The Castle Law - Vigilante Justice or Legit Shooting?

[Chef Dave]

Have you heard about Senate Bill 378 in Texas? It is also known as the "Castle Law." Governor Rick Perry signed it into law last March and it took effect on September 1, 2007.

According to this law, Texans may use deadly force in self-defense of their home, vehicle, or workplace.

The law is now going to be tested.

On November 17, 2007, a 61 year old man named Joe Horn called 911 to report intruders in his neighbor's house. He told the dispatcher that he had a shotgun and was going to stop these guys who were now exiting through the window of the neighbor's house. The dispatcher told him not to go outside but Mr. Horn grabbed his weapon and went outside.

He subsequently shot two burglars and killed both of them.

The district attorney is now reviewing the incident. Did Mr. Horn commit murder? SB 378 says that deadly force may be used in defense of your home, your vehicle, or your office.

Mr. Horn's home, vehicle, and office were not in danger.

The law also stipulates that deadly force may only be used when the victim is unable to retreat and has no other choice.

Instead of staying safely out of harm's way, Mr. Horn chose to go outside and confront the burglars. The burglars were unarmed. They were fifteen feet away from Joe Horn - who could have retreated back into his home through his front door.

He chose to shoot these men. He made no effort to take them prisoner. He made no effort to shoot them in the legs.

What do you think of this incident? An informal survey in Texas by a radio station found that public support is running 2:1 in favor of Joe Horn.

I think he violated the intent of the law. He was not in danger. The dispatcher told him to stay put. He chose to arm himself. He chose to confront these men. He was not defending his home, vehicle, or office. The men in question were unarmed. His life was not in danger.

What do you think?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

http://rackjite.com/archives/987-128-Update-Texas-Hero-Joe-Shoots-2-Unarmed-Black-Men-in-the-Back.html

[Oak Tree]

If any ever breaks into my place when I'm home someone's going to die. The only they'll live is if they kill me first; I could care less what the law says.

[Chef Dave]

If any ever breaks into my place when I'm home someone's going to die. The only they'll live is if they kill me first; I could care less what the law says.

You are missing the entire point of this thread.

In Texas, you are allowed to defend your home with deadly force ... but in the case of Joe Horn, the man went looking for trouble. He was perfectly safe in his home and he deliberately placed himself in harms way.

I think he's a vigilante. I do not believe that the Castle Law covers him. He murdered two unarmed men. Granted - they were criminals ... but his life was not in danger.

[Addict]

Yes, you have to be careful on how you allow the Law to be interpreted.

This is pushing it too far. Unfortunately, if he shot the thieves in the legs, he would be in trouble as well.

In Colorado, we have the "Make My Day Law" - no kidding. And I am for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_My_Day_law):

Under the law, citizens cannot be prosecuted for using deadly force against suspected threats to themselves in their houses and on their property - for example (and primarily), intruders.

Also: Make My Day Better Law (Colorado)
Proposals in Colorado starting in 2006 and early 2007 announced that the law would be expanded into protection of businesses and automobiles, with Statesman Cory Gardner hoping to submit his bill in early February.[3] A supposed backup for the claim related to a Denver businessman who had shot a burglar in self-defense at his business - a restaurant. As such, a charge of attempted murder was leveled, though a first-degree murder still remained. As of then, there was no stipulation the law applied to businesses. A proposal called "Make My Day Better" would also protect people who use deadly force to protect themselves in their businesses and automobiles.

---Hrmm... not sure about this one. I guess if you think about a mother trying to protect herself and child from a carjacker...

I can say if I found someone in my house in the middle of the night - they would most likely end up dead. I am not going to play 'footsie' and try to sneak around and see if they have a weapon or interview them about their 'intent'. That may sound violent, but when a 'burglar/criminal/murderer' chooses to break into a house in Colorado, they are making a life-or-death choice.

This is different from your original post Chef Dave, didn't mean to hijack it. I think that the Make My Day Law is even more lenient than your Castle Law and it wouldn't cover you killing someone who was:
1. Running Away
2. Not threatening you or your property.

If crime were growing out of control, more would accept vigilantism. But Joe Horn is pushing it.

[Oak Tree]

You are missing the entire point of this thread.




Either I need to work on my reading comprehension or you need to accept that someone may decide to respond in a way that is only peripherally related to the original post.

[Spectre]

I firmly believe in the right of the individual to protect themselves, but I do think Mr. Horn overstepped his bounds.

[Chef Dave]

Here's an interesting twist to the Castle Law.

An African American named John White confronted what he described as a white lynch mob on the front yard of his home. He was armed with a shotgun. When asked to disperse, racial slurs were used. One youth charged him and was shot by Mr. White.

The article claims that because John White was a black man, he was found guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter and faces 5-15 years in prison. In contrast, Joe Horn shot 2 black men and is not facing any charges.

The only salient point I can raise is that the castle law did not take effect until 9/1/07. The John White shooting occurred on 8/9/06, one year before the state law took effect.

http://rackjite.com/archives/1037-The-Joe-Horn,-John-White-Castle-Law-Disconnect.html

[Spectre]

There's a definite left wing slant to the article, but there is an undeniable duplicity here. :mad:

I have to wonder if Mr. White was of a different ethnicity, would he have been prosecuted at all? :confused:

Doesn't seem fair....

[Chef Dave]

Doesn't seem fair....

The interesting thing I've noticed is that in both cases, each man SOUGHT confrontation.

Joe Horn had already called the police. He was not in any danger. He did not need to go outside with his shotgun and was actually told by the police dispatcher to remain indoors.

John White did not need to go outdoors either. His son had already escaped the mob. There was no need to confront the group.

Had the mob assaulted his house and tried forcing their way in, he might have claimed self-defense ... even though the Castle Law had not yet been passed.

As it was, he chose to confront these people and one person died as a result.

I can understand why John White was convicted ... but I cannot understand why Joe Horn has yet to be charged.

From what I understand, the men weren't even trying to attack him. They had burglarized a neighbor's house and were simply trying to get away.

I wonder whether the Joe Horn incident will now establish a vigilante precedent in Texas. Will it be open season on suspected burglars?

Although I am all in favor of defending myself against intruders ... I have a problem with the idea of chasing someone down, killing them in cold blood, and claiming that this was "self defense."

[javamomma]

I firmly believe that a person should be able to protect themselves or their family. However, I think this individual went to far in his actions. He is the type that give gun owners (such as my family) a bad name. It provides "proof" that guns should not be allowed out in the public...

[Oak Tree]

I think this guy should have the right to go outside anytime he wants without having burglars or other types of criminals in his general area. It's his neighborhood. Why should he stay inside just because a crime is happening? He has every right to walk outside and once he is outside he has every right to protect himself against crazy violent criminals in his vicinity.

[Addict]

John White was faced with an angry mob on his property. One of the members charged him. If John White chose not to shoot him, and the mob member got to him, I envision a struggle would have ensued - and the mob would have devoured John White.

In Colorado - he may have been covered by the law. John White had multiple trespassers, if he thought he was defending his life (which I could see in this case) I assume he would be exonerated under our "Make My Day" law. As I believe he should be.

Let's examine the plight of stupid people. And man, there are a lot of them these days. 'YOU' are in a mob of people on the front yard of a man holding a gun. 'YOU' choose to be the sole person to 'charge' this man. YOU, my friend, DESERVE a Darwin Award - Maybe not the gold or silver - because there are a LOT of stupid people out there, but at least an honorable mention. Natural Selection?

[Chef Dave]

John White was faced with an angry mob on his property. One of the members charged him. If John White chose not to shoot him, and the mob member got to him, I envision a struggle would have ensued - and the mob would have devoured John White.

I see your point.

Unfortunately, like Joe Horn, John White chose to put himself in this situation. He could have remained indoors until the police arrived. Had the mob stormed his house, his self defense plea would have been a lot stronger as he would have been defending hearth and home. As it was, he made the decision to arm himself and confront the mob. He placed himself in harm's way and somebody died.

John White made a poor choice ... as did Joe Horn. I understand why Mr. White was convicted but do not understand why Mr. Horn was not even charged.

The Castle Law says that you can protect hearth and home. It doesn't say you can go after people and shoot them.

Cynical person that I am, I cannot help but wonder whether the sentiments of the district attorney would have been different had Joe Horn been black and the shooting victims been white ... as was the case with John White.

[Addict]

Chef Dave - you make good, thought-provoking points.

I am saying what I personally feel is Just. But when you bring the actual law and time it was enacted, Joe Horn should have gotten more (castle law doesn't apply to his situation), and John White got what he should have under the law.

The way it played out is unfair and the prosecution seems descriminatory.

[busbus]

Have you heard about Senate Bill 378 in Texas? It is also known as the "Castle Law." Governor Rick Perry signed it into law last March and it took effect on September 1, 2007.

According to this law, Texans may use deadly force in self-defense of their home, vehicle, or workplace.

The law is now going to be tested.

On November 17, 2007, a 61 year old man named Joe Horn called 911 to report intruders in his neighbor's house. He told the dispatcher that he had a shotgun and was going to stop these guys who were now exiting through the window of the neighbor's house. The dispatcher told him not to go outside but Mr. Horn grabbed his weapon and went outside.

He subsequently shot two burglars and killed both of them.

The district attorney is now reviewing the incident. Did Mr. Horn commit murder? SB 378 says that deadly force may be used in defense of your home, your vehicle, or your office.

Mr. Horn's home, vehicle, and office were not in danger.

The law also stipulates that deadly force may only be used when the victim is unable to retreat and has no other choice.

Instead of staying safely out of harm's way, Mr. Horn chose to go outside and confront the burglars. The burglars were unarmed. They were fifteen feet away from Joe Horn - who could have retreated back into his home through his front door.

He chose to shoot these men. He made no effort to take them prisoner. He made no effort to shoot them in the legs.

What do you think of this incident? An informal survey in Texas by a radio station found that public support is running 2:1 in favor of Joe Horn.

I think he violated the intent of the law. He was not in danger. The dispatcher told him to stay put. He chose to arm himself. He chose to confront these men. He was not defending his home, vehicle, or office. The men in question were unarmed. His life was not in danger.

What do you think?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

http://rackjite.com/archives/987-128-Update-Texas-Hero-Joe-Shoots-2-Unarmed-Black-Men-in-the-Back.html

Hi,

I heard about this case on the news. In fact, I heard the 911 recording. Mr. Horn was told not to go outside. He was told not to shoot his gun. (On the recording, you could hear him cocking the gun. (I think that's what it is called when you are getting ready to shoot.) He was told, then, not to use the gun. He said something about not letting the robbers get away. At that time, I said to myself that Mr. Horn was wrong. He was as wrong as two left feet and a three dollar bill.

I don't know what the man was thinking! If he had the sense to call 911, he did the best that he could have done for his neighbors. Now what!!!? How do you think that his neighbors feel? He was trying to protect their property and he just might wind-up in jail.

I also said to myself, after hearing about this law, "Was the man trying to test the law and it went further than he had planned? That is, was his aim off and he wound up killing instead of just scaring them?

It's a sad situation. Keep us informed. I'll probably hear how things progress on the news.

Quite interesting!