Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

Vedderlution_Baby

(11/15/07 - KTRK/PASADENA, TX) - A dramatic 911 call from the Pasadena man who allegedly shot and killed two men accused of burglarizing his neighbor has been released. The dispatcher tried to talk him out of it.

"Hurry up, man. Catch these guys, will ya? I ain't gonna let them go, I'm gonna be honest with ya," said Horn on the 911 call. "I'm not gonna let them go. I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)."

Horn and the dispatcher spent more than seven minutes on the phone, much of that with the dispatcher trying to convince Horn not to go outside.

"I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot," said Horn.

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" responded the dispatcher. "It's not worth shooting someone over this."

"I don't want to, but if I go out there to see what the hell is going on, what choice do I have?" said Horn.

"I don't want you to go out there. I asked if you could see anything out there," said the dispatcher.

Horn tells the dispatcher that he understands his rights and even makes reference to the September 1 expansion that gives homeowners greater protection from prosecution should they choose to confront someone breaking into their home.

Before he can be convinced otherwise, Horn tells police he sees the burglars coming out of his house.

"He's coming out of the window right now," said Horn to the 911 dispatcher. "I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window."

"Don't, don't , don't go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?" said the dispatcher.

"(Expletive), they just stole something," said Horn to the dispatcher. "I'm sorry. I ain't gonna let them get away with this. They got a bag of something. I'm doing it."

The dispatcher can't stop Horn, who takes the phone with him as he goes outside.

"Move, you're dead," Horn, who took the phone outside with him, could be heard saying to the suspects.

Then three gunshots could be heard.

Horn admits later on the 911 call that he did, in fact, fire those shots. The names of the two men shot have not yet been released pending identification and notification of their next of kin. Horn has not been arrested or charged with any crime. A police investigation is still underway. This case likely will end up in the hands of a Harris County grand jury.
(Copyright © 2007, KTRK-TV)

(audio can be heard at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780)

---

Sorry, but I see no justification for this. The guys were robbing a neighbors house and from what can be heard, posed no threat to Horn. He should've let the cops handle the matter instead of going outside and shooting these two guys. Or atleast held them in their place until the cops showed up. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for the criminals at all, what they did was wrong. But I also believe what Horn did was wrong, killing people over a small bag of "loot".

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

---

Sorry, but I see no justification for this. The guys were robbing a neighbors house and from what can be heard, posed no threat to Horn. He should've let the cops handle the matter instead of going outside and shooting these two guys. Or atleast held them in their place until the cops showed up. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for the criminals at all, what they did was wrong. But I also believe what Horn did was wrong, killing people over a small bag of "loot".

that's big talk until it's your loot. my dad had over $20,000 in jewelry alone taken during a home robbery.

horn called the police. the police couldn't respond fast enough. they never do. the law makes us shoot them dead because if you disable them by shattering their pelvis; they can come back to sue you.
if the law says you can shoot home invaders; then he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be prosecuted. he told them to stand still; they didn't comply; and got shot. taking the phone out with him was a good move. it proves he didn't just shoot; he warned them first.
good job horn!

Collin

I think what he did was wrong and I think he should be punished.

Vedderlution_Baby

onelongsong wrote:

that's big talk until it's your loot. my dad had over $20,000 in jewelry alone taken during a home robbery.

horn called the police. the police couldn't respond fast enough. they never do. the law makes us shoot them dead because if you disable them by shattering their pelvis; they can come back to sue you.
if the law says you can shoot home invaders; then he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be prosecuted. he told them to stand still; they didn't comply; and got shot. taking the phone out with him was a good move. it proves he didn't just shoot; he warned them first.
good job horn!

Big talk? So it's big talk saying you wouldn't shoot someone if they robbed you. He was not threatened. They weren't even robbing HIS house. They were robbing his neighbors house. And they weren't a threat to him. His home wasn't even invaded.

g under p

Hmmmm, Well I could understand if Horn was getting robbed but a neighbor let the police handle it.

Also were these men shot facing Horn or shot in the back as if they were running away from him? They should some punishment for this if not jail time community service through the church (soup kitchen) etc.

Peace

scot88

honestly, i don't think he did anything wrong. I'd love to have a neighbor like him.

g under p

scot88 wrote:

honestly, i don't think he did anything wrong. I'd love to have a neighbor like him.

Maybe so but what if he had missed and hit an innocent bystander? It opens up a whole can of worms.

Peace

Hartydog

I hope no charges are filed. If this is allowed to happen you'll see less crime.

g under p

Hartydog wrote:

I hope no charges are filed. If this is allowed to happen you'll see less crime.

Then why bother have a police force then. We could then take up arms and take care of crime ourselves.

Peace

Hartydog

I don't necessarily disagree with you. However I think sometimes this country is too concerned with the rights of criminals.

angryyoungman

sorry, but you dont get the death penalty for stealing whatever they stole. . .like some said if it was his house it would be a different story, he doesnt have the right to impose his own justice in this matter

NoK

How are you to know they didn't stay in their place as he asked them to but he decided to shoot them anyway? Sounds like he went a bit overboard.

Personally I don't give a shit of the outcome cause either way (prosecuted or not prosecuted) the situation is arguable.

If you don't want trouble don't steal.

dontloseyourheat

I think it depends on how he killed them. If they brandished weapons or tried to attack him, then i think it is justifiable. If they surrendered and he executed them, then he is in the wrong.

We are always taught that if you see something like that, do what you can to help. He called the police, they didn't get their in time, so he took matters into his own hands and stopped two potentially dangerous criminals. I see nothing wrong with that. The scumbag theives were a burden on society. They broke the law by stealing so someone else broke the law by killing them. Two wrongs don't make a right but they certainly cancel each other out.

I'm not saying he didn't break the law, I'm just saying that in this situation it may be best to let him off with the minimum penalty.

chopitdown

maybe he should have tried a warning shot first.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

If people are allowed to shoot burglars, do you think some people will exploit it to commit murder?

Heineken Helen

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Sorry, but I see no justification for this. The guys were robbing a neighbors house and from what can be heard, posed no threat to Horn. He should've let the cops handle the matter instead of going outside and shooting these two guys. Or atleast held them in their place until the cops showed up. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for the criminals at all, what they did was wrong. But I also believe what Horn did was wrong, killing people over a small bag of "loot".

Nope, fuck em! Thieves fucking piss me off big time and more people need to take a stand against them. It said they'd been burglarizing his neighbourhood? Maybe more to the story. Sometimes stories like this can just be the final straw for some people. We'd a case a couple of years ago about an elderly farmer who'd been terrorised by local 'travellers' and eventually when one called to the front door and he sussed out something was going on... he went into the house and caught one running out the back and killed him. I would safely say the entire country was on his side. He'd just had enough. He did go to prison for a couple of years but I believe he was well protected in there cos of what he did. It's just terrible what these people think they're entitled to get away with. In my opinion, they give up all their rights as soon as they think they can do what they like.

Heineken Helen

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Big talk? So it's big talk saying you wouldn't shoot someone if they robbed you. He was not threatened. They weren't even robbing HIS house. They were robbing his neighbors house. And they weren't a threat to him. His home wasn't even invaded.

ah yes, it was just his neighbours house... maybe it was his house last time... or next time? Or maybe the neighbour is pretty defenseless? Or perhaps the neighbour was away and asked him to look after the place. He wasn't threatened? Don't gimme that... they rob one house and get away, it will be yours next :(

g under p

I'll ask this question....same scene except a cop tells them "freeze it's the police" they take off running. The cop shoots them dead, don't tell me that cop wouldn't be facing some disciplinary action?

Peace

Heineken Helen

g under p wrote:

I'll ask this question....same scene except a cop tells them "freeze it's the police" they take off running. The cop shoots them dead, don't tell me that cop wouldn't be facing some disciplinary action?

Peace

Yes he would... and I don't agree with that either! Although I think the laws are in place for a reason (somebody mentioned how easy it would be to set somebody up to kill them), I think genuine cases stand out.

Vedderlution_Baby

Heineken Helen wrote:

Nope, fuck em! Thieves fucking piss me off big time and more people need to take a stand against them. It said they'd been burglarizing his neighbourhood? Maybe more to the story. Sometimes stories like this can just be the final straw for some people. We'd a case a couple of years ago about an elderly farmer who'd been terrorised by local 'travellers' and eventually when one called to the front door and he sussed out something was going on... he went into the house and caught one running out the back and killed him. I would safely say the entire country was on his side. He'd just had enough. He did go to prison for a couple of years but I believe he was well protected in there cos of what he did. It's just terrible what these people think they're entitled to get away with. In my opinion, they give up all their rights as soon as they think they can do what they like.

They shouldn't have been allowed to get away with it. No one is arguing that. I just think Horn was in the wrong by pulling the trigger three times, when he didn't even have to pull it once. Personally, I don't think someone gives up the right to life (even if it is in prison) when they steal something.

Heineken Helen

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

They shouldn't have been allowed to get away with it. No one is arguing that. I just think Horn was in the wrong by pulling the trigger three times, when he didn't even have to pull it once. Personally, I don't think someone gives up the right to life (even if it is in prison) when they steal something.

If I caught someone stealing my hard earned stuff... or my neighbour's hard earned stuff... well I don't know exactly how I'd react. I couldn't let them get away if I had a means to stop them... it would just kill me. The cops weren't close... they would have got away had he not done something... and why should they get away with somebody elses stuff, that they think they should just TAKE? IMO thieves are scum, the lowest of the low and whatever way we can get them off the streets, well that's what we should do. Fuck em!

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

that's big talk until it's your loot. my dad had over $20,000 in jewelry alone taken during a home robbery.

horn called the police. the police couldn't respond fast enough. they never do. the law makes us shoot them dead because if you disable them by shattering their pelvis; they can come back to sue you.
if the law says you can shoot home invaders; then he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be prosecuted. he told them to stand still; they didn't comply; and got shot. taking the phone out with him was a good move. it proves he didn't just shoot; he warned them first.
good job horn!

somehow i knew you'd be here. you got here before i could ask if this was, in fact, you. you think the victim's family can't sue him for his vigilantism?

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

somehow i knew you'd be here. you got here before i could ask if this was, in fact, you. you think the victim's family can't sue him for his vigilantism?

no; they can't. he was in the commission of a felony. he knew the law and took the risk.

soulsinging

chopitdown wrote:

maybe he should have tried a warning shot first.

or shot them in the foot after the warning? man, so many stories just make me drool to start practicing law. i cant wait to sue rednecks like this dude for every cent he has.

NoK

Heineken Helen wrote:

If I caught someone stealing my hard earned stuff... or my neighbour's hard earned stuff... well I don't know exactly how I'd react. I couldn't let them get away if I had a means to stop them... it would just kill me. The cops weren't close... they would have got away had he not done something... and why should they get away with somebody elses stuff, that they think they should just TAKE? IMO thieves are scum, the lowest of the low and whatever way we can get them off the streets, well that's what we should do. Fuck em!

What about shooting them in the leg? And since people will argue that he might of not had a good shot. It seems that he took them by surprise and therefore could have worked for a better shot and not went straight for the kill.

NoK

soulsinging wrote:

or shot them in the foot after the warning? man, so many stories just make me drool to start practicing law. i cant wait to sue rednecks like this dude for every cent he has.

Damn you beat me to it.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

no; they can't. he was in the commission of a felony. he knew the law and took the risk.

so that justifies execution by third party?

last i checked, there was a constitutional right to trial by a jury of peers and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. getting gunned down by the neighbor in cold blood violates both of those rights. funny how when it comes to the second amendment, you shit a brick if anyone impinges on it; when it comes to you first amendment right to call people nigger, you're all about the constitution; but those other amendments just don't matter much do they?

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

They shouldn't have been allowed to get away with it. No one is arguing that. I just think Horn was in the wrong by pulling the trigger three times, when he didn't even have to pull it once. Personally, I don't think someone gives up the right to life (even if it is in prison) when they steal something.

we are taught to DOUBLE TAP when using deadly force. in this case he should have pulled the trigger 4 times. one shot to the first target; 2 shots to the second; then another to the first. evidently he was a good shot and the first was dead by the time he got back to him.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

we are taught to DOUBLE TAP when using deadly force.

that's the point. why was he using deadly force? there's nothing here to suggest he was in physical danger or his life was at risk. he essentially just acted as judge, jury, and executioner, and decided to kill two people without trial.

NoK

soulsinging wrote:

that's the point. why was he using deadly force? there's nothing here to suggest he was in physical danger or his life was at risk. he essentially just acted as judge, jury, and executioner, and decided to kill two people without trial.

What if they were pranking their friend?

Vedderlution_Baby

Heineken Helen wrote:

If I caught someone stealing my hard earned stuff... or my neighbour's hard earned stuff... well I don't know exactly how I'd react. I couldn't let them get away if I had a means to stop them... it would just kill me. The cops weren't close... they would have got away had he not done something... and why should they get away with somebody elses stuff, that they think they should just TAKE? IMO thieves are scum, the lowest of the low and whatever way we can get them off the streets, well that's what we should do. Fuck em!

The guy had plenty of time to assess the situation. It's not like he went into his room, saw someone with his stuff and acted on impulse. He was on the phone with a dispatcher that repeatedly told him to stay inside, it wasn't worth killing someone over, or getting him self killed over. He did something alright. He killed them. We're not going to agree on this. Possessions do not equal life to me, so I do not think getting thieves off the streets by shooting them dead is a efficient and proper way to do it.