On Tuesday, July 1, a Texas grand jury refused to indict Joe Horn, the Texan who killed two illegal aliens who were fleeing a robbery.

The story began on November 14, 2007, when Joe Horn witnessed two men robbing a neighbor’s house. Like any good citizen, the 61-year-old grandfather called 911, but he also did something else — he fetched his shotgun. While the emergency operator implored Horn not to confront the burglars, the Pasadena, Tex., resident made a decision. Here is a partial transcript of the 911 call:

Horn: They’re getting away!
Dispatcher: That’s all right. Property’s not worth killing someone over, OK?
Dispatcher: Don’t go out the house. Don’t be shooting nobody. I know you’re p***** 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.

What happened next isn’t entirely clear. We know the two burglars – Diego Ortiz and Hernando Riascos Torres, both unemployed illegal aliens (Torres had already been convicted on cocaine charges and deported, but I suppose his trade is more lucrative in the U.S.) from Columbia who were fleeing with about $2000-worth of loot – did not yield. In dispute, however, is whether Horn had reason to feel threatened and consequently use deadly force.

An action such as Horn’s seems an anachronism in our bystander-apathy, go-by-the-book world. It has created a maelstrom of controversy, with some hailing the Texan as a Charles Bronson vigilante hero and others hating him for taking the law into his own hands. Many agree with the dispatcher – you don’t shoot people over property.

Not many decent folks feel good after killing other human beings. It’s something one would do out of necessity, much like amputating a gangrenous limb; you know the condition will spread if not checked, but, still, you regret that something originally meant to be good must be lost.

Whenever I hear of a situation such as Horn’s, I usually side with the homeowner. My preference would be to hold the perpetrators for authorities or wound them (it’s hard to miss legs with a shotgun), but it’s easy being an armchair quarterback. Adrenaline is pumping in such a circumstance and, as Horn himself said, “You lose track of time,” — it’s real life, not a movie. It’s like shootings involving our troops in Iraq or police officers in that I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the “good guys” every time.

Some say the difference is that Horn isn’t a cop; he should have left such matters to the professionals. It’s that ever-more-common injunction to “not get involved.” But is this what America was built on? Is it what we’ve degenerated to? Whatever you think of Horn’s case, leaving things to the “professionals” – be it education, health, charity or thwarting evil – is a recipe for societal decline. The best of lands have proactive citizens, not passive ones. Horn didn’t create this situation by getting involved in justice; the two thugs did by getting involved in crime. If you lose your life during the commission of illegality, the fault lies with only one person: you.

The notion that the only thing at stake during the incident was property has been heard before, and it’s a good example of a failure to look beyond the moment. To use a variation on a Frederic Bastiat line: a fool considers only what can be seen; a wise man considers what can be seen and what must be foreseen.

In a case such as Horn’s, seen is that two criminals who attempted to steal property are dead. But what must be foreseen?

When robbers successfully steal, they seldom retire to lives of sweetness and light; they usually become bolder and persist in their wicked ways. They victimize more people and sometimes innocents are hurt and/or killed. We can’t be sure that Ortiz and Torres would have thus devolved; one can never know about individuals.  Certainly in general, when criminals are stopped – whether by steel handcuffs or lead bullets – innocent life and limb are saved. When they aren’t thwarted – whether due to fecklessness or fearfulness – lives that could have been saved are lost.

Our “cower first, slap on the wrist later” attitude, along with other permissive elements in our society, creates an atmosphere where the risk/reward factor starts to favor lawbreakers, sending the message that crime actually does pay. This causes crime to proliferate, as there’s an inverse relationship between the risk an activity entails and the number of people who will engage in it. Those without moral constraints militating against criminal impulses must fear the consequences of indulging them. As that group becomes less fearful of consequences, they become more indulgent of impulses. 
Whatever your position on the Horns of the world, it shouldn’t be based on the notion that “only property” is at stake. That’s akin to saying that a cancerous organ shouldn’t be removed because a body part is more important than cancer cells.

May the Lord have mercy on the souls of Ortiz and Torres. I’ll save my tears, however, for the innocents who die every day because we have mistaken permissiveness for compassion. 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments