Vigilante justice in Texas?

Police in the blue-collar Houston suburb took their time arriving. In fact, they still hadn’t shown up by the time the burglary suspects were about to leave. So Mr. Horn, who was still on the phone with the 911 operator, announced he was going to intervene. “I’m not going to let them get away with this,” he told the dispatcher, who responded: “Property’s not worth killing someone over.”

Seconds later, the Los Angeles Times reports, the 911 tape captured the warning, “Move (and) you’re dead.”

It appears Miguel DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, did not halt as ordered. Joe Horn fired three rounds. The two men who had broken into the house died of their wounds. Both had histories of non-violent crime.

With no arrest of the shooter in the offing, the incident has now generated a national controversy. Critics condemn Mr. Horn as a vigilante. Admirers praise the former computer consultant as a courageous hero whom any law-abiding citizen would love to have as a neighbor.

Authorities are still investigating what happened Nov. 14. But they plan to let a Harris County grand jury decide whether Mr. Horn should be charged with any crime.

Texas is one of a number of states where legislators have clarified the right of citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes and cars by passing a “castle doctrine” into law. And citizens everywhere in this country retain the right to make a citizen’s arrest if they witness a serious felony and no police are available.

It’s also possible we don’t have all the relevant facts. It would be useful to know, for instance, whether the suspects were moving toward Mr. Horn — whether he had reasonable grounds to feel threatened.

But from the facts that we do have, it would appear a policeman would not have been justified in using deadly force to kill fleeing unarmed suspects — and that Mr. Horn wasn’t, either.

In a somewhat similar case here in Clark County in the fall of 1998, a local resident shot two burglars he found in his own home. Prosecutors decided no charges were justified for the killing of a burglar who struggled with the resident in his own home, but did file charges for the shooting of the second man, whom the homeowner chased down the street. The homeowner was charged and convicted, but his sentence was suspended.

That was the right call, by both the prosecutor and the judge.

The best guideline is that deadly force may be used in a situation where a reasonable person would believe his own life or safety, or the life or safety of some innocent third party, is in jeopardy. While anyone who’s felt the sense of violation that follows even a “routine” burglary may break into a smile at the thought of two perpetrators getting the “surprise of their lives,” few — on sober contemplation — would really make these capital crimes.

Yes, it is tempting to wonder what impact a few more such sudden ends to burglary careers would have on the crime rate. It’s also tempting to inquire how quickly police really rolled on Joe Horn’s initial call — and whether it took them as long to get moving after he fired.

In the end, it’s unlikely any Texas jury will send Joe Horn to jail for years on a charge of murder. But from what we know now, he was in the wrong.