Self Defense or Murder?
Case 1:
Man Shoots Two While on the Phone with 911.
There can be no arguments about what happened in this case because the shooter was recorded on the phone with a 911 operator when he decided to take the law into his own hands. Joe Horn saw two men breaking into his neighbor's house and called 911. What follows is a transcript of the conversation he had with the 911 operator and the actions he chose to take.
"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them? "
"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK? " the dispatcher responded.
"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."
Shortly after, Horn said he sees one suspect was standing in front of his house, looking at it from the street.
"I don't know if they’re armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. … Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."
He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."
"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK? " the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK? "
"I don't want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?
"No, I don't want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."
The dispatcher asks if a vehicle could be seen; Horn said no. The dispatcher again says Horn should stay inside the house.
Almost five minutes into the call, police had not arrived.
"I can’t see if [the suspects are] getting away or not," Horn said.
Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn't know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.
Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK? "
Horn: "Yes? "
Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."
Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."
Dispatcher: "I understand."
Horn: "I have a right to protect myself … "
Dispatcher: "I'm …"
Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."
Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to …"
Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "
Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn…"
Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"
Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."
Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."
Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."
Horn: "You wanna make a bet? "
Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."
Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!
Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? 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? " He then talks off, relaying the information.
Dispatcher: "Which way are they going? "
Horn: "I can't … I'm going outside. I'll find out."
Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister…"
Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."
On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.
"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.
Then Horn is back on the phone: "Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! … Get somebody over here quick, man."
Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now? "
Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn&339t know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK? "
Dispatcher: "Did you shoot somebody?
Horn: "Yes, I did, the cops are here right now."
Dispatcher: "Where are you right now? "
Horn: "I'm inside the house. …"
Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, put that gun down before you shoot an officer of mine. I've got several officers out there without uniforms on."
Horn: "I am in the front yard right now. I am …"
Dispatcher: "Put that gun down! There's officers out there without uniforms on. Do not shoot anybody else, do you understand me? I've got police out there…"
Horn: "I understand, I understand. I am out in the front yard waving my hand right now."
Dispatcher: "You don't have a gun with you, do you?
Horn: "No, no, no."
Dispatcher: "You see a uniformed officer? Now lay down on the ground and don't do nothing else."
Yelling is heard.
Dispatcher: "Lay down on the ground, Mister Horn. Do what the officers tell you to do right now."
Two days later, Horn released a statement through an attorney. “The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life," it said. "My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased.”
The identities of the men killed were released Friday. They are Miguel Antonio Dejesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30. Official records show that each of them had a prior arrest in Harris County for drug offenses.
The men were reportedly shot at a distance of less than 15 feet.
The story this transcript was released in doesn't say it, but both suspects were shot in the back attempting to run away from the scene. I know some people will say that the two buglers got what they deserved, but I don't agree. They deserved a jury and a trial. They deserved to go to jail and to my best understanding of the law even in Texas we don't have death penalty for burglary.
This man went outside the protection of the law by going outside against the 911 operator's objections. He intentionally places himself in a position of harm. At no time does he say they are coming for him even after he goes outside. He was simply offended that someone could do what they did in his neighborhood and he wasn't going to stand for it. In my reading of the new “Castle” law he is NOT protected. He was not under threat, he was not being robbed, and as not protecting his property or business. The District Attorney sent the case to the Grand Jury and the Grand Jury refused to indict Mr. Horn for his crime. I'm hopeful that some other authority will have the courage to prosecute Mr. Horn. What he did was to murder two people for committing a burglary in what he believes is HIS neighborhood. The law in his area don’t have the courage to charge him I hopeful that some other authority will act to protect the public.
Return to List
Case 2:
Husband's Shot Sends Wife to Prison.
This story begins with a jealous husband and a cheating wife. The story ends with a dead lover and a wife sent jail for manslaughter. The night begins with the husband, Mr. Roberson, taking a gambling trip to Dallas the night of Dec. 11, 2006. While he was away Mrs. Roberson invited a Mr. LaSalle to her South Arlington home. It turns out that Mrs. Roberson began an affair with Mr. LaSalle after they met at a school both of their children attended. On the night of the shooting court evidence shows that Mr. Roberson called his home 19 times while he was away. Finally he got his young daughter on the phone who told him his wife was outside.
Mr. Roberson then headed for home, and found his wife and Mr. LaSalle together in Mr. LaSalle’s truck having sex. According to reports Mrs. Roberson was clad in only a robe and underwear. At some point Mrs. Roberson claimed she was being raped. The newspaper and television reports lack detail so we don’t know if she made this accusation while in the truck or after she had removed herself from the vehicle. In response to his wife’s claim of rape (according to Mr. Roberson) the husband fired four rounds from a 10 mm Smith & Wesson at the truck. One of the bullets hit Mr. LaSalle in the head, killing him. Due to an additional lack of detail we don’t know if Mr. LaSalle was trying to drive away or was still in the Roberson’s driveway. In court testimony Mrs. Roberson claimed that she said what she said “because she was afraid her husband was going to kill her.” The use of the word kill is an indication of her husband’s violent temper. The typical person might be afraid that their spouse would get mad, maybe even strike them with a fist, killing a cheating spouse however is a step way beyond the norm.
In the reporting of this story there is not a word about how her husband ended up with a gun in his hand. Did he have it with him? Does he have a “Right to Carry” permit? Did he go in the house to get it and come back out to stop this criminal? Was he trying to stop an active “crime” by shooting into the truck containing his wife and the “assailant”? We will never have the answer to these questions because the law does not allow it (right to carry permits are confidential), and some because no one in a position to ask has asked the question. Yet we have a 37 year old woman, mother of three, who had never been in trouble with the law before serving time in jail because she panicked and told a lie. She was found guilty of manslaughter in the death of Mr. LaSalle.
A Tarrant County grand jury declined to indict Mr. Roberson the husband who did the shooting in this case so he is walking around free. There is no question that Mrs. Roberson contributed to the death of Mr. LaSalle, but her husband had other non-lethal options he could have resorted to before deciding to shooting his wife’s lover in the back of the head. It is beyond my capacity to understand how Mr. Roberson actions were protected under the law or why he is walking abound free. There are countries where this kind of behavior might make sense, but do we really want to model our laws to be in line with countrieslike Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Brazil?
Brazil, on a beautiful summer day in 1988 Joao Lopes became enraged. Why one might ask? Because his wife, Teresa, announced that she was leaving him. What an outrage! Two days later Mr. Lopes found his wife and her new lover, Jose Gaspar Felix, at a local hotel. He burst into the hotel room and knifed his wife’s new lover to death. Next he caught up with his fleeing wife in the street and killed her too. Open and shut case right? Well maybe, at the first trial, a jury accepted the argument that Mr. Lopes had killed to “defend his honor”. An appeals court upheld the verdict! Finally, in a 3-to-2 decision on March 12, 1991 the Brazilian Supreme Court rejected the honor defense. I guess in our case the mistake the woman made was not getting killed.
Return to List
Case 3:
Suspected Shoplifter Fatally Shot.
According to Authorities a Sack `N Save manager became suspicious of a man exiting the store who he believed was carrying stolen merchandise at around 8:25 p.m. The manager followed the man into the store's parking lot in the 3400 block of Altamesa Boulevard and confronted him as he got into a white truck. As the manager attempted to detain the man, the suspect began to drive off. It was then a security guard, who had walked outside to check on the manager, said the truck drove straight towards him. It was then when the security guard fired a shot at the vehicle. The truck fled the scene.
Later on Authorities discovered a man was admitted with a gunshot wound to the Huguley Hospital in Fort Worth. The man, who police believe may have been the driver of the white truck, was pronounced dead at the hospital.
I was disappointed in the reporting of this story because it leaves out several important facts. Even though I think the death penalty is a bit much for a shoplifter. It has never been confirmed that this person WAS a shoplifter. There is also no information as to what part of the body the suspect was wounded, front or back. I happen to have personal experience with this very same store. For some reason the manager believed that I was a shoplifter and had me followed all around the store while I shopped. Because they were being so obvious about watching me I decided I would mess with them by changing isles when they show up on my ilse, walking right past them time and time again, and repeatedly picking up items and placing them back on the shelves. When I finally went to the register I had the cashier call the manager. I decided I was going to tell him a thing or two in addition to never shopping their again. I did just that the only thing I regret is that I didn't get my $200.00 dollar plus check back and make them reshelve all the food. At the time I was hungry and tired and couldn’t see myself having to go to another store and shop all over again just because of these stupid people.
Little did I know that I was risking my life. On that day if the manager had come to my vehicle and attempted to detain me I would have left just like the man in the story. My saving grace seems to reside in the fact that I confronted the manager and did not just walk out of the store after paying. It is more than ten years later and I still won’t walk into a Sack `N Save.
Return to List
|
Should the U.S. Apologize?
Apologize? Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. An apology is normaly given in an effort to right a wrong. Typically this wrong is for an unjustifiable action. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not fit the bill for an apology. If anything the millions of Japanese descendants of parents alive in 1945 owe their very existence to President Truman's decision to avoid the land invasion of mainland Japan at all cost.
There is no arguing that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki endured much suffering. At the end of the first day in Hiroshima there were 100,000 dead. Three days later in Nagasaki approximately 75,000 people lost their lives. The death toll in Hiroshima would continue to rise to 140,000 by the end of the year due to radiation sickness and other complications caused by the bomb. In addition to these deaths many of the people who survived the atomic bomb blast in these two cities would suffer a lifetime of agonizing pain and disfigurement. However, for the sake of fairness we have to remember how the war between the U.S and Japan started and what the other option was for ending the war with Japan.
"December 7, 1941 is a day that will live on in infamy", said President Roosevelt as he urged the Congress to declare war on Japan. At Pearl Harbor over twenty three hundred American lives were sacrificed in a surprise attack to Japanese ambition in the Pacific and East Asia. After the major part of the United States Navy was severely disabled and the Japanese military went on to march into China, Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Burma, Indonesia, Guam, and countless other islands, territories, and countries too numerous to mention here. The list of Japanese atrocities in the conquered and occupied territories is long and bloody and though formal diplomatic ties have been repaired between these counties and Japan there are many people who live in the Pacific Rim who still feel that Japan has not fully atoned for its actions during the war. As recently as this year (2005) anti-Japanese protesters turned out in Hong Kong; Seoul, South Korea; Manila, Philippines; and Taipei, Taiwan according to the Washington Post August 16, 2005 edition. Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi reiterated an apology Monday in his speech in front of the emperor. In his speech Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi spoke of "the huge damage and suffering caused by his nation's past" and pledged that it would never happen again. However, in his speech in front of the emperor the Prime Minister never used the word "apology", although it was included in his written statement.
In my opinion the argument about who should apologize for what overlooks the most important issue in the debate over the use of the atomic bomb. That issue is the loss of American lives if an invasion of mainland Japan was to happen. The precursor for an invasion of mainland Japan was Okinawa. Okinawa is a small island approximately 350 miles south of Japan would serve as an example of what the U.S. could expect of an invasion of the mainland. The island was important because U.S. had control of this island meant that the Japanese homeland would be within easy flight distance of American bombers. Okinawa was also to have served as the gathering point for any future land invasion of Japan. Control of this island would bring the fighting to the doorstep of the Japanese people.
The island is small, not even a tenth of the size of the main island of Japan and was home to 500,000 indigenous resident civilians. The Japanese had station an estimated 155,000 Japanese ground, air and naval troops to defend the island. The invasion started April 1, 1945 and in the beginning the U.S. invasion troops encountered little resistance. Then the real battle started. The Japanese generals had chosen not to defend the beaches, but to dig in instead and let the Americans come to them on their terms. The result was one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War. To take the island cost 12,000 American lives with another 50,000 soldiers wounded. The Japanese lost 150,000 troops themselves. This battle probably more than any other single battle gave President Truman second thoughts, if not nightmares, about the true cost of a land invasion of Japan. If the causality figures of Okinawa are multiplied by ten in an attempt to compensate for the difference in size we would be talking about a minimum of 120,000 American lives, another 500,000 wounded, along with another 1,550,000 Japanese troops and civilians. These estimates are probably very low since the Japanese at Okinawa were not defending their actual homeland and families and because Okinawa is smaller than one tenth of mainland Japan. This is the "cost" that had to be balanced against the "cost" in Japanese lives from the use of the atomic bomb.
I say "the bomb" because President Truman and his top military advisors did not believe it would take more than one atomic bomb to convince the Japanese people that winning the war was hopeless; unfortunately they were wrong. Japan did not surrender after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Leaflets like the recreation displayed on the IMO Home page were dropped over several Japanese cities about 24 hours before the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki to encourage the Japanese to surrender. The leaflets carried this message:
TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.
We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.
We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.
Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.
You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
Unfortunately for the citizens of Nagasaki the leaflets were dropped there after the bomb had been dropped. Who knows how much difference this might have made in the causality figures for Nagasaki. Japan notified the U.S. government of its intent to surrender August 14, 1945. The formal surrender signing took place on the U.S.S. Missouri on September 2, 1945.
The casualty figures I have used although from reliable sources are estimates. Many bodies were never accounted for and many soldiers never made it out of the caves they were hiding in during the battle for Okinawa. In my research many sources of had numbers close to if not exactly as I have used here. War is not pleasant and should not be entered into lightly. It is unfortunate that this is a lesson we seem to have forgotten.
At the end of the day even after taking into account the more than 220,000 civilian casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I think President Truman did the right thing; the only thing he could have done. If it had come out after a land invasion of Japan that we had a weapon that could have avoided the loss of American lives suffered in an invasion of Japan, but didn't use it Truman would have been impeached. This was one war the U.S. did not start and did not want to fight. On December 7, 1941 the fight was brought to us and we did what we had to do.
|
