Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Texas Joe Horn's "make my day" killing

I've only paid loose attention to this news story other than to get the gist of it. I see it now as an issue of "good state, bad state" (which varies depending on who you are talking to), but more of an issue of individual state rights. For context of my entry, see Commentary: Was Burglary Worth Killing 2 Men?, Texas Law Helped Clear Man in Prowler Shooting; Discussion from Anderson 360 with Jeff Toobin on the case; Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Suspected Burglars.

I recall seeing on the news that a case with near identical facts is before a jury in New York and the charge is manslaughter. Texas, however, applied their "make my day" law to Horn's actions and the grand jury refused to indict him. I spoke to my friend who lives in Texas about it and he told me that he was all for it and that the law works as a good deterrent. I can't disagree with that logic, and I'm sure the coverage of this case has worked to inform the general criminal population that if you go and rob someone, you may be exposing yourself to a deadly response. Most certainly in Texas; and most likely, in many other states as well.

States very on their approach to handling the results, which is to be expected and part of this state criminal system. Whether the law is right or wrong is a matter for that state's legislature, and to the appropriate degree, the courts. What I find fascinating about this particular story though is how quick the media was to pass judgment on so-called "vigilante justice" down in Texas as opposed to the more "civilized" parts of the country. They have done the same thing with variants of Meghan's Law and other child rape statutes. Hey, if one state wants to pass it and another doesn't, so be it. It makes for good national news though, but for substantive analysis, paltry fuel to the fire of state rights.

If you ask me, I'm siding with Texas on this one. I think there are ways to strike a proper balance, and perhaps Texas has since amended the statute to account for when shooting is appropriate. But in a quick second decision, however, I think the law is better served and justice equalized on a reasonable person standard. Obviously the reasonable people in that particular Texas grand jury thought he was in the right. Those in New York did not, and now it will come down to whether twelve of that defendant's fellow citizens feel the same way. As a lawyer, I have presume that the system will perform its function correctly and justice will be served, even if it's at sentencing. I'm sure that part won't make the news though, unless something goes haywire.

No comments: