Grand jury could decide on Horn case this week, DA's office says

By BRIAN ROGERS
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Joe Horn, the Pasadena man who shot and killed two burglars after they emerged from his neighbor's home last year, regrets that decision, his attorney said today.

"Was it a mistake from a legal standpoint? No. But a mistake in his life? Yes," said Tom Lambright. "Because it's affected him terribly. And if he had it to do over again, he would stay inside.


Details.

Horn tells grand jury about fatal shootings, his attorney says

By BRIAN ROGERS
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle


Pasadena resident Joe Horn testified Thursday in front of a Harris County grand jury about fatally shooting two suspected burglars as they fled his neighbor's home in November, his lawyer said.

"He was invited to testify, and he was hopeful that he could tell his side of the story," attorney Tom Lambright said. "It was really traumatic for him to go back through all this again."


Details.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

There is also a link to a press release by the DA.

Kingsland neighbor charged in shooting

By George Hatt
Highland Lakes Newspapers

A Kingsland man turned himself in to authorities Tuesday morning, accused of critically wounding a man suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's house.

Tom Oakes has been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He bonded out of jail in lieu of $15,000 bail.

"We felt like we had enough evidence to issue a warrant," District Attorney Sam Oatman said Monday.

The district attorney said that the Castle Doctrine, or Stand Your Ground Law, does not apply in this case because Oakes was not defending his own property or the life of another person.

Authorities said that Michael Jeffers, Matthew Winger of Kingsland, and Casey Rowe attempted to break into a house at the 4700 block of River Oaks Drive in Kingsland last Wednesday, July 30 about 7 a.m.

For the full story see the Llano County Journal

Click here.

The legal plights of the two clerks highlight the uncertain impact of National Rifle Association-backed laws sweeping the nation that make it easier to justify shooting in self-defense.


Details.

"Nationally, it appears that justifiable homicides have increased," criminologist James Alan Fox said. "The reasons could be many. We seem to be sending a message that it's acceptable to (use deadly force) even if there is a chance of fleeing."


Details.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
"Nationally, it appears that justifiable homicides have increased," criminologist James Alan Fox said. "The reasons could be many. We seem to be sending a message that it's acceptable to (use deadly force) even if there is a chance of fleeing."

---

And? I and the general public are to risk our lives on a "chance" that I might get away from an assailant? That same article goes on to talk about burglars not getting the death penalty for their crimes - so people are to let someone break into their homes and not respond until they are sure of the intentions of the burglar who may or maynot have a weapon and _is_ ready to use it? I am to hope I can run away from the guy with the baseball bat on the street? That he won't give chase with his car? And hopefully find a policeman or police station before I get hurt?

Why do we want to encourage victimization and demonize citizens protecting themselves?

Because the eventual result will be an innocent trespasser being shot by a citizen who has an unreasonable view of self-defense. Or, a gang member who will use an overly expansive self-defense claim to get away with murder.

No one presented a real improper prosecution before the self-defense law was buggered up with the complex presumption law. Now, no one can explain the status of the law without resort to a chart.

Case in point:

Criminal facing capital murder charges claims cop was "breaking in" and he had a right to "defend" himself

Well, if you are just saying the law is currently poorly written - I completely agree. However, it also appears you disagree with the intent of the law - to which I don't agree. When do you think a person should use deadly force for self-defense? How should the law be written?

And as for the capital murder defendant - he is not the first defendant who shot an officer in "self defense" because he didn't know he was a cop. In this case, as in others, it will come down to was he in uniform and did the officers serving the search or arrest warrant announce who they were.

Please give us all one very specific example of a defendant who suffered from prosecution before the change in the wording of the self-defense law. My point is that the law, as it previously existed, gave everyone plenty of protection and had the advantage of clarity.

Big picture, eliminating any possible duty to retreat tips the advantage a little more to the law-abiding public and away from the criminal. Focusing on the rare exceptions is not persuasive.

But there was no duty to retreat from your home. All that has been added is confusing language.

The criminal gets to choose when and where to attack. If there is no duty to retreat at home, why should there be a duty to retreat anywhere else?

Even if you see this as a cloud, there is a huge silver lining.

Have you actually tried one of these cases?

So innocent victims should retreat because I have not tried a murder case? Is this how it ends? We were just getting to know each other.

After you have picked a jury, having successfully explained a self-defense presumption, let me know if you still like the way the law was re-written. Set aside all the rhetoric about retreat, your castle and guns. Just focus on the glazed look in the jury's eyes.

Anyone actually tried one of these cases under the new law? To a conviction? If so, could you please email me directly?

Oh, wait, they did.

Posted on Wednesday, 08.04.10

`Stand Your Ground' works -- for criminals

By FRED GRIMM
The Miami Herald

A gang of young street thugs drove into a rival gang's turf, guns at the ready, looking for a fight.

Thirty shots were fired that day in 2008. A 15-year-old kid was killed. Two of the invading gang members faced homicide charges.

But the case fell apart this spring, lost in the chasm between gun reality and the gun myths promulgated by the Florida Legislature.

The actions of the two gun-wielding Tallahassee gangbangers, a Leon County Circuit Court judge ruled, were protected from prosecution by the 2005 ``Stand Your Ground'' law that expanded the definition of justifiable self-defense into something vague and plainly dangerous.

Full article available here

A 30-year-old man has been charged with first-degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after police say he fired twice at another driver Monday in a road rage incident on MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1).

[Road rage or self-defense? Just watch for the "castle doctrine" get invoked to protect your right to a safe space on Mo Pac.]

Details.