Murder or Self Defense?

Conversation between operator and Horn

Operator: You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with that gun. I don't care what you think. Stay in the house.

Horn: You wanna make a bet? I'm gonna kill 'em.

Anyways, I didnt knew there was a death threat made already. I wonder how much trouble all this is going to bring to this old man. For every action, theres a reaction.

Death Threat

“You better indict Joe Horn, and you better find him guilty. Because if you don’t, somebody is gonna kill him on the outside, and if he go to prison he gonna be killed on the inside … We waiting on him in prison, and we waiting on him on the outside."

Originally posted by Robtard
That would probably be manslaughter, it is also an entirely different scenario; those scenarios factor in to what is murder, manslaughter and self-defense when someone is killed. See.

I see nothing wrong with what he did. I would hope my neighbors would do the same for me.

This guy was probably friends with his neighbors. He didn't know if they were in the house or not, he just saw two guys breaking into it. For all he knew, those two guys slit his neighbors throats, then grabbed the loot and hopped out the window. If he just let them stroll off........he could have very well been letting the murderers of his friends/neighbors just stroll off never to be seen again. He didn't know.........it's a bad position to be in for sure. He didn't put himself in that position, those committing the crime did. Their fault.

I have no sympathy for any criminal who is shot in the act of committing a crime. Catch somebody raping a woman, shoot him in the head........no loss for society.

I believe I would have acted similarly. If 2 people are willing to break into another person's home, knowing the owner may be inside and armed, they probably have brought a weapon of their own along to protect themselves from the armed owner during the commission of the crime and are prepared to use it. That's just common sense. I would take no chances.

I am a gun owner. If somebody breaks into my house, knowing I'm home or may be home, it's a safe bet they have brought their own gun along because they don't want to die when I catch them robbing me. I wake up and see them, they're shot.....no warning.

Your scenarios are entirely different than what happened here, apples to oranges.

As far as the "they could have killed his neighbors so he shot them", it's probably better to not shot people dead when in doubt.

how are they different?

guy witnessed two guys break into his neighbors home. They come out later with stolen items. He holds them at gunpoint, telling them not to move. They move, he shoots.

explain the difference........ would it have been justified if afterward the cops had checked the neighbors home to find them laying in the floor with their throats slit?......or should he still have allowed these guys to casually stroll away from the crimescene never to be seen again?

he didn't know so he did the right thing. He held them at gunpoint, waiting for the cops to arrive and sort it out. One charged him, so he shot him. The other attempted to run away, so he shot him. The criminals were caught and being detained at gunpoint, their own idiocy led to them being shot.

Unfortunately, that's wrong. Everyone supposedly makes mistakes. If they murdered someone, you still have to wonder if it's right to kill them. I almost think jail is cruel and unusual punishment. That sort of thinking doesn't nip it in the bud. Most crimes happen in a close situation that involves suicidal thinking. I think it's bad in a different way, in the way that's like Chicken Soup that tells you to hold on. Sometimes, it's important and the slug next to you is a worse crime. He may be so gay (regarding mood) he may not do the deed, but the world has gotten so much worse in certain give and take ways since 2005, it justifies true crime. People are always stopping me in my tracks for a sort of "Hollywood" test on where my place is. This is a stupid explanation and below a step one in solving the issue. A police should be nearby enough to handle it.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
how are they different?

guy witnessed two guys break into his neighbors home. They come out later with stolen items. He holds them at gunpoint, telling them not to move. They move, he shoots.

explain the difference........ would it have been justified if afterward the cops had checked the neighbors home to find them laying in the floor with their throats slit?......or should he still have allowed these guys to casually stroll away from the crimescene never to be seen again?

he didn't know so he did the right thing. He held them at gunpoint, waiting for the cops to arrive and sort it out. One charged him, so he shot him. The other attempted to run away, so he shot him. The criminals were caught and being detained at gunpoint, their own idiocy led to them being shot.

They weren't in his house, he knew they weren't armed and no one was being harmed at the moment that he knew of.

No, it wouldn't have. Killing them on a lawn wouldn't bring back the people they killed in that hypothetical scenario and they are entitled to be tried in a court despite being criminals, not this backyard justice.

Taking the mans word, I can see where he shot the first thief in self-defense. How is shooting the other guy who was running away justified? There was no threat. He also could have easily shot them in the leg, it's a shotgun, it's not like he would have missed at that close range.

That is besides the point that he said "I'm going to kill them" BEFORE he faced them and assessed the situation, he wanted to kill them regardless of the situation and he did, ergo it's murder.

My only opinion is that the burglars won't be burglarizing anyone else. As if the law was going to do something about it...

Then again, I also dislike the court system.

Obviously, since they're dead.

I think he had no right to shoot them. Besides we are only reading one account of the story.

Too many gung ho people in this country.

He shouted the words he now regrets: "Move, you're dead." The men — about 10 feet and 13 feet from him — stopped immediately. They looked at one another and said nothing.

"There was no fear in their eyes," Horn said.

One of the men, believed to be Torres, started to charge him, Horn said. He fired.

If that last bit is true then it was obviously self defense. Even more justifiable since it apparently happened on his front lawn.

Either way, he was found not guilty. So in the eyes of the law, obviously not murder.

Probably not entirely justifiable, he obviously made a mistake, which he admits freely in that article, but it's not something that warrants a punishment. It was a reaction brought about by confusion and fear.

Originally posted by BackFire
If that last bit is true then it was obviously self defense. Even more justifiable since it apparently happened on his front lawn.

Either way, he was found not guilty. So in the eyes of the law, obviously not murder.

Probably not entirely justifiable, he obviously made a mistake, which he admits freely in that article, but it's not something that warrants a punishment. It was a reaction brought about by confusion and fear.

They are dead, tag on the toe dead, and there is no bringing them back. All because some piece of white trash decided to take the law into his own hands.

I don't buy into the whole "fearing for my life" crapola. He had a 12 guage, what did he have to fear?

I'm not quite buying the idea that he went out with the pure intent to kill, despite what he said to the operator. Words and actions don't entirely match up. He didn't just walk out and start shooting at them. He told them to freeze, and then one of them charged him. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going to happen next. Had the guy not charged him, it sounds like he wouldn't have fired. That's all the makes it self defense. Had he gone out and just started firing without warning, I'd be right there with you, but that's not what he did.

There are different reactions to fear. Some people react by trying to halt the danger before it arrives, or by standing against it. And just because he had a gun doesn't mean that he wasn't afraid. Perhaps one of the guys had a gun too, he had no way of knowing. They just broke into someone's house and stole shit, they're not stand up citizens, they're criminals, and many criminals have guns. That's not a situations where you start assuming the best about people.

Personally, I'd consider this a gray area. He did wrong, but what he did was somewhat understandable, at the very least, I think.

Were there any witnesses that saw the guy charging him?

Nope. But it sounded like the cell phone was in the guy's pocket, so if he had just gone out and started shooting it would have been easy for the operator to debunk the claim.

No witnesses, no one to see him being "charged", how convenient.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
A "mistake?" Dude, he KILLED two men in cold blood, he planned it and saw it through. That is murder, NOT self defense.

They are dead, tag on the toe dead, and there is no bringing them back. All because some piece of white trash decided to take the law into his own hands.

I don't buy into the whole "fearing for my life" crapola. He had a 12 guage, what did he have to fear?

"One of the men, believed to be Torres, started to charge him, Horn said."

If this is true than it was reasonable, he doesn't have to be killed by some burglars.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No witnesses, no one to see him being "charged", how convenient.

How good that RJ knows all the facts of life and can tell that it never happened that way. How convenient.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"One of the men, believed to be Torres, started to charge him, Horn said."

If this is true than it was reasonable, he doesn't have to be killed by some burglars.

How good that RJ knows all the facts of life and can tell that it never happened that way. How convenient.

It's not the facts of life, it's common sense. Who in their right mind is gonna charge a man with a 12 guage?

the important thing from this story is that two criminals will no longer be committing criminal acts agaisnt upstanding, law abiding citizens. You want to live in society, you follow the rules set forth to protect all citizens. You don't want to follow those rules, you don't get to live in the society. These two guys are no longer living in our society.