During the Thanksgiving break, my brother played a recording of a conversation between the police and Joe Horn, a Texas resident who was witnessing his neighbor being robbed. I listened in shock as Horn, who had a shotgun in his possession, fired rounds at the two unsuspecting thieves and killed them as they attempted to escape with the stolen loot. Horn, a 61-year-old man from Pasadena, is in the middle of an intense legal battle as people from all over the country debate whether or not he should be apprehended and charged with murder.
Horn initially handled the situation as any other citizen would have - by calling 911. He informed the operator about the robbery taking place next door and told the operator to get the police to the scene of the crime as soon as possible. But when no officers arrived, Horn took justice in his own hands in the form of a semi-automatic shotgun and took the lives of the two men attempting to escape. Before shooting them he threatened that if they moved, they would die.
The sound bite, which is quasi-comedic, is much more serious than it would appear at first listen. It calls into question several laws, including whether or not Horn should be tried with murder and, on a more general level, the right to bear arms.
Many people believe that Horn should be prosecuted with murder because he took the lives of two people not affecting him or his property. In other words, because the criminals were in his neighbor's yard, Horn had no right to take action against them. If the criminals had hypothetically wandered onto Horn's property 20 feet away, he would have been justified in their murder as declared by the new Castle Law that Gov. Rick Perry put into action Sept. 1. This newly adjusted law gives homeowners expanded protection from prosecution in cases in which they are defending their homes.
Horn seemed to understand the newly adjusted law; he cited it right before shots were fired. Horn wasn't going to let the robbers get away with their crime no matter the consequences. If nothing else, Horn is a great neighbor. He couldn't stand to see a crime being committed against his neighbor, and he took action. Anyone who says that they would not want to live next to him is lying.
So do those who call for Horn to be apprehended favor the robbers? Try to understand their logic: Horn is supposed to sit back and wait for law enforcement, which always seems tardy, as he watches two robbers escape with his neighbors' possessions? Come on, believing that is almost treating the criminals like they were innocent bystanders who Horn just decided to use for target practice. These men were not pedestrians; rather, they were caught in an illegal activity and they deserved to be punished. Sure, Horn could have left well enough alone and let them get away, but he did not want to give these miscreants a chance to escape. As a red-blooded, gun-owning Texan, what was he supposed to do?
The second the two robbers stepped foot on the other person's property, they should have known that their life was in danger. I am not stupid enough to stand in front of an oncoming car to test whether or not the driver will stop, so why should a robber feel any differently about a potential break-in? The bottom line is this: If you break into someone else's house, you should expect to die, and people like Horn confirm this sentiment by standing for justice.
In the end, Horn will likely get off without much penalty because the Texas Penal Code says a person can use deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do. Also, because Horn harbored no malice or criminal intent, this particular case is a perfect example of justifiable homicide. But more importantly, Horn's situation proves that citizens can indeed play an essential role in crime deterrence - people will stop breaking into houses if they know a shotgun awaits them on the other side of the door.
Earnest is an economics freshman.
Be the first to comment on this article!