stolen would not leave the neighbor out on the street, as this law is meant to protect someone from. As I said before, this man should consider himself fortunate he shot actual perps, as they could of easily been kids playing a prank.

Also, in the scheme of things, I believe his rights changed the moment the 911 operator, acting as civil authority, told the man not to shoot.

[prose]

Why didn't he just shoot out their kneecaps?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1435188' date='Dec 17 2007, 09:46 AM']Ummm. Murders don't always kill for pleasure. Some people know its the wrong thing but do it becuase they believe they are in the right. Like this man. No one's life was at stake. Even if the thieves took a good amount of stuff his livelyhood was not at stake. (eg. these men were not stealing cattle)

The law is obviously meant to protect the welfare of a neighboring property. Even if the damage was in the thousands, the damage was still minimal (all things considered), and what was stolen would not leave the neighbor out on the street, as this law is meant to protect someone from. As I said before, this man should consider himself fortunate he shot actual perps, as they could of easily been kids playing a prank.

Also, in the scheme of things, I believe his rights changed the moment the 911 operator, acting as civil authority, told the man not to shoot.[/quote]

Here is the definition of MURDER.... the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
We can not call Joe Horn a murderer because what he did does not fall under this definition. He was well within his rights in the action that he took.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='prose' post='1435348' date='Dec 17 2007, 06:29 PM']Why didn't he just shoot out their kneecaps?[/quote]

I think that would have made more sense, but there is the issue of being sued. Now that I think is perhaps the most absurd circumstance of all of this. You can actually get sued by someone injured when they are in the process of robbing your house. Some losers have actually successfully sued and won.

[Deb]

He is a murderer in my mind but, GOD will ultimately judge him as he will know his heart. Shooting burglars in the back when they are not in your yard, robbing your house nor threatening you in any way is murder.
Only in Texas would it probably be okay.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Deb