Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 2008: Was Trayvon inevitable? NRA & ALEC would say NO

Posted 8 years ago on March 24, 2012, 9:22 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"Justifiable Homicides" Are on the Rise:
Have Self-Defense Laws Gone Too Far? By Liliana Segura 11/14/08 <<<<<<<<< NOTE THIS DATE
Was Trayvon inevitable? Not if you ask the NRA & ALEC
With shoot first/ask questions later legislation passing across the country, are more Americans getting away with murder?

In 2007, a 61-year old Texan named Joe Horn looked out his window in Pasadena, just outside of Houston, and saw a pair of black men on his neighbor's property. It appeared to be a burglary in action, so he called 911. But as he described what he saw to the emergency dispatcher, he began to get agitated. The police would take too long to get there, he decided. Instead, he'd stop the crime himself.
"I've got a shotgun," Horn told the 911 dispatcher. "You want me to stop him?"
The dispatcher tried to talk him down. "Nope, don't do that," he told Horn.
"Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
It was not OK with Horn. With the dispatcher still on the phone, he grabbed his gun, went outside, yelled, "Move, you're dead!" -- and shot the two men in the back.
The victims were two undocumented immigrants from Colombia, Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus. Both died on the scene. Horn was officially cleared of wrongdoing, when a grand jury failed to indict him on any charges.

But Horn and his attorney claimed that in addition to protecting his neighbor's home, he was acting in self-defense. "He was afraid for his life," his lawyer, Tom Lambright argued. " … I don't think Joe had time to make a conscious decision. I think he only had time to react to what was going on. Short answer is, he was defending his life."

But the 9/11 recording tells the truth: Horn: He's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy.
I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window.
Dispatcher: Don't, don't -- don't go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?
Horn: They just stole something. I'm going after them, I'm sorry.
Dispatcher: Don't go outside.
Horn: I ain't letting them get away with this shit. They stole something.
They got a bag of something.
Dispatcher: Don't go outside the house.
Horn: I'm doing this.
Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.
Horn: I'm sorry. This ain't right, buddy.
Dispatcher: You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside
that house with a gun, I don't care what you think.
Horn: You want to make a bet?
Dispatcher: OK? Stay in the house.
Horn: They're getting away!
Dispatcher: That's all right. Property's not worth killing someone over, OK?
Horn: (curses)
Dispatcher: Don't go out the house. Don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated, but don't do it.
Horn: They got a bag of loot.
Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag? … Which way are they going?
Horn: I'm going outside. I'll find out.
Dispatcher: I don't want you going outside, Mr. Horn.
Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going.
Dispatcher: Don't go outside.
Horn: (yelling) Move, you're dead!
(Sound of shots being fired)

Besides being a disturbing recording, the tape is also notable for what it reveals about the moments before Horn saw Ortiz and de Jesus emerge from the window. "I have a right to protect myself too, sir," Horn argued with the dispatcher.
"… And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it."

Horn was referring to Texas's newly enacted Castle Law, signed by Gov. Rick Perry on March 27, 2007, and which had gone into effect that fall. The law, as described by the governor, "allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force." Its benefit, Perry said, is that "it protects law-abiding citizens from unfair litigation and further clarifies their right to self-defense."

It is a stretch to say Horn was acting out of self-defense. As CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin observed after listening to the tape, "He does not appear to be someone who's in a panic.
It's a very cool and rather chilling determination to go out and use his gun, against the instructions of the 911 operator."
Nevertheless, the new statute ultimately saved Horn from prosecution. Whether or not the law was designed to protect private property as much as human life, rather than "clarifying" the right to self-defense, as Perry claims, the practical effect of Texas' Castle Law appears to be a broadening of the definition to an unprecedented -- and deadly -- degree.

"Stand Your Ground" Laws

The Castle Law is not some wild Texas invention. In fact, the "castle doctrine" is a concept that dates back to English Common Law. As Ohio State law professor and criminal justice expert Joshua Dressler explains, the castle doctrine basically dictates "that your home is your castle; it's the one place where you should be able to be free from intrusion." This idea has provided the legal basis for self-defense legislation across the country for years -- legislation that traditionally has also acknowledged a person's "duty to retreat" in the face of a threatening situation. "The law has always taken the view for self-defense that someone can use deadly force to respond to what the person reasonably believes is a threat," explains Dressler. But, he adds, "the old law tended to be that people ought not to use deadly force until absolutely necessary. They tended to require people to find non-deadly solutions."

Recent decades have seen some exceptions. One precursor to the new Texas law is a 1985 Colorado law, nicknamed the "Make My Day" law, that treats property crimes as legitimate grounds for the use of force. The law came under national scrutiny in 1990, when an 18-year-old named Laureano Jacobo Grieigo Jr. was shot in the head by a 69-year-old-man as he fled his the man's home in an unsuccessful robbery attempt. No charges were filed, and an article published in the New York Times at the time called the law an "unusual" statute "that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force -- including deadly force -- against an invader of the home." (The same article quoted a criminologist at Florida International University, Dr. William Wilbanks, who warned that the law was ripe for abuse. "The danger is not that this kind of law will be abandoned, but that it will be extended even more," he said. ''The public sentiment is clearly behind this kind of law.")

Leading the pack was Florida. In 2005, Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law that, as written, "authorizes (a) person to use force, including deadly force, against (an) intruder or attacker in (a) dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances." The law "provides that person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances," and "provides immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force." Formally called the "Protection of Persons/Use of Force" law, it became known as the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, Florida's new law alarmed more than just gun control advocates. Many people were appalled at the fact that it could apply in public spaces. As the Christian Science Monitor reported at the time: "Most significantly, (the law) now extends that right to public places, too, meaning that a person no longer has a duty to retreat from what they perceive to be a threatening situation before they are entitled to pull the trigger. Members of the public may now stand their ground and "meet force with force," it states, without fear of criminal prosecution or civil litigation. "It's common sense to allow people to defend themselves," said Gov. Jeb Bush (R) as he signed the new law."

Only 20 state legislators opposed the law. One Democratic critic worried that it could "turn Florida into the OK Corral," but other Democratic politicians "admitted that they did not want to appear soft on crime by voting against it." It helped that one of the driving forces behind the law was Marion Hammer, a lobbyist who argued that the law would protect women against abuse and assault. She "characterized herself as a feminist," recalls Dressler, "but … more relevantly, was a former president of the NRA."

Mere months after the passage of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, similar legislation was being proposed in more than 20 states. The NRA was happy to take the credit. "Today, the NRA is feeding the firebox of Castle Doctrine legislation in states throughout the country," an article posted on the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action Web site boasted, crediting itself with "reuniting Americans with the right to protect themselves and loved ones from danger."

But what about another person's property, as in the case of Joe Horn? If a person can shoot two men in the back and get away with it -- and, indeed, if he cites his legal right to do so -- haven't these laws gone too far? Dressler thinks so. "My fear is that these changes in self-defense laws will lead to a lot more homicides -- and that a lot more homicides will be seen as justifiable."



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

I don't own a gun and I agree that property isn't worth killing over, but you picked a poor example. You leave out a minor fact. These men were actually burglarizing the neighbor, they both had criminal records. It wasn't at all some regrettable mistake. It was a vigilante action that we shouldn't want in our society. It leads to fatal mistakes like the Martin case.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

Owning a weapon is a right, owning a weapon does NOT give anyone the right to use it against another human being, based on anything other than immediate and visible threat to life.

I grew up handling guns, owned my own by the time I was 5 and knew how to use it responsibly.

While a gun can be used to kill, it can also be used to intimidate and to incapacitate. Both of which are better choices than the kill option.

When laws are enacted that allow vigilante justice, there will be vigilantes ready and willing to use it, no matter what the actual circumstances are.

Worse we will likely see more and more such acts, leading the public to outcry and the loss of one of our most cherished rights.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8277) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

The very important thing that you point out is that, Trayvon was not the first, I would like all cases determined to be "justified" to be reexamined.


[-] -1 points by Secretariat (33) 8 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

And your source for this QUOTE is ? larouche? santa claus?

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 8 years ago

how about the british couple that were murdered by blacks,......reason given,they were white and in a " black neighborhood." any uproar over that by white celebs or professional race baiters( sharpton and jackson)?

[-] -1 points by leonardsova (-24) 8 years ago

Owning a weapon is a right in our Country. If you liberals could afford one then you would have one also but you would not know how to use one

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

What makes you think Liberals don't have more than one?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

Can any one of you gun nuts give me the names of ANY three people who have said
"We must take away licensed guns from licensed gun owners"
fyi - how do you know I'm a liberal -
maybe I'm from Italy -
we have a murder rate one fifth of America's
fyi - I am an nra bar 9 sharpshooter

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

I agree with you it's a right, but the power to kill places a great deal of responsibility on the gun owner. The shooting of that boy in Florida was a serious mistake. We may never know how it got so out of hand, but the individual with the gun has to bear the responsibility for how it was used.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8277) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

if it is a "right" then I have a right to a nuclear bomb as well...not to pick a fight, I've just talked about this one a lot...and frankly I don't care so much about votes sometimes when I think of a dead nine year old in Tucson just becaused she cared and thought she could make a difference

[-] -1 points by BLOWCHUNKS (43) 8 years ago

Exactly. Anyone who thinks there is not a tremendous liability occurring with the taking of life, under any circumstances, is crazy. People have even been put in jail for shooting people inside their houses in the middle of the night.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

AND some people have been acquitted after shooting an unarmed man in the back while climbing OUT of a neighbor's window
Thank you NRA!

[-] 0 points by BLOWCHUNKS (43) 8 years ago

What did the NRA have to do with that? It was in Texas, of course the jury sided with the cowboy.