TexasCHLforum.com

Autopsy: Burglary Suspects Shot In Back
By Ryan Korsgard

POSTED: 5:40 pm CST December 7, 2007
UPDATED: 6:19 pm CST December 7, 2007


HOUSTON -- An autopsy showed two burglary suspects were shot in the back allegedly by a Pasadena neighbor who witnessed their crime, KPRC Local 2 reported Friday. The suspects were also in this country illegally, according to authorities.

Pasadena police said suspects Diego Ortiz and Hernando Torres should not have been in the United States. Police said they made the discovery while investigating the fatal shootings of the two men from Colombia using multiple names.

Pasadena police spokesman Capt. Bud Corbett said, "We understand that one of the suspects originally identified as DeJesus, later identified as Hermano Torres, was incidentally deported in 1999 back to Colombia."


Police said Torres was arrested in 1994 and charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. He got a 25-year sentence, started serving time in prison, but was paroled and deported back to Colombia in 1999.

Corbett said, "Their alien status doesn't really change anything about what we do."

The autopsies showed the suspects were shot in the back. Police first thought the chest and side wounds were the bullets' entrances. Instead, police said, they were the exit wounds.

Pasadena resident Joe Horn said he shot and killed the two men after he saw them breaking into his neighbor's home.

The 911 call taker repeatedly told Horn not to shoot. Some in Pasadena say no one would have been shot had they not broken the law.

Manuel Palomarez said, "They've broken the law twice over -- once being illegal here and twice breaking and entering. It doesn't matter."

New Black Panther leader Quanell X has protested in front of Horn's home. He wants Horn to face murder charges.

Quanell X said, "We understand clearly that they were in the country illegally. But that's for the immigration and ICE officials to handle. Mr. Horn, what he did was murder. He shot both men in the back."

Horn's attorney did not wish to comment for this story.

My, my, my, look how the pendulum swings. A little science and crime scene investigations will be able to figure out exactly how far and the exact location that the suspects were shot. Size of the wounds, ballistics of his shotgun and ammo, blood splatter patterns, ammo shots into the building or on property. With computer software so prevalent in CSI, the evidence will not lie. Just have to match it with the shooters statements and so which is more credible.

Lodge2004 wrote:That said, there are certain rare situations that one has no choice but to dive headlong into the fray (i.e. Luby's in Waco).

Hey Lodge2004,
I understand your stance and your statement sums up what I learned and hold true as my justification for using deadly force. The suspect in his criminal actions HAS LEFT ME NO OTHER CHOICE. PERIOD. If I am NOT in imminent danger, then I HAVE PLENTY OF CHOICES other than using deadly force. This justification can be applied to any scenario.
Store robbery in progress with me inside, then firearm is coming out.
Store robbery in progress across the street and I'm outside, then cellphone is coming out.

dihappy wrote:We each weigh the risks and respond accordingly.

I agree with this statement because there is no blanket requirement that a CHL must help/protect someone just because you have a gun. There is a concept that many people have a hard time seeing; but if every homeless person asks you for "help" are you going to just give your money? Do you just think that giving money is the only way you can help? If you give them advice, offer a job, direct them to a shelter, is that HELPING??

That concept is the same for me when it comes to a criminal incident. Would you help that same person without a gun? If someone chose to "help" by calling 911, why should they be considered just standing by?

I know the word "sheeple" is used alot on this site, but we should take this discussion back to the beginning. Everyone has the RKBA by 2A, and same with TX CHL. If you choose to do something that cause this right to be denied, then that is your problem. You see people come on here all time asking about if a criminal charge in the past disqualifies them. So if more people legally carried a firearm for the protection of themselves and family, then we would not have to worry about having to protect a stranger. And those that chose not to carry a firearm, then that is their choice and problem too. But CHL should not be exposed to risks because of some people's choices.

40FIVER wrote:Those who carry for only selfish reasons (me and mine), have lost that ideal that has made America so great.

I'm sure others will disagree,

Not really, why is it selfish? Those who carry to protect others should join the Academy and become an outstanding and upright Police Officer. Most departments are short staffed and you will have all the RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES as such.

rspeir wrote:

Lucky45 wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:Mars had a question about this the other night while we were watching the news. He questioned how it was that the black burglars had Spanish surnames and were from the Carribbean.

Mainly, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico are a stones throw away from each other, and since Christopher Colombus discovered Dominican Republic (Hispaniola), then the official language since 1492 has been SPANISH. That is really why almost everyone on both islands have a spanish surname. Puerto Rico only became a US territory in last couple decades.

Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory since the U.S. Senate ratified the Treat of Paris of 1898 on Feb. 6, 1899.

I was using a figure of speech comparing 515years ago in Dominican Republic to 108years ago in Puerto Rico.

Venus Pax wrote:Mars had a question about this the other night while we were watching the news. He questioned how it was that the black burglars had Spanish surnames and were from the Carribbean.

Mainly, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico are a stones throw away from each other, and since Christopher Colombus discovered Dominican Republic (Hispaniola), then the official language since 1492 has been SPANISH. That is really why almost everyone on both islands have a spanish surname. Puerto Rico only became a US territory in last couple decades.

Are they any members here that are involved in a neighborhood watch program?

40FIVER wrote:Evidently the 911 operator knew plainclothes cops were enroute, but he didn't have the courtesy to tell the old man that. That bit of info should have been shared with the old man immediately.

WHY??????????

40FIVER wrote:Also, don't the cops usually notify the dispatcher when they are arriving at a scene? If the cops were there before the shooting started, the 911 operator should have known it and then relayed that info to the old man.

I guess you are not aware of what goes on in a modern 911 call center. There isn't a jack of all trades dispatcher sitting there. There is the dispatcher, a supervisor monitoring all calls at the push of a button, and they have another dispatcher who is relaying info to squad cars. In an emergency situation, common sense alone says you can't conduct 2 conversations at the same time. The dispatcher taking the call is entering the info into the computer and the info is broadcasted by radio to all on police channel. Also it is transmitted wirelessly to the computers in the police cars. From the 911 call, did you hear that dispatcher talk to any police cars responding?? NOT ONCE. That was not his job. His job is to gain as much info for the Emergency Response personnel who are responding.
PS. Plus I think Houston has a huge 911 center with several surrounding cities all in the same room.

You know what is amazing is that through out this discussion, I have hardly seen the ole saying of "just being a good witness." What happened to that battle cry? I know I have seen it 1000 times in this entire forum. How many of you guys will jump up with a firearm and use deadly force to protect the property of a neighbor that you don't know??? Now give the true answer, not your moral answer. Because I would like to end world hunger too, doesn't mean I'm giving away my paycheck.

Photoman wrote:We may find out that there were undercover cops on the scene before the BG's come out of the house.

I'm waiting to hear the details on that also.

Joe Horn releasing a statement through an attorney. “Any loss of life casts permanent devastation over the lives of everyone involved. The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased.�

Now here goes the damage control and media PR campaign. I love when people make public statements in the media that they don't mean because they want to use it in the future to gain leniency.

40FIVER wrote: he was having a fairly polite conversation with the 911 operator, not foaming at the mouth.

"You wanna bet, I'm a kill 'em' " sound like a real polite conversation.

40FIVER wrote:

Lucky45 wrote:

srothstein wrote:This was a burglary and the man tried to get the police there in time. The police did not show up in time to stop the burglars from leaving, so the man went outside to do so. The burglars did not surrender so he could recover the property, so he shot them.

That seems clear cut to me.

Do we know that? We should see from the police report.

But now you can't see simple logic that srothstein is pointing out?

This is not a flame, Lucky45, just some friendly bantering.

What are you talking about? I highlighted the part that was questionable. I never claimed he was wrong, I said the police report would prove or disprove that fact. And the 100% way of proving it is with that "NEW" invention called GPS. Don't know if Pasadena PD's car are equipped with GPS, but they can match timelines with location of each car. Then prove if the PD showed up on time. Hopefully all is including in that report. Which side will use this info in their case??

Venus Pax wrote:I can't help but think that much of this may come down to what the homeowner says. Many here assume that the homeowner will come to this man's defense. For his sake, I hope so. However, people will surprise you. They may likely start wailing to the media that no possession of their's was worth these human lives, no matter how bad the character.

Did you notice that he said in the 911 call that he did not know those neighbors whose house was buglarized??

Russell wrote:I'm just upset that they didn't get there fast enough, it seemed that it was almost the very moment he had to take matters into his own hands they got there. Horrible luck for the old man

C'mon now, that is not being fair to the police. The operator told him that there were officers "on scene" at 4mins 44secs into the call. As someone who calls LEO on a regular weekly bases for non-emergency burglary and theft purposes for insurance purposes on my job, that is REAL FAST. I have learned over the years that you don't call to report it unless you don't have anywhere to go, or wait til after lunch (if you want any).
The shooter contradicted the operator and said there was no police present. But how could he know, he said many times that he couldn't see towards the front of the house. The operator said there were plain clothes LEO present in the subdivision, also are uniformed LEO going to be coming sirens blaring or SILENT? What is the response protocol, siren or silent??? They could have been setting up waiting for the burglars to come out, doubt they would enter the building.

hkmp5s wrote:Old chuck the D A is going to go after him Big time. He has been waiting for a test case on our new state gun laws just to show us gun owners who is in charge.

I don't think this is about castle doctrine. This is about Penal Code 9.43.

Molon_labe wrote:Odd thing is..up until he started shooting the 911 guy kinda had a "yah right you won't go out there" egging him on attitude..then it immediately turned into a PUT THE GUN DOWN NOW attitude

I don't think that is a fair statement. The operator is trained to remain calm and try to calm the caller down who is in a desperate situation and needs help. Think of it like this, 911 is your last resort and used when no one else can help, Right? Name a time that you will call 911 when you are not desperate. So the operator was trying to calm a desperate man who was acting, venting and foaming at the mouth like a rabid pitbull that has been chained up and beaten with a whip. He just wanted to sink his teeth into something if you let him go, and the operator has to try to CHANGE his MINDSET.

srothstein wrote:This was a burglary and the man tried to get the police there in time. The police did not show up in time to stop the burglars from leaving, so the man went outside to do so. The burglars did not surrender so he could recover the property, so he shot them.

That seems clear cut to me.

Do we know that? We should see from the police report. Also I thought the police main focus would be to apprehend the burglars. Not just to stop them from leaving. Could they have been setting up and surrounding the place?

srothstein wrote:He called the police first, and told the dispatcher that he would stop them if the police were unable to get there in time

From the recording at 17secs, he said, " Ahhh, I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?" and the dispatcher said, "Nope, don't do that." He just wanted to be the one stopping them and he expressed throughout the entire call.

You have to hear this 911 call. It is the ENTIRE 911 CALL, from start to finish. Go to http://www.khou.com/video/index.html?nvid=193240&shu=1

This is INCREDIBLE. You have to HEAR THIS!!!!! Answers all your questions? and then some!!!!!!!

Skiprr wrote:Joe Horn took the phone with him as he left his house, and you can clearly hear him shout, "Move, you're dead!" a few seconds before the three gunshots.

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. It is one thing to speculate about what was said, then to make the mistake of having yourself on a recording. Priceless.

stevie_d_64 wrote:Exactly...
You could cut the irony with a machete...

It is not so much about irony, but that MIGHT turn out to be a critical part of the case. Because it could be considered to be reckless if he was aware and "warned" about a potential risk, and then he consciously disregarded that advice.

stevie_d_64 wrote:I could say something about the dispatcher/communications specialist, but I choose not to...

What can you say? She is doing and saying what she is certified and trained to do in her position, once she is on the clock. In her position, she can't say her personal feelings, otherwise you will be paying her bills.