Roland S. Martin: Was burglary worth killing 2 men?

Roland S. Martin  —  7/05/2008 8:00 am

Joe Horn may be praised by gun enthusiasts and thrill seekers as a no-nonsense guy who got fed up with crime in America by pulling out his shotgun and blasting two men to their deaths, but there is no doubt that the Texas man will be haunted by his fatal decision.

Ever since the suburban Houston man saw two burglars crawling out his neighbor's window Nov. 14 and gunned them down, Horn has been in legal limbo, unsure whether he was going to have to defend himself and his actions or go free.

On Monday, a Harris County grand jury chose not to indict Horn in the deaths of Hernando Riascos Torres and Diego Ortiz, meaning he can live his life without having to explain before a jury of his peers why he chose to be judge, jury and executioner of the two.

As a native Texan, I know how folks in my state feel about criminals: Hit 'em hard, and then hit 'em again. The state leads the nation in executions, and Texas juries don't play when it comes to crime.

Yet while folks revel in Horn's actions, it really does call for a moment of reflection about the seriousness of taking someone's life.

Horn did what any of us would do in that situation: He called 911 to report the crime and was told officers were being dispatched. But he was so incensed with what was taking place that he told the dispatcher he was going to kill the men. No amount of pleading could get him to stop. On the audiotape of the incident, we can hear Horn firing two shots and killing Torres and Ortiz.

"They had it coming." "Tough stuff." "They shouldn't have broken the law." I heard all of those comments and more on my radio show, blogs and other call-in shows, as a nation fed up with crime gave a big "Hooray!" for Horn.

But I just don't see exactly what there is to celebrate. Two men -- both illegal immigrants and one with a conviction for selling drugs -- are dead for stealing some personal effects, and we are supposed to welcome this vigilante justice? (I suppose it's ironic that one week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rape of a child doesn't merit the death penalty -- a ruling that I disagree with -- many others are celebrating a man not standing trial for the killing of two others who committed burglary.)

Yes, the law was on Horn's side, whether he knew that or not when he fired. But when does our core decency come in when we make such life-altering decisions in a snap? Don't you think making the choice to kill someone should be based on something more dire, such as if your life is in danger?

Don't be so quick to jump up and down and say you would have done the same thing; really think about it and ask yourself whether you would follow Joe Horn and kill two people for stealing from your neighbor.

At no point was Horn's life in danger. We also know that his neighbor was out of town and no one was at home. So don't try to bring up the various hypothetical situations that could alter the basic facts of the story.

Two sorry men, who already broke the law by coming in the country illegally, chose to hasten their fate by robbing the wrong house with the wrong neighbor watching.

Our choices have life-altering -- or life-ending -- consequences.

But Horn could have chosen differently. He didn't have to fire on the men. He could have heeded the advice of the dispatcher and not gone outside with his shotgun. He could have left apprehending criminals to the folks empowered to do so: the police.

I think of my dad, whom I witnessed when I was a child chase down two men who snatched a woman's Christmas gifts from her hand in a mall parking lot. If he had a gun, should he have just fired away, protecting this unknown woman's property?

I really want to know: Would you pull a Joe Horn and fire on the men if you were in his shoes?

Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk show host for WVON/AM in Chicago.

Roland S. Martin  —  7/05/2008 8:00 am