Landlord Fires Gunshot And Kills Thief Dead

[LoveDaBlues]

The landlord had only to quietly sneak away and phone police to avoid this.

Or sit still and shut up.

He'd be screwed in the west.

He had all kinds of avenues of escape...to avoid confrontation....but he chose to go Rambo.

It will be swept under the rug of course....he's got the money to "conclude" the investigation.

Are you sure?

Texas man cleared in fatal shootings of suspected burglars

A grand jury decides not to indict Joe Horn, 62, after he killed two illegal immigrants who were leaving his neighbor's house.

By Miguel Bustillo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 1, 2008

HOUSTON -- A grand jury here Monday cleared a Pasadena, Texas, man in the shooting deaths of two suspected burglars as they left his neighbor's house -- a case that stirred a national debate over whether he was a vigilante or a hero.

Joe Horn, 62, shot the men on Nov. 14 after he called authorities and declared his intention to open fire on the suspects with his 12-gauge shotgun.

The 911 audiotape captured multiple warnings by the dispatcher, asking Horn to stay inside and telling him that "property's not worth killing someone over." However, Horn grew agitated because the men looked to be getting away before police arrived. As the tape rolled, Horn went outside, shouted "Move, you're dead!" and fired his weapon.

The incident in Pasadena, a city of about 140,000 east of downtown Houston, outraged some activists, who staged protests in the neighborhood.

They argued that if Horn -- who was not arrested -- were not white and his victims not dark-skinned, he would have been taken to jail immediately.

The controversy grew when authorities disclosed that the shooting victims, Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, were illegal immigrants from Colombia.

"Joe would be the first to tell you that he wasn't acting as a vigilante," Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said outside the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, where Horn testified before a grand jury for 40 minutes last week. "He wishes these individuals had found a different line of work so that he wouldn't have gotten caught up in this whole fiasco."

Harris County Dist. Atty. Kenneth Magidson said that he understood "the concerns of some of those in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," but added that the grand jury had thoroughly reviewed the evidence and testimony before deciding not to recommend any charges.

Many defense lawyers had predicted that a grand jury indictment would be unlikely in Texas, where many citizens strongly believe in their right to fire weapons in defense of home and property.

"This office will continue to aggressively prosecute anyone who illegally engages in the use of force, deadly or otherwise, against another," Magidson said in a statement. "In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Horn, a computer consultant, reportedly received death threats after the shootings, even as some callers on talk radio were praising him as a courageous role model.

He had expressed remorse about the shootings from the outset, and claimed that he was surprised when he ventured outside and saw how close the men were to him.

Ballistics tests suggested that at least one of the men had been shot in the back, raising questions about Horn's story.

But a plainclothes detective who witnessed some of what took place later told investigators that the men did not stop when a visibly nervous Horn pointed a shotgun in their direction, and that at least one man appeared to be moving toward Horn when Horn fired.

Lambright, a friend of Horn's for four decades, said he found it hard to reconcile the shooter with the man he knew. He defended Horn's right to step out his door and confront the suspects, but added that he hoped other neighbors would never find themselves in Horn's shoes.

"He is absolutely not the person you hear on that 911 tape," Lambright said of Horn. "Joe is quiet, humble."

Not the best example. I’ve listened to the 911 tape and he basically says he is going to go outside and shoot them. In most places in America, he probably would have been prosecuted. But it is Texas where unlike much of America one can use deadly force to protect property not just in self defense. Plus it is Pasadena in Harris County. Pasadena is a blue collar town full of refineries and ports. Criminals get no sympathy. A black would have got off in the same circumstances. The difference is no one would know because it would not have been a media story.

Some interesting posts on youtube of the demonstrations by the New Black Panthers and Quannel X running his big mouth with racist spin. New Black Panther members openly threatened Joe’s life and yet none got in any trouble. Not a big surprise given PC idiocy in America and how politicians kiss azz for the black vote. If things were reversed, Klan members would have been arrested for some Federal hate crime. A kid in Louisiana or Mississippi got jail time for just hanging a noose off the back of his truck.

The fact the two burglars were illegals was also made into a big deal. Like Joe would have know they were illegals. Watch the raw footage of the demonstrations. It is quite interesting how stories are spun by the supposedly objective media into something barely resembling what actually happened.

That's my point; knowing the law in the jurisdiction you're in. Did the Thai man break Thai law? If yes he should be prosecuted. In no then he should be left alone.

[Screws]

The landlords story sounds very suspicious.

He just happened to be waiting in the dark with a gun because one of his tenants had a motorbike stolen earlier in the evening?

Since when do landlords care that much about a tenants stolen property?

I reckon there is more to this story than has been reported.

BTW If we killed everyone whoever stole something then the worlds population would be very small.

Otherwise known as 'a lot less environmental degradation'

[CTM]

“or criminal mischief” Yikes! Even broader than I thought. That could be anything.

Edited August 24, 2008 by CTM

[nudnik]

I looked it up, Einstein.

In criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

It doesn't apply.

The landlord's actions were not "necessary".......he could have done nothing and been safe and sound hiding in the bushes.

By calling me Einstein did you wish to acknowledge my extraordinary experience on these issues or was this just a silly ad hominem attack?

Tell me, when did you get your degrees in criminology and law and from where? The law is viewed by slices in time. Maybe you should look that up as well.

I called you "Einstein" in response to what I perceived as veiled insults and holier than thou attitude ("So many experts so little experience ....There is a doctrine "in the west' called legal necessity. Look it up.")

Sorry if I got you riled up.

I don't have a degree in criminology...but I do possess some common sense.

I believe your looking at this from a policeman's perspective. A cop would be justified in this case, it's his duty to prevent crime. He would be obligated to approach the thieves.

I fail to see how you can justify a private citizen acting this way. I'll admit self defense is a valid argument....but in my opinion, in this situation, it would not apply. The Landlord was not obligated in any way to start the altercation. I might be blowing smoke...so please explain your arguments in a little more detail, I'd like to know the facts....and you've got the training...let me in on it please.

Here's something to get your blood boiling....The crooks could theoretically argue self defense, couldn't they?..."A man(who did not identify himself as a police officer) comes jumping out of bushes firing a gun...I was terrified and feared for my life...blah blah blah"

Perhaps I'm wrong.....I would like to hear your arguments. I could not find any info on "slices of time" Could you provide some info or a link?

Thanks Einstein...

No officer is obligated to put his or her life in jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled on this years ago which means that in America you are really on your own. Will an officer do the job - of course but nothing says they have to walk into bullets.

I have a degree in criminology. I have a Ph.D. in criminology. I also have common sense. I cannot vouch for yours. A citizen in the USA not being a subject as in England, has a right to defend herself. The US Constitution and the constitutions of many of the States protect this right, as opposed to giving her this right.

The crooks come into this melee with unclean hands. Look that up.

[MisterFingers]

Surprise, surprise.

In Texas, you're allowed to shoot a suspected robber in the back as he/she runs away.

That's nothing. A couple hundred years ago in the US, you were allowed to burn people at the stake for being a suspected witch.

In the Middle East today, you're still allowed to stone a woman to death for suspected adultery.

In North Korea, people who try to escape to freedom are shot at a public execution.

People used to get their hands cut off for stealing in many places in the world.

As the world grows more liberal, we grow out of these barbaric ways.

The US is the big kid on the hill with the big muscles and taking longer to grow out of this.

And Texas, one of the states that fought a war for the right to own slaves, is part of the reason the US is lagging behind the rest of the world in becoming more liberal.

The fact is, conservatives like you guys who applaud suspected thieves and the like being shot dead, are disappearing.

In the United States, the conservative Republican party and the liberal Democratic party, have grown more liberal in lockstep with each other for the past several decades, and continue to do so.

The future will remember this time as the world for the most part growing out of its barbaric ways, with some dragging their feet, only delaying the inevitable.

Edited August 25, 2008 by MisterFingers

[Heng]

God bless Texas.

[LtCol]

As I said earlier , where you are geographically is the 'Law' you live by.

If you want it changed , become a politician.

A guy in Kalgoorlie , Western Australia waited for Burglars in his property with his licensed firearm as he had many breakins.

While he was waiting , in they come in the dead of night . He warned & fired wounding one of the offenders . He was convicted of Assault with a weapon & jailed , because he was waiting Armed.

In NSW a Female Security Officer was clobbered (with knuckledusters) on the back of the head & the money bag she was carrying was snatched. Although badly dazed she chased the actor to his getaway car (he had no other weapon) & she shot him in the head. Perp. DOA. She was charged with the Killing & a few months ago the Jury found her Not Guilty.

A man in New Orleans a few years ago , a homeowner , had a Japanese man pounding on his front door & his excitable state scared the home owner who shot him with his .44 Handgun killing the Japanese gent who turned out to be a lost , panicking ,non english speaking Tourist who was lost. Even the Japanese Ambassador turned up to the PD to follow up. The shooter was cleared , as the Law in Louisanna allows deadly force to protect your home .

Like I always say , wherever you choose to live , the Law or accepted practise of it is the way it is. Don't jude Texas , wasn't it in England the Krays & others ran the roost with the odd shooting & lots of Torture??? every society has their very own bad guys & justice is different everywhere & wont always be the way you want it to be.

Don't like it , you can always move..............

[pumpuiman]

I looked it up, Einstein.

In criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

It doesn't apply.

The landlord's actions were not "necessary".......he could have done nothing and been safe and sound hiding in the bushes.

By calling me Einstein did you wish to acknowledge my extraordinary experience on these issues or was this just a silly ad hominem attack?

Tell me, when did you get your degrees in criminology and law and from where? The law is viewed by slices in time. Maybe you should look that up as well.

I called you "Einstein" in response to what I perceived as veiled insults and holier than thou attitude ("So many experts so little experience ....There is a doctrine "in the west' called legal necessity. Look it up.")

Sorry if I got you riled up.

I don't have a degree in criminology...but I do possess some common sense.

I believe your looking at this from a policeman's perspective. A cop would be justified in this case, it's his duty to prevent crime. He would be obligated to approach the thieves.

I fail to see how you can justify a private citizen acting this way. I'll admit self defense is a valid argument....but in my opinion, in this situation, it would not apply. The Landlord was not obligated in any way to start the altercation. I might be blowing smoke...so please explain your arguments in a little more detail, I'd like to know the facts....and you've got the training...let me in on it please.

Here's something to get your blood boiling....The crooks could theoretically argue self defense, couldn't they?..."A man(who did not identify himself as a police officer) comes jumping out of bushes firing a gun...I was terrified and feared for my life...blah blah blah"

Perhaps I'm wrong.....I would like to hear your arguments. I could not find any info on "slices of time" Could you provide some info or a link?

Thanks Einstein...

No officer is obligated to put his or her life in jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled on this years ago which means that in America you are really on your own. Will an officer do the job - of course but nothing says they have to walk into bullets.

I have a degree in criminology. I have a Ph.D. in criminology. I also have common sense. I cannot vouch for yours. A citizen in the USA not being a subject as in England, has a right to defend herself. The US Constitution and the constitutions of many of the States protect this right, as opposed to giving her this right.

The crooks come into this melee with unclean hands. Look that up.

He did not have to defend himself, initially. He could have stayed in the bushes...and not come out guns blazing. Please explain why this is not a valid point.

You keep talking about your education but only feed snippets of vague information...can you be more specific?

I'm certainly willing to concede your point...if you make one.

[pumpuiman]

Here is a quote from the law pertaining to my home state (Massachusetts)

Section 23F. In the trial of criminal cases charging the use of force against another where the issue of defense of self or another, defense of duress or coercion, or accidental harm is asserted, a defendant shall be permitted to introduce either or both of the following in establishing the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that he had availed himself of all available means to avoid physical combat or the reasonableness of a defendant’s perception of the amount of force necessary to deal with the perceived threat:

Did the landlord avail himself to all available means to avoid physical combat?

Edited August 25, 2008 by pumpuiman

[CTM]

In the United States, the conservative Republican party and the liberal Democratic party, have grown more liberal in lockstep with each other for the past several decades, and continue to do so.

Surely you jest. Nixon would be too liberal to get elected in most of America today. America has moved far to the right since Reagan. You clearly have zero understanding of America, American culture, American law, or American politics. Thanks for the laugh.

The rest of your post is just a childish anti-American rant not worthy of specific comment.

[LoveDaBlues]

Here is a quote from the law pertaining to my home state (Massachusetts)

Section 23F. In the trial of criminal cases charging the use of force against another where the issue of defense of self or another, defense of duress or coercion, or accidental harm is asserted, a defendant shall be permitted to introduce either or both of the following in establishing the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that he had availed himself of all available means to avoid physical combat or the reasonableness of a defendant’s perception of the amount of force necessary to deal with the perceived threat:

Did the landlord avail himself to all available means to avoid physical combat?

Question: Did the landlord avail himself to all available means to avoid physical combat?

Answer: No.

Question: Does Massachusetts law apply to Thailand?

Answer: No.

Some folks don't seem to get it. KNOW THE LAW IN THE JURISDICTION YOU'RE IN.

[pumpuiman]

Here is a quote from the law pertaining to my home state (Massachusetts)

Section 23F. In the trial of criminal cases charging the use of force against another where the issue of defense of self or another, defense of duress or coercion, or accidental harm is asserted, a defendant shall be permitted to introduce either or both of the following in establishing the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that he had availed himself of all available means to avoid physical combat or the reasonableness of a defendant’s perception of the amount of force necessary to deal with the perceived threat:

Did the landlord avail himself to all available means to avoid physical combat?

Question: Did the landlord avail himself to all available means to avoid physical combat?

Answer: No.

Question: Does Massachusetts law apply to Thailand?

Answer: No.

Some folks don't seem to get it. KNOW THE LAW IN THE JURISDICTION YOU'RE IN.

If you had read my earlier posts, you would have seen that I was referring to what would happen "in the west" and that my successive posts were in response to an argument from a supposed "expert" in criminology implying my arguments were lacking common sense. Supplying a quote from Massachusetts general law was added to prove my point.

I understand that laws differ from country to country...state to state (as you've pointed out in referring to Texas)...I get it.

Are you going to tell us the law for this particular jurisdiction...your bold red screaming statement seems to suggest we should all be aware. Looking forward to it.

[pumpuiman]

Here is a link to an article written by a lawyer in "Pattaya People" concerning self defense.

The source may be questionable....but from what I can glean from the article, the landlord was not justified in the killing.

[CTM]

Here is a link to an article written by a lawyer in "Pattaya People" concerning self defense.

The source may be questionable....but from what I can glean from the article, the landlord was not justified in the killing.

Am I the only one who thinks that article was very poorly written? I hope English is not his first language.

The landlord would appear to have been justified IF the prosecutor believes his story. I think the landlord has some familiarity with the law. The story is just so perfect.

“First on justifiable one, the threat or danger against you must be immediate and crucial and violent. For examples, A comes to you with the intent to kill you or seriously hurt you. Only at the very moment or the nearest moment that he is going to pull the trigger of a gun or lifting a machete or a very sharp knife, and just about to bring it down or plunging to stab you. You have the right to defend yourself in any way, even to kill him before he does you in.” Thai law has the right of self defense.

“To sum it up for now, if you are under an immediate threat of any kind by the potential violent murderer, you can resort to any mean near and applicable to you. Self defense can even be planned or premeditated.” Having the gun (legal) in his possession on his property appears to be OK.

“This means that if you know someone is going to try to kill you, you can prepare to defend yourself by any mean as long as you don’t invite or bait or incite the so-called murderer to do so. You should avoid any violence first. Not that, you know he is going to do you in, when you see him first you suddenly jump him. Then you can not claim self defense. The so-called killer must initiate the violence first.” Landlord yelled at the criminals and they advanced on him with weapons. Landlord fired a warning shot and the criminals still advanced clears this provision also. And sorry people but telling someone to stop stealing your motorcycle is not baiting. By that logic any muggings of farangs would be justifiable as we shouldn't walk around being so rich.

“One more significant point is when you have to defend yourself or fend off someone, it should be one shot to kill or one stab to kill the attacker or one swing back of a hard stick. If you do it repeatedly, it could be deemed unjustifiable or crime of passion or of anger.” This could be a catch since the landlord shot multiple times. What ridiculous provision! As already pointed out by others, really life criminals don’t stop or fall over dead from a single wound to the torso or extremities.

No good Samaritan laws in this country. “This means you have the right to protect or defend someone very dear to you who can be your spouses, children or grandchildren or parents or grandparents. The idea is only for the people that you have duty to protect or with close mutual interest.

The main idea of the law is you can only defend people whom you have dear and near interest or person under your care, or person you have duty to look after….

This means if you are driving along, you see one person being pointed a gun at his head, but he is a total stranger. You can not really interfere by pulling your gun out to finish off the attacker. You can only watch or try to talk the attacker out of pulling the trigger.” This is good to know. So all the times Thais stand around and watch someone get beat or stabbed it would seem they are following the law. Jumping in to help could open them to serious criminal charges.

Interesting. "Further justifiable self defense must be on the same par, such as one person to at least one person or for more attackers. If there is one attacker, you can not say self defend when you use or prepare to use 5 defenders. The more attackers with less defenders is better. Not vice versa." Appears all the times Thais armed with weapons go six against one on an unarmed farang they can't legally claim self defense no matter what the farang did. Even if the farang spat on or assaulted one of the Thais.

[pumpuiman]

I see your points, but I may argue this...

This means that if you know someone is going to try to kill you, you can prepare to defend yourself by any mean as long as you don’t invite or bait or incite the so-called murderer to do so. You should avoid any violence first. Not that, you know he is going to do you in, when you see him first you suddenly jump him. Then you can not claim self defense. The so-called killer must initiate the violence first.

He could have avoided all of it...(theoretically)

and this...

Another good sample that can not be deemed justifiable defense is when the attacker uses a very small kind of weapon but you fend yourself off with a bazooka or a hand grenade when the attacker uses only a very small knife or a piece of small stick. But a baseball bat may be ok when he swings at your head and you shoot him off with a gun. Again the Court will decide as only the judges are the real last interpreters of the law.

And this...

One more significant point is when you have to defend yourself or fend off someone, it should be one shot to kill or one stab to kill the attacker or one swing back of a hard stick. If you do it repeatedly, it could be deemed unjustifiable or crime of passion or of anger.

Who knows....as I said before, he's got money....so it doesn't matter anyway.

Does anyone happen to know how to access the actual written laws concerning this?

[suiging]

Only mistake was the warning shot. What goes up comes down !!!