More on the Joe Horn Shootings

Will Malven
11/24/2007

In America we are not subjects of a government which has the power to control our lives or which grants us our rights. We are a nation of free people with inherent rights and liberties from whom all governmental powers flow.

We are not required to sit cowering in our dwellings waiting for the police to come to our rescue; we are a free people who possess an inherent right to defend ourselves and our property. It is not the citizens who should live in fear in such a society; it is the criminals. Our Founding Fathers fought a war to ensure that we would never have to live lives of subjugation; a fact that those on the Left have never quite been able to fully grasp.

All citizens have the right to make a "citizen's arrest" if they are witnesses to the commission of a felony (and in some state jurisdictions, misdemeanors as well) with the exception of North Carolina (where that right is restricted to “detainment”). It is a power historically held by the people as a holdover from English Common Law, upon which our laws are based and it has been confirmed in numerous court cases.

The only caveat to that right is that the individual making such an arrest must answer to the courts (both civil and criminal) for his actions. [Source: Wikipedia; citizen’s arrest]

Joe Horn's intervention was a citizen’s arrest.

• He witnessed a crime taking place.
• He immediately notified the police by making a 911 call.
• He maintained contact with the 911 operator at all times, even during and following the shooting.
• He could clearly identify the criminals.
• He waited for the police to arrive for at least 6 minutes.
• He chose, I believe correctly, to exercise his inherent right to stop the criminals.
• He took his shotgun, legal both to own and to carry in public, outside to stop and detain the perpetrators of the crime he had witnessed.
• He verbally challenged the perpetrators of that crime as they were crossing his yard in their attempt to leave the crime scene.
• He fired only when, after over a second and a half had passed, the criminals failed to heed his warning and continued to approach him.
• He fired in self-defense, not because they had burglarized his neighbor’s house.

Mr. Horn was under no obligation either to obey the instructions of the 911 operator or to allow these two burglars get away with their crimes because he was told “the police are on their way.” In fact I would argue that any good citizen, physically capable and mentally prepared to do so, owes it to himself and his fellow citizens to act as Joe Horn did. Had he failed to do so, it is highly likely that these two would have escaped the scene of the crime and having done so the likelihood of their being apprehended would have been nil.

There was no guarantee that the police would arrive in time to stop the crime and in fact they did not. At any given time in a city of roughly 4 million people there are from 200 to 250 police on the streets.

Joe Horn made the decision to intervene only when it became apparent that the police would not arrive in time to stop the crime. He made the decision to fire only when the criminals refused to obey his order to stop. Whether or not his actions were justified, will be determined by our justice system and, if necessary, a jury of his peers.

My arguments in his favor are strictly a result of the information which has been made available, so far, and an unshakeable belief that as a people we have the absolute right not to be victims in our own neighborhoods. No American citizen should have to fear the simple act of walking out of his front door.I find his every action to be completely justifiable and I celebrate the fact that a citizen chose not to allow his neighborhood be victimized by these two criminals. Messrs. Ortiz and DeJesus were in the wrong in this shooting. They had no business being in that neighborhood, they had no business breaking into the neighbor’s house, and they had no business stealing another person’s property.

I do not celebrate the death of anybody, but I do believe that killing is a reasonable action in certain circumstances and in most jurisdictions, the laws agree with that opinion. The instant Ortiz and DeJesus chose to commit a felony they became legitimate subjects for a citizen’s arrest and because they refused to obey Mr. Horn’s challenge to stop, they paid the ultimate price. According to the law, Joe Horn was absolutely within his rights to stop Ortiz and DeJesus. Should he have felt threatened by the two perpetrators? In classes mandated by the state of Texas for obtaining a concealed carry license, one of the first lessons they teach you is how fast an assailant can close distance if they are intent on doing you bodily harm. According to most CCL instructors, anyone within seven yards or less should be considered an immediate threat to your life if they are armed and aggressive.

The criminals were only 5 yards from him when he confronted them. It takes the average person 1.5 seconds to cover a distance of 7 yards. That is approximately the same amount of time that passed between Mr. Horn’s challenge and the firing of the first shot. That means that if the two criminals made an aggressive move toward Mr. Horn, he waited until the very last instant to make his decision to fire. Given the information publicly available, it was not unreasonable for Joe Horn to feel threatened. The perpetrators were bigger than he, at least one was armed with a crowbar, and they had already proven their willingness to use violence when they broke both a window and a glass brick wall to gain entry to his neighbor's private property.

As you listen to the 911 tape you can clearly here Mr. Horn’s agitation and anger at the brazenness of Ortiz’s and DeJesus’ actions and his growing frustration as the police failed to arrive. Such anger is not only a natural response, but a perfectly justifiable reaction to what he was witnessing.

Much has been made of his (unfortunate) statement, again very clear on the tape “I’m gonna kill em.” Does this statement amount to prima facie evidence of premeditation or is it a simple expression of anger and frustration? It was said in the midst of a string of statements such as “I’m sorry. I’m not gonna let them get away with this.” “This ain’t right man.” “I can’t believe this.” “I’m gonna stop ‘em.”

I’ve never met anyone that could honestly say they haven’t at some time in a fit of anger made a similar statement, but never had any intent to carry out such a threat.

Having listened to the recording repeatedly, I believe he made that statement in the same way most of us have said it when we’re angry about something. Since he issued a direct warning to the two men before he fired, I believe that the shooting was not only not premeditated, but justified under the law as self-defense.

Were the words “Move, you’re dead,” sufficient warning? I believe so. Perhaps they were not the optimal words to use, but when a man has a shotgun leveled at you, his meaning should be clear enough. It is readily apparent that he would not have shot them had they obeyed his command and not moved. My guess is that they believe he was bluffing and didn’t have the nerve to shoot them. Clearly they were in his yard. So the threat was to him and the shooting no longer a case of killing over property, but of killing in self-defense.

Yes, Mr. Horn was the initiator of the confrontation, but only in executing his right to making a citizen’s arrest, a right that has been confirmed repeatedly in our courts.

So was there a threat to his person which would justify his use of deadly force. According to Subchapter C. Sections 9.31-9.32 of the Texas Penal Code:

Deadly force is permissible if:

• the individual believes himself threatened by physical force.
• the individuals actions can meet the standard that “a reasonable person” would not have retreated.
• The individual believes deadly force is “necessary.”

This is a rather vague standard. Under what circumstances would “a reasonable person” retreat? Is it sufficient justification simply to stop a crime? Once having intervened in the crime, would a “reasonable person” then retreat? If so, then to what purpose was the intervention and under what circumstances would the concept of citizen’s arrest be considered reasonable?

I do not believe that Mr. Horn was under any obligation to retreat. I believe that as a neighbor, he could rightfully assume that he was under some obligation to prevent these criminals from getting away with their crime by making a citizen’s arrest. Was it reasonable for him to feel threatened? I believe so. The men were larger than he and at least one was armed with a crowbar.

What the grand jury must decide is:

1. Did Joe Horn’s actions legally meet the definition of a citizen’s arrest?
2. Were Joe Horn’s actions the actions of a “reasonable person?”
3. Were the two criminals, once he chose to confront them, an imminent threat to Joe Horn?
4. Was it reasonable for Joe Horn to believe that his life was in imminent peril?
5. Was Joe Horn justified in killing these two men?

I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes, given what I know.

I continue to believe that Joe Horn is a hero deserving of our support. He epitomizes the spirit of everything in which our Founding Fathers believed and held sacred. He is a true American.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below