TEXAS MAN KILLS TWO, AND LEGALLY WALKS AS IF IT NEVER HAPPENED

A white neighbor calls 911 after he hears an apparent burglary taking place next door. He tells the operator he is going to go outside and shoot and kill them. He describes them as "black" (they were Colombian for the record). The operator REPEATEDLY instructs him to remain inside and not to shoot because officers were nearby and on their way. He hangs up the phone, walks outside, shoots and kills both men AS THEY WERE RUNNING AWAY. The officers showed up minutes later. The case goes to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury refuses to indict him. In other words - no charges.
You are outraged. So am I.
But here is the sad reality. We should be more outraged at Texas' Penal Code than anything else. The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the "actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." Deadly force can also be used to protect property when "the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary and escaping with property." Although he wasn't protecting HIS property, a neighbor is entitled to use the same deadly force if he "reasonably believes he has a legal duty to protect a third person's property." The shooter (Joe Horn) told police that the two men came onto HIS property. According to his testimony, he in theory has TWO LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS for his actions: 1) Protecting HIS property (assuming they actually did come onto his yard), and 2) Protecting HIS NEIGHBOR'S property. The only question that remains is whether his belief was "reasonable." It doesn't mean that his belief had to be actual...in other words, he does not have to be "sure" of anything. Unfortunately, this determination is made by the jurors, and the jurors didn't believe there was enough evidence to indict him.
Who is to blame? I blame the law. The law allows for this outcome and this interpretation. Vigilante Justice.
There are two issues here: 1) The Legal Issue(s) and 2) The Social/Public Policy Issue
1) The Legal Perspective. As I said, the law allowed for this outcome. As terrible of an outcome as it is (even with the repeated warnings from the 911 operator), the Grand Jurors' interpretation is reasonable - especially if they believed his story.
2) The Social Perspective. Would the outcome have been the same if the shooter was a minority and the victims were white? Probably not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html
--