HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.

Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said. (!!!!!!)

Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.

The two Horn suspected of committing burglary, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.

Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.

Man who killed burglary suspects cleared - CNN.com

Without considering the race of the perpetrators or the fact that they were probably low-life, drug dealing, law breaking scum, he shot two (presumably unarmed) men in the back, with a shotgun. How could he feel threatened when they weren't even facing him?

Furthermore, he told the dispatcher he was going to kill the men beforehe left his house. This hick was the judge, the jury and the executioner. Amazing

I don't agree with how some of the country makes the person in the home "liable" for being burgled.

But on the flip side, I think the pendulum swung too far to the other side on this case.
Shooting two people in the back fleeing the scene? That's not self-defense.

From another article:

The operator repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to shoot, and the police had just arrived at the scene when Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us.../Yz8p9F7kGr6yQ

The police "had just arrived", the men were fleeing with their backs to the shooter, and Mr. Horn feared for his life???

This statement came from the prosecutor. Isn't he the one charged with convincing the grand jury this guy should be prosecuted? I would expect this kind of statement from the defense attorney. While the idea of murder is horrible, the truly scary issue is the fact that he was not indicted. If there were valid reasons why, I would suspect they would already have been exposed.

This is a sad sad day. I can remember when the incident was first mentioned in the media, and how horrified I was that such a lame excuse for self-defence could actually be exercised. As I understand, the robbers were fleeing with a mere $2000 in jewellery. Secondly, they were robbing his neighbours, so Joe Horn was not directly threatened. Thirdly, the police pretty much told him not to shoot. Fourthly, they were fleeing, so I am very sceptical as to any claim by this 61-year old Texan that his life was indeed endangered by these two robbers.

These robbers were not saints, that is certainly true. But they didn't deserve to die. This ruling is a travesty of justice and is a prelude to anarchy where trigger-happy Americans take the law into their own hands.

Shooting someone in the back is a sign of cowardice.

__________________
_____

Barack Obama and his Associations - A Question of Judgement & Character

In that case most of the heroes of the old west were cowards. You don't think they really had these walk twenty paces and turn and fire episodes do you? Occurrences like the shoot out at the O.K. coral were vary rare, and perpetuated the myth of the code of the west which was really survival of the fittest.

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP

There was a televised shooting/killing in Texas in the eighties. The authorities were bringing a guy though the airport who had been extradited from California for kidnapping a small boy. The boy had been recovered alive.

Anyhow the news crew was filming them bringing the perpetrator through the airport and out jumps a guy with a sawed off shot gun and blows him away!
Turned out to be the kid's father who had spent months preparing for the hit by (1) modifying a firearm and practicing with it (2) holding up in a secluded cabin (3) growing a beard and otherwise changing his appearance so the police and security wouldn't recognize him before he carried out his plan.
When asked why he had done it he replied that his son had been molested and he knew the perp would eventually walk through the court system and he didn't want anything like that to happen to another child.
The judge found him temporarily insane and gave him some community service.

Another little tid bit about Texas is if you catch your spouse red handed in the act of cheating you can kill him or her legally. But you must kill both parties to the affair or you can be brought up on charges.

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP

It is a simple question. Who were the "bad guys" and who was the good guy(standing firmly for what is right) in this situation? Why would anyone want to side with the bad guys? And by the way when they broke into the house how could they have been positive that no one was there or that no one would come home during the burglary and tell me that the resulting confrontation would have been peaceful and lets not leave out the fact that it was TWO against one and he did tell them to "freeze" which they defied.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

It's a bad assumption that there were any "good guys".


It's not an issue of "siding with the bad guys" as much as it is respecting the law.
Your approach excuses vigilantism. Blindly. Without question.
Let the police do their job.


You are indicting these people on HYPOTHETICALS???

Screw "innocent until proven guilty".
We've got somebody convicting people on things that NEVER EVEN HAPPENED.

Yes YOU are siding with PROVEN bad guys.
And as to law........He was CLEARED.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein