Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
I heard the convo on tape today. Tellin the dude the stuff being stolen "wasn't worth it" just pissed him off more. The emergency person should of been like "they took what? Whoa we'll get someone over their real fast - try not to be too upset over this outrage" But no - tell the guy any crime is trivial and he needs to just eat it.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Houston Chronicle

But maybe I'd be better off leaving you with the comments of Patrick McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

"At the risk of being quoted, I'm not going to weep for those two," he said of the burglars. "I guess what this comes down to, was this good judgment? No. Was it legal? Probably. Is it something that anyone is going to indict him for? Probably not.

"We are in Texas. Things are different here."
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
The story so far...

Mr. Horn has yet to be charged, police are still investigating.

The election for mayor or the town is coming up, all of the 7 candidates felt he should not be charged, that gives you a hint about what will happen (prob a no bill by the grand jury)

Both of the burglars have turned out to be illegal immigrants with multiple aliases, one was deported in 99' & was on probation.

The victim's who were burglarized were Vietnamese business owners, it's suspected they were singled out because they were likely to have cash around the house, and the burglars were found with $2K in cash evidently from the house. The burglary ring they were part of preys on non native business people because of their habit of keeping cash around the house.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The story so far...

Mr. Horn has yet to be charged, police are still investigating.

The election for mayor or the town is coming up, all of the 7 candidates felt he should not be charged, that gives you a hint about what will happen (prob a no bill by the grand jury)

Both of the burglars have turned out to be illegal immigrants with multiple aliases, one was deported in 99' & was on probation.

The victim's who were burglarized were Vietnamese business owners, it's suspected they were singled out because they were likely to have cash around the house, and the burglars were found with $2K in cash evidently from the house. The burglary ring they were part of preys on non native business people because of their habit of keeping cash around the house.

I bolded what will be admissible in the grand jury.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The story so far...

Mr. Horn has yet to be charged, police are still investigating.

The election for mayor or the town is coming up, all of the 7 candidates felt he should not be charged, that gives you a hint about what will happen (prob a no bill by the grand jury)

Both of the burglars have turned out to be illegal immigrants with multiple aliases, one was deported in 99' & was on probation.

The victim's who were burglarized were Vietnamese business owners, it's suspected they were singled out because they were likely to have cash around the house, and the burglars were found with $2K in cash evidently from the house. The burglary ring they were part of preys on non native business people because of their habit of keeping cash around the house.

I bolded what will be admissible in the grand jury.

Yup, in the US Court system, they don't care if the "victim" criminal was Charles Manson. Every POS scum gets the same rights that the virgin Mary would get...

Lovely, eh?
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The story so far...

Mr. Horn has yet to be charged, police are still investigating.

The election for mayor or the town is coming up, all of the 7 candidates felt he should not be charged, that gives you a hint about what will happen (prob a no bill by the grand jury)

Both of the burglars have turned out to be illegal immigrants with multiple aliases, one was deported in 99' & was on probation.

The victim's who were burglarized were Vietnamese business owners, it's suspected they were singled out because they were likely to have cash around the house, and the burglars were found with $2K in cash evidently from the house. The burglary ring they were part of preys on non native business people because of their habit of keeping cash around the house.

Castle doctrine law

I bolded what will be admissible in the grand jury.

Fixed, and what police chief wants to start off by pissing off his new boss?

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The story so far...

Mr. Horn has yet to be charged, police are still investigating.

The election for mayor or the town is coming up, all of the 7 candidates felt he should not be charged, that gives you a hint about what will happen (prob a no bill by the grand jury)

Both of the burglars have turned out to be illegal immigrants with multiple aliases, one was deported in 99' & was on probation.

The victim's who were burglarized were Vietnamese business owners, it's suspected they were singled out because they were likely to have cash around the house, and the burglars were found with $2K in cash evidently from the house. The burglary ring they were part of preys on non native business people because of their habit of keeping cash around the house.

I bolded what will be admissible in the grand jury.

Yup, in the US Court system, they don't care if the "victim" criminal was Charles Manson. Every POS scum gets the same rights that the virgin Mary would get...

Lovely, eh?

I know. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing needs to go.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The story so far...

Mr. Horn has yet to be charged, police are still investigating.

The election for mayor or the town is coming up, all of the 7 candidates felt he should not be charged, that gives you a hint about what will happen (prob a no bill by the grand jury)

Both of the burglars have turned out to be illegal immigrants with multiple aliases, one was deported in 99' & was on probation.

The victim's who were burglarized were Vietnamese business owners, it's suspected they were singled out because they were likely to have cash around the house, and the burglars were found with $2K in cash evidently from the house. The burglary ring they were part of preys on non native business people because of their habit of keeping cash around the house.

I bolded what will be admissible in the grand jury.

Yup, in the US Court system, they don't care if the "victim" criminal was Charles Manson. Every POS scum gets the same rights that the virgin Mary would get...

Lovely, eh?

I know. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing needs to go.

You have a point..... except for the FACT that these theives were caught red-handed and clearly weren't innocent.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
I still say this guy walks regardless.

Do you still stand by your earlier statements that he was completely justified in shooting them now that it is a fact that they were no threat to him and the shooting was in the back?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Nebor
I still say this guy walks regardless.

Do you still stand by your earlier statements that he was completely justified in shooting them now that it is a fact that they were no threat to him and the shooting was in the back?

I'm sure he does, the general gist in this thread wasn't about self-defense, but about the right to shoot theives fleeing with property. This won't change anyone's view, but the lawyer should quit with the "scared for his life" crap. He announced on the call that he was going to stop them, he was gonna kill them, then he went outside and did it. He may actually be justified under Texas law but let's dispense with the pretense about self-defense and have a real public discourse on killing over property.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

That makes it nearly impossible to justify the shooting...however we still need to know their location when they were shot. If he was on his own property, and they charged onto it, he raised the gun, they turned, he fired, then it's still justified. Or if they made a threatening gesture with what could have been a weapon, regardless of if they were turned. He's on very thin ground now however.

If he does face charges I have a feeling it will be very minor, and a jury might let him off anyway given the atmosphere of support for his actions. I can't really argue against it either, since people are feeling abused and powerless right now by a government that refuses to act for their protection. It might just be that the only way to get a better justice system in the country is to start upping the stakes.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Get caught it the act and you are fair game. Innocent untill proven guilty only applies after you are arrested anyway (justice system). Judge his actions by the Cops own standards of shooting offences, man standing on stoop of own property (Haitian in NYC, shot dead, twenty rounds), shot for obeying cop's orders (serviceman in Kalifornia) getting shot in the back for fleeing is nothing. What is at the base of your grudge against Horn, envy?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Get caught it the act and you are fair game. Innocent untill proven guilty only applies after you are arrested anyway (justice system). Judge his actions by the Cops own standards of shooting offences, man standing on stoop of own property (Haitian in NYC, shot dead, twenty rounds), shot for obeying cop's orders (serviceman in Kalifornia) getting shot in the back for fleeing is nothing. What is at the base of your grudge against Horn, envy?

Uh....the cops were wrong in that case and have been charged with manslaughter.

Two wrongs != right

Also, same question to you that I posed to Nebor....what crimes can you be caught in the act of that are okay to be executed for?

When the highway patrol pulls you over after radaring you, are you saying that he is now allowed to just shoot you and save the time required to write a ticket? After all, he has "caught you in an illegal act".
 

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Get caught it the act and you are fair game. Innocent untill proven guilty only applies after you are arrested anyway (justice system). Judge his actions by the Cops own standards of shooting offences, man standing on stoop of own property (Haitian in NYC, shot dead, twenty rounds), shot for obeying cop's orders (serviceman in Kalifornia) getting shot in the back for fleeing is nothing. What is at the base of your grudge against Horn, envy?

Uh....the cops were wrong in that case and have been charged with manslaughter.

Two wrongs != right

Also, same question to you that I posed to Nebor....what crimes can you be caught in the act of that are okay to be executed for?

When the highway patrol pulls you over after radaring you, are you saying that he is now allowed to just shoot you and save the time required to write a ticket? After all, he has "caught you in an illegal act".

Same thing for people downloading music illegaly from the internet. They should be shot on sight.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
ported from now-locked thread

Originally posted by: Nebor
Look at the incidence of violent crime in Israel. It's virtually nill, even though there is a huge amount of racial and ethnic tension. Because a huge percentage of the public is armed, and violence is responded to in kind.

A huge amount of the public is armed in Houston and burglary is still up 6%. And NY where almost no one is armed crime keeps dropping. Maybe whether or not people own guns doesn't affect the crime rate so much?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Nebor
I still say this guy walks regardless.

Do you still stand by your earlier statements that he was completely justified in shooting them now that it is a fact that they were no threat to him and the shooting was in the back?

I'm sure he does, the general gist in this thread wasn't about self-defense, but about the right to shoot theives fleeing with property. This won't change anyone's view, but the lawyer should quit with the "scared for his life" crap. He announced on the call that he was going to stop them, he was gonna kill them, then he went outside and did it. He may actually be justified under Texas law but let's dispense with the pretense about self-defense and have a real public discourse on killing over property.

Not to mention he spoke to the dispatcher about the September expansion that gives homeowners greater protection from prosecution should they choose to confront someone breaking into their home.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
ported from now-locked thread

Originally posted by: Nebor
Look at the incidence of violent crime in Israel. It's virtually nill, even though there is a huge amount of racial and ethnic tension. Because a huge percentage of the public is armed, and violence is responded to in kind.

A huge amount of the public is armed in Houston and burglary is still up 6%. And NY where almost no one is armed crime keeps dropping. Maybe whether or not people own guns doesn't affect the crime rate so much?

I was referring to violent crime. Burglary is typically a premeditated crime. They choose a place where they know no one will be.

And NYC is indeed heavily armed. Bloomberg estimates several million illegal guns per year move through and are dispersed in NYC.

I'm not going to argue that there's an inverse relationship between guns and crime though. I can only speak for myself, and my guns, and they stop crime.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Nebor

And NYC is indeed heavily armed. Bloomberg estimates several million illegal guns per year move through and are dispersed in NYC.

I've challenged you on this statement before. Though there are undoubtedly some guns here, compared to cities in Texas it is a real stretch to claim NYC is "heavily armed." Assuming criminals in both places have guns in roughly equal numbers (though I would speculate more in Texas do simply because they are easier to procure) lets look at civilian ownership. There's about 40,000 permits for NYC's 8 million residents, or 0.05%, and that's home ownership, not concealed carry, which requires a special permit in NYC and is very difficult to acquire. Owning an unregistered gun in NYC will get you 3 years in prison, and that's advertised in the subway and around town. In contrast, 200,000 Texans (can't find individual city stats) have concealed carry permits, and the number of homes with guns is apparently so high no one bothers to measure it.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation. BUT, if they dropped the loot and ran then Mr. Horn had accomplished the goal of stopping the crime in progress and had no valid reason to shoot them as they fled.