Joe Horn No-Billed By Grand Jury
In a very controversial case, Joe Horn was no-billed by a grand jury in Harris County, Texas. The Houston Chronicle reported the Grand Jury reviewed this case for two weeks.
So the big question is was this the right result? Was this the fair result? The answers to those questions depend on who you ask. If you ask homeowners all over the County, Joe Horn did an honorable thing. If you ask loved ones of the deceased, Joe Horn is a murderer.
What do I think? Well if you ask, based on the facts as presented in the media, Joe Horn did not have a legal right to shoot those men. The evidence presented through the news was that Joe Horn was in his home and not in danger, but chose to go outside and confront these men. If you look at it morally, it gets a little cloudier.
The whole case depends on what Joe Horn's mental state was. In Texas, a person commits murder if one intentionally and knowingly causing the death of a person. There is no doubt Joe Horn intentionally shot the deceased. Therefore, the only issue is whether the killing was justified by self-defense or some other legal reason.
The worse fact for Joe Horn was that he disregarded the 911 operator's order to stay in his home. Furthermore, Joe Horn told the 911 operator that he was going to shoot them. Only Joe Horn knows what happened once he went outside.
A grand jury is comprised of twelve persons. It is a secret proceeding. In order for a citizen to be indicted, 9 out of 12 of the grand jurors must find probably cause that the citizen committed a felony.
So why did the Grand Jury no-bill the case? Did the Grand Jury do a complex analysis of legal issues and apply them to a set of facts? More likely, did the Grand Jury decide that the guys Joe Horn shot needed killing? The long and short of it was well-documented. The two deceased were here in the country illegally, they were burglarizing innocent citizen's homes, and who knows what else they would do next.
What message does this send to the community? All people who choose to burglarize a home must know that they may be shot by a homeowner, but does this decision create a sense of vigilante justice?
I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, but I rather thought it could be justified as presented in the media. It is legal for a citizen to stop a crime in progress, as contained in the common-law concept of a citizen's arrest. If while trying to stop the crime you are in reasonable fear of your safety or life, then you may use deadly force to defend yourself. That Mr. Horn put himself into the situation by trying to prevent the crime does not disqualify him from legally defending himself.
The only problem I have - again, I was not there - is with the second shot. The first shot at the guy running towards him (though later away) seems clear. The second, at the guy running away, is much less so. However, I also understood that his neighbors had asked him to watch their house while they were gone. I am not totally clear if that would give him the right to defend property with deadly force - remmeber that case where the guy who shot a repo guy taking his truck through the back of the head who was no-billed about 15 years ago. He later committed suicide, I understand.
Bob- Thanks for the comment and I appreciate your insight. I completely agree with you that if a citizen has a reasonable fear of death, deadly force is lawul.
My concern with this case is based on some of the things Joe Horn said on the 911 tape prior to going outside. I believe he went out there trigger-happy and looking for a reason to shoot. Just my opinion.
I think who the deceased were and what they were doing is the reason for the no-bill, not a careful legal analysis of the self-defense statute.