Joe Horn Update x2
[Guest post by DRJ]
UPDATED 12/7/2007: Related post here.
The Houston Chronicle reports new information about the Pasadena, Texas, case in which Joe Horn shot two men he believed had burglarized his neighbor’s house. The suspected burglar who was previously identified as Miguel DeJesus was apparently using an alias and his real name was Hernando Riascos Torres. Both men are being investigated as possible members of an area crime ring:
“Two burglary suspects shot by a Pasadena homeowner last month were illegal immigrants from Colombia, and one man had been deported nearly 10 years ago, authorities said Thursday. Authorities also said they are investigating whether Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48, were part of a crime ring linked to burglaries and the use of fake immigration documents.”
Torres had a criminal record and had been deported in 1999. Both men used aliases and had fake IDs:
“Pasadena Police Department Capt. A.H. “Bud” Corbett said Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction. He was on parole until 2017, Corbett said.
Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz. He had two aliases. Torres had identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. He had three aliases.”
The report also discussed Horn’s neighbors, who are apparently Vietnamese and who may have been targeted because they are immigrants:
“State and federal authorities are investigating whether the two men, who lived in southwest Houston, were involved in the crime ring, Corbett said. Police found almost $2,000 in cash in a white bag the men allegedly took from the home in the 7400 block of Timberline before Horn shot them.
Investigators also are trying to determine whether the men knew about the home or family before burglarizing it. “I don’t believe the victim was a random choice … but there’s no evidence of a relationship either,” between the homeowners and suspects, Corbett said.
Horn told the operator that he did not know his neighbors well. Neighbors said the family moved into the home next to Horn’s house about four months ago. “I can’t comment,” a woman at the home said over the phone Thursday night.
A source told police that Ortiz and Torres burglarized the home, in part, because the homeowners were immigrants. “They targeted foreign-born people,” Corbett said. “They felt they were easier victims.”
Little is known about the homeowners, who have Vietnamese surnames. Neighbors said they own a small business near their Village Grove East subdivision. Records filed with the Office of the Secretary of State of Texas show that the family owns a dry cleaning business on Fairmont Parkway.”
This almost sounds like a made-for-TV movie script. It also illustrates one of the problems caused by illegal immigration - how other immigrants and low-income people can be the targets of illegal immigrant-related crime.
Earlier posts are here and here.
– DRJ
Good lord. By the time this is spun Horn will be the citizen of the year who spends his nights wearing a cape to defend the legal immigrants in pasadena…
You do have a point about the crime angle but how about what the legal citizens of the US contribute toward crime - particularly in the form of prostitution. Women are brought here illegally because there is a demand from our predominantly legal citizen customer base. Ditto drugs - no demand, no drug problem.
But like the references to drunk driving deaths caused by Illegal immigrants the larger issue of drunk driving deaths and weak punishment is left unaddressed.
Comment by Voice of Reason — 12/7/2007 @ 7:33 am
So, in VoR’s mind - lemme see if I can get this straight - Horn is wrong for what he di because Legal citizens of the US cause crime too…
Please tell me I got that wong…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/7/2007 @ 7:46 am
Scott,
Whether what Horn did is a crime or not at this point is only a matter of opinion. You think he was entirely justified and I don’t. The judicial process will make a call on that eventually. No matter what the outcome, it is unlikely to change our opinion. That’s human nature.
The fact that the deceased were illegal immigrants is immaterial to the question about Horn’s actions.
The opinion DRJ expressed about crime against immigrants is a separate component as well.
But the drumbeat about illegals being the end all scourge ignore the things that draw them here (yes a component of the overall problem) such as employers illegally hiring them, citizens demanding illegal drugs, and prosititutes.
Comment by Voice of Reason — 12/7/2007 @ 7:55 am
It also illustrates one of the problems caused by illegal immigration - how other immigrants and low-income people can be the targets of illegal immigrant-related crime.
I call bullshit. While asian on asian home invasion robberies are common, this was a burglary and the burglars were not asian. Where are the autopsy reports? Where were the bodies specifically found?
Comment by d.s. wilson — 12/7/2007 @ 8:28 am
Immigrants being targeted by other immigrants is nothing new. Perhaps the legal immigrants who owned the house would have appreciated it if the gov’t and our fine liberal friends were more interested in their ability to not be victims, rather than worrying about illegals ability to report crimes that were probably committed by other illegals anyway.
VOR, you are using any argument you can because you know your core argument fails. We should have to deal with ZERO crimes committed by illegal aliens, because they shouldn’t be here to start with. In no way does allowing them to stay reduce the crime problem among legal or illegal aliens OR citizens. Getting rid of them WILL reduce crime.
You have the guys getting blown away by a shotgun on a 911 tape. There is no point to an autopsy, unless you wanted to prove they were on drugs, but that should have no bearing on the case, other than the fact that lawyers like putting morons on juries, and that may make sure there is no conviction.
Comment by Mr.Obvious — 12/7/2007 @ 9:02 am
I’ll say this loud and clear. Horn did the right thing, period. Libs, like VOR, just like victims. To him the Vietnamese should have been robbed because they weren’t solely dependent on government handout, and had posessions.
To VOR, illegals are never in the wrong when they commit crimes. They are to be protected, coddled, and aided in their crime sprees if possible.
Too many morons like VOR inhabit the Bar and Legislatures. Both need a house cleaning of that vermin before we can get back to a more safe society.
Comment by PCD — 12/7/2007 @ 9:21 am
I wouldn’t want to be a repo man working in Horn’s neighborhood. Would you?
Hell, I’d be queasy about reading the gas meters around his house.
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 12/7/2007 @ 9:50 am
a logical extension of voice of reason’s position is that legal american residents are the proximate cause of all burglaries by illegal aliens because, well, they built or moved into a house in a specific place and they put tempting stuff in it for the aliens to steal.
i decline to argue against this position on the internet, but if it ever manifests itself out here where i live, i’ll just let my gun do the talking.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 12/7/2007 @ 9:51 am
Some here and elsewhere have called Horn a murderer, since he could have remained in his house (and was even counseled to do so) but told the 911 operator that he was going out to confront the two men. All definitions of “murder” that I have encountered require, among other things, “no legal excuse or authority”. One example source below:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
The Texas laws frequently cited here (the combination of 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43) certainly seem to provide Horn with “legal excuse or authority”.
Thus, one might call Horn reckless, foolish, or even heroic, but “murderer” surely seems wrong.
Also, since Horn was within his rights to be on his own property with his own gun, the facts on the ground may also support self-defense which would also refute any “murder” claims.
(Anecdotal reports indicate that the men had advanced towards Horn, were on his property, and were shot in the chest, shoulder, and neck - not in the back, so they were not fleeing. Is the official police report out yet?)
Comment by jim2 — 12/7/2007 @ 9:52 am
DRJ - I am going to Houston after Christmas for a Vietnamese wedding. I am going to make sure we stay far away from Mr. Horn, and I hope his neighbors are not in-laws of ours.
Comment by JD — 12/7/2007 @ 10:23 am
JD, why would you be afraid of Mr. Horn? Are you a thief and are afraid that he’d ventilate you for not surrendering in the midst of your attempting to get away from the scene of your crime?
Comment by PCD — 12/7/2007 @ 10:32 am
VOR:
Thanks for your impassionated defense of illegal aliens. Here’s your bombast award.
What is pathetic is that the firt charge made by the race hutlers was of course racism and it turns out Horn’s neighbors were your typical Aryans.
One concludes that JD and Chrissy are in fear of their lives when theyengage in their nocyural activities.
This story would have never made it to the news if the shooter had been black. Just as there are never black on white crimes or queer vs. heterosexual crimes reported you can always hear the trolls bray when their victims turn out to be wanna be Mumias.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 12/7/2007 @ 10:40 am
PCD - I do not look Vietnamese, since I am not, and don’t want Mr. Horn to mistake me for someone else.
Comment by JD — 12/7/2007 @ 10:43 am
At any rate, my comment was intended with a healthy dose of sarcasm, which seems to have flown right over some people’s heads.
Comment by JD — 12/7/2007 @ 10:44 am
Thomas,
It is obvious that you, ADC and PCD are incapable of seeing a story in its different elements. Quick fallbacks to name calling and the like show your inability to articulate a counterpoint at all.
American education’s poster children you seem to be.
Comment by Voice of Reason — 12/7/2007 @ 10:55 am
VOR,
I know you are concerned that people will treat illegal immigrants unfairly and I think I know why you feel that way. I won’t disagree that there are prejudiced people who are biased against illegal immigrants, but I think you have underestimated the way many Texans respond to crime.
Not everyone relies on law enforcement to protect them. Some people prefer to protect themselves. Sometimes it’s better to opt for the first choice and other times the second choice is better, but either is a valid choice if done in a legal and reasonable manner. The law will decide what is legal and there is (obviously) a wide range of opinion on what is reasonable.
Of course, I admit this information may help Joe Horn. Most Texans will be disturbed by this - perhaps because these were illegal immigrants, but primarily because they may have been members of a crime ring. Legal citizens and illegal immigrants who are part of a crime ring get little sympathy here (which, by the way, is probably why the prosecutors were so anxious to depict Aldrete-Davila as a novice smuggler in the Ramos-Compean trial). The reaction in favor of Horn and against these men will be even more dramatic if it turns out they were part of MS-13 or a similar narco-gang.
Comment by DRJ — 12/7/2007 @ 11:13 am
DRJ,
Thanks for the candid reply.
Comment by Voice of Reason — 12/7/2007 @ 11:19 am
vor hijacked the thread before anyone else posted….
I would say amazing but it completely sucks…
Comment by reff — 12/7/2007 @ 11:24 am
Per VOR:
Whether what Horn did is a crime or not at this point is only a matter of opinion.
I was under the impression that it was a matter of law. It certainly will be settled as such. Perhaps Beldar will swing by with analysis as he is more familiar with Texas than most.
Comment by Uncle Pinky — 12/7/2007 @ 11:38 am
Hear, hear.
He never said that, PCD. I’d accuse you of lying, but the truth is worse. The truth is Voice of Reason makes his points and instead of listening to what he says, you project all of your anti-liberal stereotypes on him, which come from inside yourself, not from what he says.
jim2, you just ignore our reasoning, leave out part of it, and apply your own. If he had left his house with the intention of stopping the crime and willing to use deadly force to do so if absolutely necessary, I’d consider him a brave hero. On the contrary, the first six and a half minutes of the tape clearly shows to my mind him working himself into a lather and at different points on the tape stating clearly his intention to kill the two men including that plainly and never allowing for any other outcome. I believe he intended to kill them and even the Texas statutes allow him to use force only if its reasonable to do so and there’s no other safe way for him of effecting the same outcome.
In the same situation, I might have had to kill the two men if I went outside; I would have been willing to kill them. But I wouldn’t have spent six and a half minutes working up the courage and anger to go out and kill them. That’s why, outright interpretation of Texas statutes and potential jury nullification notwithstanding, morally he’s a murderer and I am not.
As usual, you’re the stereotype of the right-wing nut, Thomas Jackson, the first sentence you wrote is nonsensical, you throw racism in the mix without realizing it’s the legal questions and the hugely dramatic tape which are newsworthy, manage to mention “queers” for no reason, and conclude with a nonsensical clause, and that’s only the section I chose to excerpt.
Indeed, Bob Loblaw.
By expressing a dissenting opinion, reff, related to the topic of this post? You’d be happier if this was one big right-wing Texas-style choir and echo chamber, but there are dissenting opinions, even dissenting conservative opinions, like your center-right truly.
Comment by Christoph — 12/7/2007 @ 2:23 pm
VOR:
Poor little troll, in your attempt to smear Horn it turns out you demonstrated a brillant knowledge of Texas law (as usual more BS than anything else) before falling back on the leftwingnuts trusty weapon of choice that poor old Horn was some sort of racist.
As facts became more evident we find he fired on career criminals who moonlighted as illegal aliens, and repeat deportees. This did not deter you from continued babbling about the violation of human rights.
Such dissembling for recidivist criminals is all too common among trolls who can pardon the crimes of lawbreakers but not the rights of citizens defending their rights. Your invective only demonstrates that you have as usual substituted promposity for reason in your screeds.
Do tell us when you are finished carrying water for career hoodlums. You remain the Jason Blair of this blog.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 12/7/2007 @ 2:58 pm
Chrissy:
Clearly you have little knowledge of the US and less of Texas but then again what can we expect of foreigners who comment on the policies of foreign nations of which they have no experience?
Of course the fact that these men were career criminals and illegal aliens has no impact at all on the fact that they were commiting a crime? I guess in your world pedophiles loitering outside a schoolyard is nothing to be concerned about either.
Your faith in the inerrancy of the holy sscriptures of political correctness and the gods of diversity is touching. Now tell us if you have locks on your doors?
Truly what is being reported here but another attempt to cast this as a hate crime? Why deny iot and why were the Black Panthers there on the spot? To see justice done? Such dangerous self indulgences and fringe Leftist sanctimony is old hand and so gay. The craven droning about fake but accurate protrayals ignores that these were criminals, drug dealers and illegal aliens who ignored an entirely lawful order and suffered the consequences. You don’t like it? Write a tearful letter to the NY Times. Or in your case whatever paper you choose. Sob.
Such pabulum about the dispatch of poor career criminals displays your unending instict for mendacity. You have distorted the law, distorted the circumstances and given every benefit to the criminal while attempting to make Horn sound like a nut. What are you a member of the Duke University staff or just one of the members of the prosecution team that tried to imprison the Duke Lacrose team?
Such profound ignorance should go unrewarded Chrissy.
Its clear that incidents involving self defense or protection of one’s interests are beyond you and that you are a firm believer in practising the Kitty Genovese method of citizenshop.
So here’s your Award; The Chrissy Good Citizenship Award ala Kitty Genovese. Awarded to those venerated for their catatonic cud chewing capacity for passivity combined with a talent for self delusion equalled only by his belief in his omnipotence!
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 12/7/2007 @ 3:13 pm
Let me get this straight: because Joe Horn had to work up the courage to confront a pair of criminals who were younger and stronger than he, and who likely would have posed a threat to his life, that makes him a murderer? If he’d just grabbed his shotgun and ran outside, he wouldn’t have been a murderer?
That makes no sense at all. He had to think about risking his life…that doesn’t make his actions murder.
Comment by Steverino — 12/7/2007 @ 3:26 pm
Scott Thomas, YOU are acting like a troll in repeatedly claiming Voice of Reason is a troll when he clearly is not — he has a contrary opinion to yours, and expresses it eloquently, agree or disagree. He’s much more eloquent than you are.
Further, you are constantly baiting him (”Poor little troll…”) or myself (”Chrissy”) and anyone who disagrees with you. I wouldn’t complain overmuch about this part of it, but you are always screaming “troll”. Yet you’re acting that way. He’s just expressing his opinion and making his arguments.
Comment by Christoph — 12/7/2007 @ 3:29 pm
I’m sorry, Scott Thomas. I incorrectly directed that toward you, but it doesn’t describe your behaviour at all. I was in a hurry when I typed it and made an error.
I mean Thomas Jackson. Sir, that’s exactly what you do while calling everyone else a “troll”.
Comment by Christoph — 12/7/2007 @ 3:31 pm
Christoph -
I respectfully submit that you are missing my point.
You - Christoph - may hold the opinion that what Horn did was morally wrong. You are entitled to your opinion. You may be “right” by some standards, but it does not matter.
Indeed, I suppose that it is possible that Horn relished the prospect of shooting two other-ethnics and jumped at the opportunity to fulfill some long-held fantasy of his. I don’t think such is anything like the case, but let me go on.
In any case, Horn can not have committed murder if Texas law gave him the “legal excuse or authority”.
In short, the voting lawmakers of Texas seem to have seen ahead to almost precisely this exact situation that happened in Pasadena, Texas.
Those laws that they made empowered Horn (and all others in the same or similar situation) by giving him precisely the legal authority to shoot as he did. The burglary crime-in-progress fleeing with loot w/o police present is an exact fit with the relevant Texas statutes (9.41, 9.42, 9.43).
It does not even matter if police over the phone told him not to do it, because the police can only enforce the law, and it was the law that gave Horn the legal authority in the absence of the on-scene physical presence of the police.
Whatever Horn did, it was not murder (killing w/o “legal authority”). In fact, it cannot be, since his actions were in exact accordance with Texas law and the events occurred in Texas.
Comment by jim2 — 12/7/2007 @ 4:08 pm
Both men are being investigated as possible members of an area crime ring:
This prolly should have read: “Both men are being investigated as possible ex-members of an area crime ring:
Comment by hazy — 12/7/2007 @ 4:27 pm
jim2, respectfully:
I don’t think that’s the case and have never seen any evidence of racism from his actions.
I’ve previously stated that.
I believe the tape shows he was eager to kill criminals. Understandable, but morally if not legally, I believe he should have either called the police and let them deal with it as the dispatcher requested he do or, if he exercised his lawful right to get involved and attempt to retrieve his neighbors property as a good Samaritan plus bring the bad guys to justice, make an attempt at a citizens arrest before killing them both. It’s possible he did this and doubtless that will be his defense.
Based on his words on the tape, his tone and demeanor as his anger grew, and the short length of time before, “Move, you’re dead!” and firing shots, plus the claim that both men lunged at him after he came out pointing a shotgun at them (coupled, remember, with his statements on the tape), lead me to believe he made no effort to use less than lethal force and left his home with the intention of killing both men.
I — like the prosecutor who has or is expected to refer this to a grand jury — have some doubts about whether he was justified under the Texas statutes for technical reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, including the tape and his lunging statements, which may actually hurt him (as nk advised).
If it turns out he did violate the Texas statutes, and there’s question marks about this at least, you must acknowledge, then he could indeed be a murderer.
Whether this turns out to be the case or not, I may use the word to expression my moral disdain for his actions, in the same way I would describe an abortionist as a murderer, whatever the law of the land is. (The Texas statutes here are unique among the 50 states and all of the western world I’m aware of.)
I’m not alleging Texas is in any way the equivalent, but in principle, if a nation had laws saying killing a certain class of people like disabled children with the approval of a medical committee like in Holland, I would refer to the actors as murderers whatever the laws of the that land.
I’m hoping you see my point regarding the use of the term whether you would from my point of view or not.
I may disagree for reasons I discuss here.
I don’t believe this has been established unless you’ve heard the decision of the grand jury, which is expected to be convened, on whether to indict or not and, if there has been an indictment, if you’ve seen the verdict reported. I haven’t.
In any event, you now understand my use of the term to express my moral opinion on his actions. It could have been self-defense. I doubt it. He could have shot them while fleeing. I’m not sure if he did or didn’t, but his own words about lunging belie this. He could have attempted to use reasonable force short of lethal force by shouting, “Move, you’re dead.” I doubt that too. I think he was giving himself cover including with his ill-advised “lunging” statements.
I think he wanted to execute them and did.
Comment by Christoph — 12/7/2007 @ 5:08 pm
jim2, you’ll find a little more of my thoughts on Joe Horn’s actions as they relate to the Texas statutes here.
Comment by Christoph — 12/7/2007 @ 5:13 pm
Here’s how a business owner in Dallas was treated recently after killing two thieves.
Comment by chas — 12/7/2007 @ 5:13 pm
chas…
I think it is safe to say that if Ms Aguilar was Mr Aguilar, there probably would have been no suspension; but, a trip to the hospital to set his broken nose might have been in order.
And they (the MSM) wonder why people disdain them.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/7/2007 @ 7:57 pm
Chrissy
I see your hormones are on a rampage again. The law is about facts not your feellings. So you have most certainly and concretely demonstrate your ability to address the issue (repeatedly pushing it as a hate crime and suggesting this man was just waiting to kill these men based on zero evidence). I realize it is that time of the month but your agenda is clear and VOR’s reputation is very clear.
Again anyone can have his opinions but he is not entitled to his own facts. And both of you have repeatedly distorted the facts,, misquoted the laws, and rendered hasty judgements based on your flawed and filtered ideas of justice.
But as you stated its “your feelings” which is just what one expects from a rational human being.
Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 12/7/2007 @ 8:24 pm
Thomas Jackson,
Please direct your comments to a discussion of the topic, not personal attacks on the people who comment here.
This is your second warning.
Comment by DRJ — 12/7/2007 @ 8:26 pm
Christoph, the analogy you attempt to Dutch euthanasia does not make any sense. Texas law, as harsh as you may find it, is intended to put the risk on people who have voluntarily chosen to be criminals.
Comment by SPQR — 12/7/2007 @ 8:29 pm
Of course it’s not a direct analogy, SPQR, I expressly disclaimed that: “I’m not alleging Texas is in any way the equivalent…”
My point is I’m using the word murderer to refer to someone who intentionally kills without sufficient moral justification; I’m not necessarily using it in a legal sense.
Many people believe homosexuality is wrong. I don’t; others do — certainly the Old Testament and Paul in the New gives justification for this belief. (As an aside, one of the many reasons, the others being obvious contradictions, I reject Paul’s teachings and, like Thomas Jefferson, focus instead on Jesus’s.) In some countries historically or in the present day, legally killing homosexuals is justified, but morally I say it’s murder.
Adultery is considered wrong by most people and was once widely punished by death. I believe adultery to be a serious personal failing and hurtful to at least one other person, but I do not believe in a death penalty for this particular sin.
Likewise, I think abortionists are murderers, but in your or my country, legally they are not.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. Do any of these analogies help?
Comment by Christoph — 12/7/2007 @ 8:42 pm
No, your analogies are just getting you farther away from the point.
Comment by SPQR — 12/7/2007 @ 8:43 pm
I’m using a colloquial definition of intentionally killing another without moral justification. In any event, I’ll concede the point I’m not using the term precisely any more than in my other analogies. I will still, to express my moral position, call the people who hang gays in Iran, doctors who kill disabled children in Holland, or partial-birth abortionists in particular who insert needles into full-term babies’ brains “murderers” even though, by law, they may not be.
We hanged some Nazi doctors at Nuremberg for what the Dutch now do even laws are subject to being applied by outside jurisdictions on occasion. Not relevant here, but it’s still a fact.
My position is much simpler — I believe Joe Horn’s actions were murder under the law of the land in Texas. Whether a jury will go with that or whether they will genuinely disagree or simply nullify is a good question. My opinion is Joe Horn is a murderer.
Do you understand now?
Comment by Christoph — 12/7/2007 @ 9:12 pm
Christoph -
I did say “if” on the first statute part.
You, of course, can express your opinion, as I also said.
I have not read today’s news yet, and likely will not get the chance until evening. I await developments with interest.
Comment by jim2 — 12/8/2007 @ 11:10 am
Christoph…
“I believe Joe Horn’s actions were murder under the law of the land in Texas. ”
But, where are the cites to the relevant law code in Texas, that supports your opinion?
Others here have brought forth specific sections of the Texas Code that seem to exclude Mr. Horn’s actions from jeopardy.
Or, have I missed something?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/8/2007 @ 11:39 am
Two less illegal aleins to sneak back into this country but this will upset the liberals
Comment by krazy kagu — 12/8/2007 @ 2:25 pm
Here a little ditty I adapted and put to the music of the song “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” from “The Wizard of Oz.” Who is speaking the lines precedes the lines. Please feel free to stop by by blog and post a comment. (http://moretexastruth.blogspot.com
Enjoy.
Citizens of Pasadena, Texas:
Ding Dong! The Trash is dead. Which old Trash? The Criminal Trash!
Ding Dong! The Criminal Trash is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Criminal Trash is dead. They’ve gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let’s open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong’ the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Criminal Trash is dead!
Mayor of Pasadena:
As Mayor of the Pasadena City, In the County of the Land of Texas, I welcome you most regally.
Joe Horn’s Lawyer:
But we’ve got to verify it legally, to see
Mayor of Pasadena:
To see?
Joe Horn’s Lawyer:
If they
Mayor of Pasadena:
If they?
Joe Horn’s Lawyer:
Are morally, ethic’lly
Legal Pasadena Resident Number 1:
Spiritually, physically
Legal Pasadena Resident Number 2:
Positively, absolutely
Citizens of Pasadena, Texas:
Undeniably and reliably Dead
Harris County, Texas Coroner:
As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined them.
And they’re not only merely dead, They’re really most sincerely dead.
Mayor of Pasadena
Then this is a day of Independence For all the Pasadenaians and their descendants
Joe Horn’s Lawyer:
If any.
Mayor of Pasadena:
Yes, let the joyous news be spread The Criminal Trash at last is dead!
Comment by Texas Truth — 12/9/2007 @ 9:25 am
That was good.
Comment by Christoph — 12/9/2007 @ 9:30 am
That event is awesome! We need more action like that…criminals deserve it
Comment by sithlord — 12/10/2007 @ 5:57 pm
Joe Horn did not act in self-defense because there is no evidence the two men attempted to use deadly force against him. However, evidence indicating that the burglars approached him in a physically threatening manner, given his age, physical condition and because they had just burglarized his neighbor’s home, may allow for an arguable defense.
And Joe Horn did not have an explicit right to protect his neighbor’s property from DeJesus and Ortiz unless he had been specifically requested to do so by the neighbor.
Assuming a right to protect his neighbor’s property existed, Joe Horn did not have a right to use “deadly force” against DeJesus and Ortiz to protect that property because he had been instructed by the 911 operator that the police were enroute to the scene to handle the matter.
While Joe Horn had a right to make a “citizen’s arrest” of DeJesus and Ortiz, he did not have a right to use “deadly force” to accomplish that arrest because (1) he did not act in the presence or at the direction of a peace officer; (2) he was not making a lawful arrest because he had been instructed by the 911 operator not to do so; (3) he did not announce his intention that he was making such an arrest; and (4) he had a duty (as well as an opportunity) to retreat before using deadly force against the two suspects.
Comment by concerned citizen — 12/10/2007 @ 10:33 pm
cc…
I think you need to re-read the relevant sections of the Texas Penal Code. What you are saying sounds more like what the law is in NY or CA. TX is different as has been noted on this post by those with experience with that law.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/10/2007 @ 10:38 pm
concerned citizen, I don’t see in Texas law this exception you mention for the instructions of a 911 operator.
Comment by SPQR — 12/10/2007 @ 10:39 pm
this is not an illegal immigration issue, nor is it a race issue. This is a simple case of an older gentleman with strong convictions. i dont think it would have mattered what color their skin was he would have shot them still the same. and right or wrong that is for the courts to decide, but this man makes me proud to be a texan!does anyone know if he has a legal defense fund?
Comment by JRT — 12/11/2007 @ 11:35 am
I think everyone is missing the big picture about this joe horn situation. Its not important if he was within the confines of the law or not. What is important is that now there are two less greasy criminal chimpanzies walking around. Whom ever taught them to walk on their hind legs and open windows should be found and prosecuted. Someone should find their papers and see who owned them. The owner should be held liabile. These creatures are escaping and causing real harm to humans,rumor is some even vote!
[$1000 says this guy is a leftist, planting this comment to make the site look bad. — P]
Comment by arian — 12/11/2007 @ 5:35 pm
If you stupid n****** would stop breaking into the homes of hard working whites your dumb b**** a**** wouldn’t get shot. We aren’t spliting the atom or trying to fly the space shuttle here the civilized call this common sense, you stupid monkey!monkey break law, monkey eat bullet. Learn monkey learn!
[It’s “splitting the atom,” David, not “spliting,” so you’ve proven you aren’t bright. Nor are you the least bit charming. In fact, I searched for something worthwhile in your comment and I just can’t find it. So I’ll let it sit here, slightly edited with asterisks, for everyone to see how obtuse you are. — DRJ]
Comment by david duke — 12/11/2007 @ 5:45 pm
I would like to be first to stake claim to the dead greasy bodies,as I would like to refine them and use all the oil for fuel in my truck. Gas is getting outragous!
[That’s the third comment left by this person, who is, I suspect, a leftist trying to make the site look bad. (His e-mail is “nonigg@racist.white” — that’s a hint.) This suspected leftist is hereby banned. — The Mgmt.]
Comment by david duke — 12/11/2007 @ 5:55 pm
Uh, maybe “david” was trying to be sarcastic?
Would the screen name be a tip-off?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/11/2007 @ 6:01 pm
DRJ, yeah, #49 & 50 is a troll pretending to be David Duke. Infantile.
Comment by SPQR — 12/11/2007 @ 6:02 pm
#49 ,whatever you think of his choice of language, really says it all, doesn’t he! By the way, I spent several years working in Saudi Arabia. Whatever one might think of their strict islamic culture their crime rate is one of the world’s lowest. You steal, you lose your hand ,get caught a second time, you lose your arm. You murder somebody, you lose your head. Works wonders in virtually eliminating crime. And of course there’s not much opportunity for criminal defense lawyers. Or lawyers of any kind, come to think of it. In most of the arab world as in most of the rest of the World, Joe Horn would rightly be regarded as the hero he is.
Comment by Jason — 12/11/2007 @ 6:05 pm
That’s it. One more trollish, racist *David Duke* comment on this thread and I’m going to figure out how to ban the offender - without further notice and in my sole discretion.
Comment by DRJ — 12/11/2007 @ 6:09 pm
AD,
Sarcasm is one thing; racist language is another. Patterico won’t tolerate that and neither will I. Plus I don’t want to spend all night cleaning up his/her comments.
Comment by DRJ — 12/11/2007 @ 6:11 pm
racist language…
I’m sorry, after hearing what booms out of car audio systems all day (here in the great MultiCulti SoCal), one gets inured to this crap, I’m afraid.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/11/2007 @ 6:21 pm
david duke is, I suspect, a leftist, trying to plant objectionable comments here.
See my appendations to the comments for more. His e-mail address is a tipoff: “nonigg@racist.white” — not an e-mail address a genuine racist would use. It is the sort of e-mail that a leftist would use while trying to plant ugly comments.
He is, in any event, now banned.
Comment by Patterico — 12/11/2007 @ 7:20 pm
In most of the arab world as in most of the rest of the World, Joe Horn would rightly be regarded as the hero he is.
Want to back that up with some statutes or cases? Even newspaper stories. Bet you can’t. What you can find easily on Google, though, is the story of a woman who was judicially blinded because she blinded her rapist.
Joe Horn would be tried and the outcome of his “trial” would depend on how well the kadi was bribed by either side. Even if he was acquitted, he would be the target of a vendetta by the dead men’s families for the rest of his life.
You want justice and the rule of law, stay in America.
Comment by nk — 12/11/2007 @ 7:49 pm
He is a vigilante and we as a society can not tolerate this type of cowboy justice. He should be brought up on charges.
Comment by april — 12/13/2007 @ 7:12 am
What charges? Be specific.
Comment by Christoph — 12/13/2007 @ 7:52 am
Please send Joe to North Carolina. I have a shotgun I’ll give him. This Democrat is sick to death of seeing illegals fed, schooled and coddled at our expense. If you can’t read english, I’ll give it to you in Russian- Toughshitski
Comment by harry whitley — 12/13/2007 @ 1:36 pm
I am a criminal defense lawyer in Houston and have been watching this case carefully. As some of your comments suggest claims of self defense justifying deadly force are very fact specific. I imagine his best defense will be a case that started with defense of property or citizen’s arrest that then shifted to self defense base upon Mr. horn’s belief that he was in immenient danger. For those who are interested I have written three articles on the case herehttp://www.JohnTFloyd.com , Joe Horn’s Self Defense Saga Coninues and In Defense of Thy Neighbor .
Comment by John T Floyd — 12/18/2007 @ 6:29 am
Does the fact that the people he killed were career criminals make him any less accountable for killing two unarmed men by shooting them in the back?
He decided that they needed to die before he even went outside. See the 911 transcript.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5385715.html
here’s an exerpt:
“…Horn had told the police dispatcher who cautioned that he could be “shot himself” if he went outside, “You wanna bet? I’m going to kill them. They’re getting away.”
But after the shooting, he called back for assistance and told the dispatcher: “I had no choice. They came right in my yard. I didn’t know what the (expletive) they were going to do.”
Horn’s attorney Charles Lambright said his client shot in self-defense after going outside to look for a license plate number and being surprised by the burglars.”
Bullcrap. I say he went out there to shoot them, then changed his story after the fact because he knew what he did was wrong.
When did the punishment for burgulary become the death penalty?
And if you think he was right to shoot the first guy who allegedly lunged at him, why was he justified in shooting the other guy who was just trying to run?
Comment by MrSidewayz8 — 12/19/2007 @ 11:52 pm
Folks, let’s go back to the basics. If you believe in the constitution of the united states, you must believe Joe Horn guilty of an unjustified homicide. We must set aside our emotions and comply with the law. Certainly the deceased burglars in this matter deserved some serous punishment, but not execution without due process.
The eighth amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment. The Texas statues, suggesting that killing a person because of a property crime, is unconstitutional on its face; many times in the past our courts have stuck down similar statutes. Approximately 20 years ago, the supreme court struck down a statute permitting deadly force to stop a fleeing felon; a burglar was shot by police as he jumped over a fence to flee. The court found that the statute permitting such conduct was in violation of proscriptions against cruel and unusual punishment. The Joe Horn case is a match.
Also, if the Texas statute were upheld, Joe Horn killed the two during the day; the Texas statute permits deadly force only in nighttime situation.
Many choose to call Joe Horn a hero; we are a nation of laws. We cannot, and must not, skirt the law to satisfy our personal feelings.
Comment by JimH — 12/20/2007 @ 9:29 am
Jim H.
First, I don’t think the statute applies only at night except as to the lesser crimes. Second, Texas law clearly allows the use of deadly force to protect property, including the property of another. I think you are the one who is being guided by emotion.
Comment by DRJ — 12/20/2007 @ 9:39 am
DRJ, more importantly, the constitution about “cruel and unusual punishment” applies to a person duly charged, tried, and convicted by the government… not to a private citizen protecting their or another’s property or life (one of Horn’s defense theories will almost certainly be that he was was in fear for his life as buttressed by the report from the undercover officer) in exigent circumstances.
This case will turn on the facts as accepted by possibly a grand jury and jury too if it gets that far, not underlying Texas law.
Comment by Christoph — 12/20/2007 @ 9:50 am
Jim, There is nothing cruel AND unusual about shooting a burglar. I stress “and” because liberals bastardize that word into “or”. You have to have both and as DRJ pointed out, Mr. Horn is not the government to which the 8th amendment applies to.
Honestly, Jim, if you have a law degree, you ought to sue the school that you got it from as they did you no favor.
Comment by PCD — 12/20/2007 @ 10:31 am
Jim H. #64,
If you’re referring to Tennessee v. Garner, I see it as a Fourth Amendment case not Eighth Amendment. And as has been pointed out before in these threads, there is a world of difference between state action and private action. But if you’re going to argue by analogy, I’ll point out that prison guards in every jurisdiction are allowed to simply gun down escaping prisoners Garner not withstanding.
My friends, the most immoral and unjust law is the one that does not give a person proper notice that his conduct is a crime. Any and all ambiguities and confusion in Texas’s Section 9.43 should morally and justly be resolved in Joe Horn’s favor.
Comment by nk — 12/20/2007 @ 11:23 am
nk: Thank you for reminding me; it was Tennessee v. Garner and it was a fourth amendment argument. The state action about which I speak can be found in the statute on which Mr. Horn asserts justification. It is a statute drafted by the STATE of Texas;, thus state action is obvious. Additionally Texas’ Constitution itself would prohibit the actions of Mr. Horn. It is well settled that these burglars were shot during full daylight. For the statute to assist Mr. Horn the deadly force had to be employed in the NIGHTTIME. The following is the exact wording in the Texas Constitution:
Deadly Force to Protect Property
“A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the NIGHTTIME, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means.”
You speak only of Penal Code Section 9.43 which cannot be read in isolation. Sections 9.41 and 9.42 clearly tell us that deadly force can only be a defense if the thieves were attempting escape in the NIGHTTIME. This comports to the states constitution and, as you know, no law can be written that contradicts the state’s constitution.
Additionally, there can be no reasonable argument that Mr. Horn was in fear of imminent threat of harm to himself. He was upstairs when he called the police, and he was told repeatedly NOT to go outside.
Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States has traditionally struck down any state law that permits such draconian, vigilante-type conduct. Considering the Texas law, I have found no distinction between killing a fleeing juvenile thief, an emotionally disturbed thief or a severely retarded thief. Would you really suggest that we would be justified in killing a troubled youth who stepped onto your property and picked up an item such as a baseball glove as he fled?
Thank you for your intelligent response to my previous message.
Comment by JimH — 12/20/2007 @ 4:18 pm
JimH:
In interpreting statutes, the goal is to give effect to all the wording. The only way to do that with this statute is to interpret the nighttime limitation to apply only to “theft” or “criminal mischief.” The other crimes - arson, burglary, and robbery - can occur during the day or night because they do not contain the nighttime limitation (e.g., if the statute said “arson during the nighttime, burglary during the nighttime, robbery during the nighttime, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime” or even if the statute said “arson, burglary, robbery, theft, or criminal mischief during the nighttime”). That extra phrase “during the nighttime” after theft suggests the limitation is not universal.
As for your global point, laws sometimes have unintended consequences. It may be that a relatively harmless person will be hurt in a situation like this. It could also be that a seemingly harmless burglar could end up killing someone during a break-in. Just because the consequences are not what we expect does not invalidate the law. (If so, we would have no laws.) No matter how much you dislike it, this law allows the use of deadly force to protect property.
Comment by DRJ — 12/20/2007 @ 5:53 pm
Historically, in English law, burglary was only breaking and entering in the nighttime. Breaking and entering during the day was called “housebreaking” and was not as severely punished, the idea being that during the day there was less risk of bodily harm to the occupants.
Blackstone:
“BURGLARY, or nocturnal housebreaking, … has always been looked upon as a very heinous offense: … because of the abundant terror that it naturally carries with it. … And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man’s house, that it styles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with impunity. … THE time must be by night, and not by day; for in the day time there is no burglary. We have seen, in the case of justifiable homicide, how much more heinous all laws made an attack by night, rather than by day; allowing the party attacked by night to kill the assailant with impunity.”
Comment by JayHub — 12/20/2007 @ 6:19 pm
That’s nice, Jay Hub #71, but Texas, either because it was never a British colony or because it’s cognizant of July 4, 1776, has a different definition of burglary:
§ 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, “enter” means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 727, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Comment by nk — 12/20/2007 @ 7:08 pm
nk - That was brilliant.
Comment by JD — 12/20/2007 @ 7:30 pm
Thanks, JD, but this conversation has really made me tired. There’s a statute on the books in Texas under which Joe Horn will be judged but so many people here think their law is so much better.
Comment by nk — 12/20/2007 @ 7:37 pm
The two rotten no good stinking burglars may not be shot for fleeing with stolen property if the crime occurred during daylight hours. Another relevant portion of the State’s Constitution reads as follows:
“A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the NIGHTTIME, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)”
Fleeing after committing a burglary during the nighttime. How could it be more clear; please read the State’s Constitution on the subject.
http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm
Comment by JimH — 12/20/2007 @ 7:37 pm
I don’t believe that’s in the State’s Constitution, Jim H., but in Section 9.43 of its Penal Code. In any case, please read DRJ’s and my comments above why “during the nightime” only modifies theft and not the other enumerated crimes. I will give you credit, to the detriment of my own case, that Texas has no “theft during the nightime” law.
Comment by nk — 12/20/2007 @ 7:51 pm
nk, I have researched section 9.43 and find relevance in this portion of the statute:
“…the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property…”
9.43 incorporates 9.41 and 9.42 and must be read in conjunction with it. 9.41 and 9.42 parrot the wording of the constitution which you may read in the hyper-link provided in message 75.
The plain meaning of the verbiage in all instances is that you cannot kill burglars fleeing with your property unless it is in the nighttime. I feel that DRJ has misinterpreted the plain meaning, and he has isolated a very small phrase for his opinion.
Thank you for some stimulating conversation. Hope you have an enjoyable holiday season.
Comment by JimH — 12/20/2007 @ 8:49 pm
Thank you, JimH. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too.
Comment by nk — 12/20/2007 @ 8:57 pm
Jim H - Do you read your own links ?
Comment by JD — 12/20/2007 @ 8:58 pm
NK and Jim H,
Thank you for both for discussing this so courteously. Let me add that I, too, am ready for this thread to sail into the sunset.
Comment by DRJ — 12/20/2007 @ 9:07 pm
DRJ - I tried to be nice! That is going to be one of my New Year’s resolutions.
Comment by JD — 12/20/2007 @ 9:08 pm
You, too, JD. You were very nice and I appreciate it.
Comment by DRJ — 12/20/2007 @ 9:12 pm
That is one of my weaknesses, DRJ,being nice to those that say things that are so incredibly stupid that it causes my brain to hurt. Like, JimH.
I cannot be nice to him any longer. I just went and read his link again. He either did not read it, or did not understand it, because it does not say what he says it says. That is from the Gleenwald and blah school of linking. But, since JimH was civil, I will just point out that he made a mistake, rather than noting that were he to have 2 brain cells, he would have doubled his current total.
Comment by JD — 12/20/2007 @ 9:22 pm
So, JimH. Even your own link does not support the idea that the Texas Constitution addresses this topic. In fact, without doing so myself, I would almost be willing to bet that the idea that the phrases self-defense and nighttime do not appear in the Texas Constitution.
Comment by JD — 12/20/2007 @ 9:25 pm
Oops, nk, jd, sorry, I wasn’t very clear with my history lesson. How we’ve gotten to the laws we have today always fascinates me. Your comments as to, “Yes, and what’s that in aid of, JayHub?” are quite appropriate. I can only plead aging brain cells and a cold coming on.
What I was trying to do was support DRJ’s argument about the nighttime limitations in the Texas law only applying to specific lesser crimes, e.g. criminal mischief, by showing that the law has often made the distinction over centuries that committing a crime at night was worse. Of course, burglary itself hasn’t had such a limitation anywhere I’m aware of in the last couple of hundred years. I’m not surprised you didn’t get the force of my argument. Can’t see it myself now.
I can remember during law school doing some clerking work for the AG’s office years ago in Sacramento. I was researching an issue regarding when renovations to a public library required bringing the facility in compliance with disability access law. Somehow I got off a tangent involving long deleted provisions of the California Constitution regarding Chinese immigrants. Got the same, “Yes, and what’s this in aid of?” comment from the Deputy I was working for.
Learned better, but appear to be relapsing in retirement. So, I promise no more obscure, irrelevant and useless historical comments on this site. If I forget, please remind me.
Comment by JayHub — 12/20/2007 @ 10:00 pm
Jay Hub - I had no quibble with you. JimH, on the other hand, tried to tell me the Texas Constitution said something that it most certainly did not. Either way, I got to read a Constitution tonight, which gives me hope that we can someday look back with reverence at the elegant simplicity of our Constitution.
Comment by JD — 12/20/2007 @ 10:13 pm
JayHub,
I’m glad you clarified that but don’t hesitate to bring up legal history points. I find them helpful most of the time and always interesting.
JD,
I think everyone agrees the Texas Constitution is a disaster. You deserve a medal if you tried to read it.
Comment by DRJ — 12/20/2007 @ 10:33 pm
You shouldn’t feel bad about reading a meter on someones back yard as long as you did not come out on their window with their belongs.
Comment by Ronnie Pasadena — 12/23/2007 @ 9:03 am
Joe Horn is a murderer and needs to be convicted.He has no right shooting people who are unarmed in back. Hes a coward and a racist.I dislike thieves but they do not deserve to die for a bag of loot which in the first place was not even his.Im from Texas and if nothing happens to him I personaly think there be a riot. The fcked thing is that innocent people get hurt because of some trigger happy racist.Now I know why the riots happened to put a fcked up society in check.I just hate to see innocent people get hurt for one mans actions.
Comment by blameblame — 12/24/2007 @ 11:11 am
blameblame, oddly enough your comments do not seem to acknowledge the reality that Texas law does indeed often permit shooting unarmed people in the back.
Comment by SPQR — 12/24/2007 @ 11:44 am
On Dec 30, 2007 4:35 PM, richard haden wrote:
Tom Horn the assassin rides again.
Tom Horn ( November 21, 1860 – November 20, 1903) was an American Old West lawman, scout, soldier, hired gunman, detective, outlaw and assassin during his lifetime. On the day before his 43rd birthday, he was hanged in Cheyenne, Wyoming for a murder he probably did not commit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Horn
A variant opportunistic spirit of Tom Horn has resurfaced in the enormous, glutenous, grotesque incarnation of Joe Horn. The man responsible for gunning down two home invasive shoppers. Two men who on an ill fated shopping spree chose not a wall mart or Kmart to target that day but a residence that offered untold treasure and possibilities. To say the least they had a bad commute. While apparently escaping with a bag of consumables, minus the flat screen TV. Horn calculated and carefully created his spectacle, in alienated headquarters, circumscribed by abysmal girth, first finishing his recorded interview with the local “Dial up 911 Recording studio limited”. For what? A perverted chance at celebrity status. Unfortunately he must of not had a video camera as the “Survivor Man” does. Then he could have showed us how not-clever he was at Hollywood rendering.
In the day of CNN 24 hour spectacular news of murder and mayhem, Glamorous jihadist; Caribbean Pirates turned Mafioso; land pirates in suits or T’s; corporate greed, and all the romantic antics we can get ourselves in to, was canceled out in two blasts of a shotgun–not televised or visualized homicide. Hiding behind the protection of the “Castle doctrine” the massive, grunting slob of a man took studied aim at his quarry and acting as judge, Jury, and executioner, through a proverbial monkey wrench into the potential spectacle. He imposed a death sentence on our inalienable right to screw up, make bad judgments…to steal to feed our children or the monkey on our back…even potentially targeting the Graffiti artist in us all. He interrupted the consumer cycle…The Horn who odiously shoots better than Chaney quite literally got to act out fantasies of a Texas law man. Seems to me that his crime is a capital crime; a crime against capital as the murder of consumers might lead to confusion and a trend for a system dependent on paying or stealing shoppers. The day Horn acted out his carefully conceived spectacle, a script and rewrite of “In Cold Blood” sprang to mind. Two participants fell into a written script not unlike the Subway vigilante, Bernie Getz’s one act play involving four Black American teens. Getz went hunting for subway bullies. Horn watched his neighborhood as a stalker and waited for a victim or victims…and forgot to proclaim as Charlton Heston did: “From my cold, dead hands”. And Horn signals I proclaim my right to re-present to you a version of the 2nd amendment, as a right to defend my neighbors things; how ever useless they may be. And beware, life forms trespass my lawn at my aggression. For I am not an obsolete mass of fat fed by WTO strategies or a side show attraction with out two barrels of vile…
To say for sure there is now another dead dad; a family missing a confused desperate breadwinner. Who decided for what ever reason to fill a bag with an-others mass produced commodities (or cash as it appears) only to die for bad judgment or planning. A couple of players who, at least would have survived incarceration of private or state run institution, as commissary consumers. But now with two less inmates to keep the cycle of late capitals night light burning in the twilight of redundancy.
Where I come from, guardians of property kept rock salt in their shotgun shells for that glorious chance at a fleeting target. How lucky I am to not have had Horn around when I was a stupid teenager steeling tires for my Chevy. Or I might not be writing this rant on what would be just another every day reason for insurance company’s and circuit city chance to profit…theft keeps the wheels greased.
It is sad when the obese take up fire arms to kill fellow human beings because they can’t keep up; or, I just can not imagine how more uncreative an act there is than to kill… and the toxic piece of sloth to consider his actions radical and worthy of Fox News slow news Excellency….As it seems, Texas is not a state in which the bungeling burgler wants to make mistakes in…
Richard Haden
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/1/2008 @ 4:00 pm
That was a rather vapid rant, Haden.
Comment by SPQR — 1/1/2008 @ 4:43 pm
Well Richard, That’s almost the dumbest piece of crap I’ve ever heard.
I suggest you post your address so the criminals know where to go to steal, perhaps you can give them a hand loading up your stuff.
As for these two thugs, they both had long criminal histories. Joe Horn has most likely saved several dozen people from being robbed or worse. There are over 6 Billion people on the planet, these low lifes won’t be missed. So, what gives Horn the right to kill them? This is the choice THEY made when they decided to rob. If it ain’t worth your life, don’t commit crimes, Simple!
As for the BS about feeding their famillies, check your facts, about 90% of crime dollars goes to buying Drugs, Women, Booze or other non critical items. Feeding the family is very low on the list. Criminals in Texas, should consider moving or getting off their lazy butts and working. They could come up here to Maryland where I live. The Libs and ACLU love criminals up here. Our weak laws reflect this and crime runs rampant. Bottom line is 2 criminals down, and thousands to go. I think we need more Joe Horns……
Comment by JoeVee — 1/2/2008 @ 8:16 pm
Richard & “blameblame”, cry me a river.
You can deal with your criminals the way your state dictates & we will deal with our criminals the way our laws allow. The fact is our laws have served the citizens here well through the years and no amount of whining by “progressive outsiders” is going to alter that.
If you make the decision to enter another person’s home & remove their property without their permission, you damn well deserve to be shot. If you don’t like that fact, stay out of Texas.
Comment by Wild Rose Ranch — 1/3/2008 @ 4:54 am
I did not mean to say that all obese people were capable of murder or that there are inherent flaws in people who carry extra weight around. Extra body fat can be a survival necessity in cold climates. It is just that Horn’s actions cause me to react in disgust by using his size as a possible Metaphor for a symptom of North America’s ability to be over fed; Super sized, over ridden and prepared for slaughter, and to slaughter, as so many patriot’s act(ions) seem enthusiactic and willing to participate….If nature happens to over accessorize the human figure it is not my intention to lay guilt…
It just seems that more and more Americans are letting their minds and Bodies atrophy at the bequest of wanton luxury. I am still puzzled how a lone gunman with a couple of pistols can kill 30 odd people with out much interference (Virginia Tech); or that a couple of terrorist can display box cutters and disarm a plane load of citizens and end their commute. Horn is a symptom of that somehow…Lazy unfit Americans leading themselves to slaughter and occasionally getting a few shots off on the way to self annihilation…for what–to defend class status? Do not tread, trespasser, with worthless commodity or bag of cash-past my Houser for I need little excuse to show off-how well I can kill. My hatred of? I am not sure. Perhaps the hatred of not knowing how to communicate freeze. In the pretext of survival? If horn was not so wrapped up in Wall Mart security guard mentality or suffering from lonely prairie alienating reflex, “survival”, he might actually learn how to live- instead of exterminate- the criminally inept ( who always have potential as humans)
And with mental atrophy comes anti social behavior as so demonstrated by the thieves. There is no defense for there stupidity or for and drug issues they may have had…If you want to condone execution for ignorant behavior…well, it might be wize to invest in blue chip undertaking stock instead of Enron.
Now ther are some thievs that slipped by Horn’s gaze…Obviously those thieves were not is hard for me to imagine a couple of terrorist getting away with taking over an Israelian passenger plane with box cutters or a single young untrained marksman killing 30 some odd students in Israel university. I think a little self defense training should be mandatory for all students, slim or not.
Sorry if I offended any one.
Society and alienation has reached a sad state when human life and commodity are equel.
All petty crimes are punnishable by death-in Texas? The “Castle Law” will come in handy when citizens and illeagal alliens start stealling corn from our Neighbor “Big Corn”…Stay tuned they will hire Horn as scare crow for ethanol producers.
If a thief were coming out of my neighbors house I would stop them; they would still be alive and hopefully in rehab. Hell, I would even defend a blood thirsty Horn’s house if he were not home. But by homicide? How slow witted can you get…
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/11/2008 @ 9:52 pm
If I may digress. With a little added bull to Horn’s “order of precedence”…with a sci. fi. conspiracy theoryi n tow…
Did I mention the word execution? well that pretty much sums up Horn’s deed.
I have this strange fear that when “Big Corn” takes over from “Big Oil” that the “Castle law”, that which Horn is relying on, will be the excuse for shooting people who steal corn from a neighbors field ( in Texas of course) As farmers switch from growing food stuff to producing a much more lucrative crop,(Bio Fuel) producers will enlarge operations for growing corn; corn into methanol for alcohol fuel sources; to replace or lessen the demand for middle east oil. The prices for sweet corn will skyrocket (has already happen) because corn will be sold to refineries at higher prices instead of to grocers for less. As supply and demand requires (Market without conscious) the market will have control of value and delivery to the highest bidder. So the poor immigrant or US citizen living near the corn field will have ‘Scare Crows’ touting Horn’s costume mask bearing shot guns mounted on vigilante surveillance cameras. So long as such a law stays on the books select producers will benefit from the specious law while others may become fertilizer…hence a new form of “Bull” crap in the form of human fodder…or collateral damage for the sake of protecting corporate profit.
Sound crazy? Maybe so, but if Horn gets off he will have set president and that approbates the steam roller onto all kinds of abuses.
The non qualified trigger happy enthusiast will obviously take it to far…sooner or later one of your white Texan’s will get “it” while in “Black face”…
Richard Haden
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/11/2008 @ 10:10 pm
In contemporary society, the right to defend property by lethal means has lost track of the original meaning or intent. The right to defend […] Back in the day, personal property, had a deeper meaning. For example such property as food stores, horses, farm equipment, clothing, wagons, homes, the hometead, guns and so on, had greater value because our survival depended on keeping those objects as a means for survival. To survive out West or in the mid west as, manifest destiny inspired, those with the hope and desires to create a new place and home from which to “Live” and prosper. The horse, live stock, stores and so on, kept homesteaders alive…and so early U.S.history is realized and self defended–growth flourishes-law enforcement is thin and the adventurer has to live and survive by self defense and wit…the ability to defend ones means of survival is the spirit and purpose for humanity’s right to defend property (by any means necessary) In the old west, if a thief stole someones horse they were in essence committing an act that, most likely, would lesson the victims chances of survival (up s___creak without a paddle, cowboy boots or “Quarter Horse” especially out in the middle of that Mexican territory now called Texas.–that criminal act in essence causes the probable lethal isolation of the victim- a situation of great potential harm-lack of ability to travel for supplies… That is the best I can to justify execution style vigilantism.
In late Capitalism the value of personal property no longer carries the quality or value as ‘tools for survival’. Except for our homes and transportation most personal property has been assigned or reduced to “engineered” and “perceived” obsolescence; mass produced commodity’s meant for human consumption and trash bin. Rather than tools of survival; most objects that we buy are the result of a “Marketing invention” to create surrogate needs that replace the natural desire and creativity that we all once shared…marketed invention, that I as well as most modern people appreciate–but to commit homicide over the stolen…? What about the free time that has been stolen by greedy corporate america? To shoot the thief with “proverbial” rock salt or pepper him with paint ball pellets or to turn his “cheak dis” or at least get his act arrested. I like the “Ramones” song concerning a baseball bat… murder is bull____;it is the most unclever, uncreative deed; that the non conscious human (de)evolved gun toting misanthropomorphic, missing link, (citizen) can express-in a, so called, evolved society. If I had a choice, I’d just say freeze and wait for the police to show up. I might shoot near the intruder and get an attention (ADDA perhaps)-If I owned a gun that is…If I caught someone stealing my lap top I’d I try to create a most remarkable, memorable, experience for him/her to re-present…Why shoot a crack head when you can throw water on his pipe…But to kill him? That would be nauseating…murder is a blatant sign for lack of creativity. Any situation has a potential for numerous variances.
Those two fellows that horn shot were not carrying guns and neither seemed to be of [organized crime pedigree] repeat petty offender at least-but unconditionally the dead can not feed his child with what is left over from other unafforded vices…maybe more than I know about… Either Miguel Antonio Dejesus or Diego Ortiz had a wife and child. He was not necessariy a dead beat dad (not a smart dad either) but now a dead dad. So, it has come to my attention that being stupid and stealing replaceable Wall Mart consumables or the (strangely even amount of $2000 cash) gets one a death sentence in Texas. As the Have’s and the HavenUts get less, there is bound to be a line soon forming at the Morgue (Texas Style) For if one does not play by the rules and work to survive or one may be dead trying to, just live. As vile and immoral as steeling is I can not help to believe that homicide is worse.
Richard Haden
Richard
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/11/2008 @ 11:46 pm
Very good.
Richard, you have a valuable point of view and have put a lot of time into expressing your ideas clearly. As someone who does a bit of copywriting, where making it easy for other people to read is a big deal, may I offer a bit of unsolicited, but I hope not unwelcome advice?
The same message broken down into short paragraphs of say 1-8 lines, tops (variety in paragraph length is good) would lead a higher percentage of people to finish your writing and benefit from it.
Another secret I often ignore, is a short intro paragraph of one or two lines tops is often a good way to “hook” people into reading.
I think you’re making a top quality point here and it explains much of the reasoning behind the Texas laws.
Here I think you’re making a point that is positively profound and explains why many object to killing over property in this day and age.
Now, in this case, the question comes down to the facts and even certain technicalities, like whether he had a right to use force to defend another’s property, etc. Finally, in the end, this may simply be a straightforward defense of self case.
Comment by Christoph — 1/12/2008 @ 12:08 am
Christoph,
Thank you for the feedback.
Richard Haden
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/12/2008 @ 8:48 pm
Richard Haden you are attempting to explain reason to the unreasonable. You cannot convince the redneck-thinking that a civilized society is preferable to vigilante street justice. Ignorance insists on remaining ignorant.
Comment by JimH — 1/20/2008 @ 10:55 am
You cannot convince the redneck-thinking that a civilized society is preferable to vigilante street justice.
In a civilized society a girl can walk down a street safely. In a civilized society you don’t need locks on the doors of your house. In a civilized society you can leave a bag full of cash on the sidewalk and find it there three days later because people know to keep their hands off what doesn’t belong to them. Just exactly what was the burglars’ contribution to a civilized society?
/s/ A redneck.
Comment by nk — 1/20/2008 @ 1:53 pm
I, again, assert that this Texas-type ignorance is frightening as well as absurd. These people just do not get it. All crimes do not require execution. Ever American has a right to due process; that means you cannot shoot on sight. Those who believe Joe Horn is a hero lack a basic understanding of our laws as well as morals in general. Just check the raw footage of the demonstration held in Texas; the rednecks call the blacks the n word along with threats of death. Doctor King would be disgusted; that neck of the country has progressed not at all. The problem: IGNORANCE.
Comment by JimH — 1/21/2008 @ 7:35 pm
Ever American has a right to due process;
The Fifth Amendment says, “nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
So what Due Process did the burglars grant?
Comment by nk — 1/21/2008 @ 7:42 pm
So what Due Process did the burglars grant?
This statement, used in this manner, is a perfect example of raw ignorance. It demonstrates that the person who extracted it from its text has no concept of constitutional guarantees. The operative word remains: IGNORANCE
Comment by JimH — 1/22/2008 @ 6:35 am
101, seems your idea of “civil society” is what created the “Red Neck” in the first place. As legends of the old west and prohibition days valorized the bandit. The ‘ignorant remains ignorant’ is a sympton of our educational system cranking out and dumbing down… read some of the writings of radical educator, John Taylor Gatto. His work concerns the post-industrialization shift in our education system, circa 1890 and after, whose purpose was to use mass schooling to create ready-made servants of corporate and political management. He cites Frederick Taylor’s “social efficiency” movement as a major influence, and also outlines attendant social engineering to engender consumerism, a non-critical physical labor force, and a clear hierarchical and Napoleonic model for modern civilization. If you’ve already graduated from Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Gatto is a good radicalizing successor.
Then you have your Kentuckian version of creation theory ignorance…those who created there own anti-Darwinian fish bowl to exhibit themselves as the missing link. http://www.creationmuseum.org/ …talk about an interesting side show, exhibited as Male hysterical Neurosis.
Who ever wants to believe in a world where one can leave things lying on side walks better hope a texas version of the “Bower Bird” or pack rat does not run off with the loot; finding value in your cash as decoration…
Your idealism is so Romantic…
Richard Haden
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/24/2008 @ 12:50 am
Generally, those who are in a professional position concerning constitutional law are serving the needs of those who need it’s defense. But those others who wrap themselves in a flag and hide behind a document for the sake of arm chair one dimensional argument have forgotten how to think. The constitution was never meant to succeed common sense-consciousness.
Murder or execution is not an amendment and rednecks are not necessarily stuck that way.
Richard Haden
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/24/2008 @ 10:16 am
JimH -
Your statement:
“Ever[y] American has a right to due process; that means you cannot shoot on sight.”
Did you mean US citizen? Were they?
What about an illegal North Korean?
If the men were shot in accordance with a law not deemed un-Constitutional, how did the deceased not have due process?
Comment by jim2 — 1/24/2008 @ 12:26 pm
Richard Haden -
Have you considered that the guilt you adjudge to Joe Horn, if there is any, should be directed at the Texas law makers? Or, can you point to how Joe Horn violated the Texas law (not struck down as un-Constitutional) cited in earlier posts in this thread?
Your posts seem internally inconsistent to me. You seem to lament that society is such that individuals or small groups can commit mayhem and not be stopped by active resistance of those who witness it, yet condemn Joe Horn for doing just that.
If a passenger had shot the box cuttered folk dead on 9/11, would you have decried the excessive force? After all, the others had only box cutters.
The men who died in this case have been well documented to be predators. The father you cited who can now no longer feed his kid was doing so with stolen goods, and each theft inflicted injury on innocents.
Or do you dismiss the psych effects of finding that one’s home and privacy has been violated? Leaving them to fear return or repeat when they might be there and vulnerable? Every father of the households those men made it their career to violate was left to fear what might happen to their children when they are away actually earning the money for their bread.
What about those fathers?
Such predators put children and other vulnerable innocents at risk should they be there when the predators enter and are seen.
There may well be victimless or near-victimless property crimes that do not merit inclusion in the statutes above, but I submit that breaking and entering into residences should not be among them.
Thus, if there is benefit of the doubt to be given, I would give it to the Joe Horns and not to criminals, let alone already-deported illegal alien career criminals.
Comment by jim2 — 1/24/2008 @ 12:54 pm
jim 2
I am not in the practice of law nor do I lay quilt. That is so christian. But what I do lay on Horn is a case of “premeditated vigilantism” calculated Homicide, a term that I instantly coin for lack of better terminology.
Of course my posts seem inconsistent-the subject matter is murder/execution style. And as I seem to respond to this sight after all else is done in my day…Clarity is not great in the AM.
I certainly do advocate Resistance or Killing in Self defense (I am not sure how you thought or assumed other wise) If I were flying on a plane with idiots wielding Box cutters you better believe I would have no problem inflicting painful trauma-If I were able-and if a potential hijacker perished as a result–no
sleep lost. But the point here is “Self defense”. And as you know passengers do not carry guns on planes. It takes organized Resistance in that case. Your criticism of my postings are filled with hypothetical situations of your convenience…..what (ifs) and why (nots) or they deserved this or that…or some one was going to be violated…
I have had my home violated and I have had goods stolen in the past. Not fun to go home to missing stuff, huh. I live in Miami now and have an Art studio in a questionable part of town. I have lived near Compton in Los angeles, near projects in San Francisco, and on the Border of Washington State and Canada. As you can imagine I have seen, witnessed and intervened in a lot. I am not done yet either…As you described there are predators all around me-but I do not see by way of that myopic gaze. I see desperation, addictions, mental disease, plenty of unexplainable behaviors as well as good, well adjusted, reasonably happy people that out number those delinquent souls who all manage to survive and occasionally live a life…in conditions you would assume substandard. I do not under stand how some one is injured by loosing property to a thief. Granted, no one finds pleasure in property loss but all but heirlooms are replaceable.
You speak of repeat offenders. Well as you can read in this site that there are repeating red neck thought offenders-well at least the red neck can type, there for he is reading and may one day change his user name to Auto Didactic; there by raising his standard of self awareness and selfesteem…otto Didaticus, perhaps–no that one is taken. The repeat offender is just a convenient label; worn by most who are not necessarily moving up to the east side. It is a mask that most citizens see because there is distance between most of the populi in divisive class attitudes. Those men who died were not bright enough to be corporate thieves so there death was class determined by your Judge Horn. To say that they were career criminals intent on recurring conquering conquest is to sound like you actually know them personally…which we obviously assume to not be the case. So since you have pre-destine all home invaders to potential this and that hypothetical status…well then there be little chance of me changing that vision. For how can I argue with a psychic?
Horn should have tried to stop the perps…and he could have. I bet they would have stopped had he really demonstrated his ability as marksman…after all it sounded like it was a pump action. His pump action failed reason and blasted the day lights back to dark age delight.
I keep a paint ball gun around…at least while they are running away they are donning their true colors…and even if they make it to their car…a rear wind shield is easy for police to spot…with the “Jackson Pollock” paint job. I have poured water on crack smoking, crack heads as well…it takes creativity to not commit Murder? You want to know how to stop drug dealers from using a spot in front of your house or corner? You pour gallons and gallons of corn syrup on the ground or pavement. That attract fire ants where I live. Makes for a sticky situation.
No doubt if Horn’s antics were to catch on there would be a lot of dead young adults. Then the riots would begin. No one has the inalienable right to steel but they have the ability and right to recover; recover from drug addictions, stupidity and so on…or stay the same and remain in prison habitat. That is big business–have you not noticed? A lot a careers depend on it.
Inconsistently yours
Richard Haden
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/24/2008 @ 7:51 pm
Richard Haden,
Several commenters have questioned the morality of what Joe Horn did but it’s not clear Horn did anything illegal. You apparently think Horn’s actions were immoral, and you may be correct. However, I think it would be helpful if you clarified whether you think Horn did anything illegal and, if so, what.
Comment by DRJ — 1/24/2008 @ 8:17 pm
DRJ,
Joe Horn murdered two individuals for trespassing his lawn. I believe he chose to not attempt a negotiated intervention. I believe he intended to shoot them from the moment he noticed them exiting his neighbor’s house. (1) He was very careful to use 911 as a way to mask his intentions. He called 911 to use there voice recording as a public record for a carefully staged step by step spectacle. He used the 911 for a recorded alibi (first offense). (2) As one can here on the tape; he makes reference to the “Castle Law” which enlightens the point that he has been studying his script for the means to an end.(second offense but most heinous; the original crime of Murder with intent-phrase it how you will). (3) Lying to law enforcement about how the men lunged toward him (third offense)
And while I am at it, would some one please tell me for sure that the $2000.00 dollars found in a bag was actually evidence or planted to prove that a crime actually took place. Did some one bother to check for finger prints on the money–To verify the owner? .Any way, why was there exactly 2000 dollars–in all my experience, either as witness, storing money in the mattress or as second hand listener have I ever heard any one storing exact or even amounts of cash. There is usually uneven quantities such as 2587 dollars not just 2000 dollars. Even numbers usually imply certain future monetary obligations–as debts or bills to be paid or? There is something very suspicious concerning that convenient amount of cash. The fact that they allegedly stole nothing else–Not even jewelry?–also bothers me. It almost sounds like their could have been weird business going on between the Vietnamese home owners and the intruders. Perhaps, the thieves knew that the Vietnamese family had the money–I can not possibly know–I do not even know the names of the Vietnamese family. I would rather call them by name instead of using their nationality as designation…is there a link available to learn more about the physical evidence that is being considered.
Execution is not a crime in Pasadena Texas?
Richard Haden
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/24/2008 @ 11:06 pm
Richard Haden -
I am willing to accept that you are sincere, despite what I believe are serious inconsistencies in your arguments.
However, you posted:
+++++++++++
Joe Horn murdered two individuals for trespassing his lawn.
+++++++++++
The word “murder” is a term of art, a legal code word. It means, among other things, the deliberate and illegal taking of life. Look it up.
By using that word, you both adjudge guilt and make an assertion of law.
What law did Horn break?
Comment by jim2 — 1/25/2008 @ 5:08 am
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime. Most jurisdictions impose a severe penalty for its commission. Sometimes the term murder is used by laypersons to describe what is really another form of homicide. Murder is a type of homicide, and relatively few homicides are murders in law. Also, police will often call their investigation into a murder a homicide investigation in order not to prejudice any findings of the investigation, possible charges that could be laid, or any conviction of an offender. However, the crime will normally be identified as a murder once there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a murder is the more likely crime than any other. Wikipedia version.
Horn Killed the men during the day. According to the Statute I read, one can only mortally wound or shoot to kill after dark. (4th offense)
Also, I read at another site that there was a detective present during Horn’s debacle. Looks like, to me, that Horn interrupted police surveillance that may have led to the arrest of the two burglars. As I am very familiar with tactics that law enforcement uses; following a crime back to it original instigators; is a commonly used technique. in other words Horn screwed up what looks to me like an investigation (a tail) that might have led back to the ring leader. So in a larger picture Horn may have aided in protecting the ring leaders by murdering the burglars that doubled as witness…. ‘the detective ducked down in fear that Horn Might think he was the get away driver’. This goes to prove how idiots running around in shot gun mania, could get the innocent bystanders shot as well.
Then there is a conspiracy theory thought that springs to mind: what if the detective was somehow connected to the burglars by either using them to investigate or?……see how twisted it can all get when the average citizen overplays his role in a pitiful incident.
So the service and low brow “Artful”?, maneuver that horn selfishly committed satisfied a vigilante spirit but did nothing to solve the greater causes of crime.
If Horn is an Artist then he used rudimentary muti media techniques to perform for his audience.”Murder He Wrote”…using the low teck 911 recorder and operator as appropriated actor and Shot gun as his lethal prop…But generally art is meant to promote life and create situations that counter alienation and isolation–I think horn failed in his “piece”. His performance and form of expression served his own interest and not society’s greater goal of positive change. If he fits into any genre it would be the that of a neo-Romantic without Irony. Not unlike that red neck character who perpetuates an image of the southern imbecile archetype.
As an Artist myself I certainly put Horn’s expression some where down there with other false Propaganda’s and absurdities, for example, Kincaid and other bad alienating and head ducking, side show spectacles. At least kincaid only “deadens and numbs”, peddles (an)aesthetic and his audience uses his giclees as visual escape mechanisms…Now that is another subject for another blog.
sincerely digressive
Richard Haden
Comment by Richard Haden — 1/25/2008 @ 10:20 am
After reading through all of the arguments about how “rednecks” just don’t get how to live in a civilized society , I’m starting to believe that Liberals do not know how to keep a society civilized.
Being from the south, call me a redneck if you wish, I can absolutely attest to the fact that rednecks do indeed know who to live in a civilized society. However, in order to keep a society civilized you have to keep the criminal element in check.
I’ll further quantify my above statements. If these two criminals had been shot steeling from, lets say, Walmart there would be a huge public outcry. I would absolutely being against this type of “justice” if that were the case. For the good of society you must differentiate between crimes against society and crimes against corporation. Corporations such as Walmart are not liable to replace goods or services that have been stolen from their stores. All of the “loss” goes under the category of “shrink” and becomes a write-off at the end of the year. Now, crimes against society, E.G. Stealing and breaking into someones home is much much worse. The reasons for this being a “higher level” crime is for the exact opposite reasons that stealing from Walmart is a “lower level” crime. E.G. If my TV is stolen and never recovered I have to replace my TV. Of course allot of Americans have home owners issuance, so this helps, but it does not cover everything. You also have to look at the psychological impact that stealing form a private citizens has on the them to fully comprehended why this is a “worse crime.”
Everyone has a right to feel safe in their home and know that they are in control what happens inside of their home. Being a victim of of a burglary or a home invasion can severely damage this vision of safety. It can make a person never fell safe again in their home, in a sense it could have psychological impact on them for the rest of their lives. Which is why we must view it as a “high level” crime.
Now, in order to maintain a civilized society a number of things must be done. Allot of people have suggested, in this situation, waiting for the police, or placing them on citizens arrest would have been much better since they would be alive, and possible rehabilitated. I do not agree with this notion, and here is why: 1) They both had a long history of criminal behavior and crimes. 2) They have been deported prior to this incident only to have returned to this country again and again. 3) Criminal rehabilitation is , statically, extremely low. 4) The justice depart die not do their jobs in making sure these repeat offenders never committed crimes again before, what evidence do you have that says that this time it would have worked.
In Order to keep a society civilized you have to have a law system that deters criminal activity. Basically, the punishment has to be such that a criminal has to actually weight the risks and rewards of committing a crime. If the possibility exist to lose your life, then you have to take that into account. I think people are sick and tired of this persevered notion of “justice” that our legal system portrays. We see it every day: Repeat Rapist, murders, criminals, Child molesters, etc back on the streets doing the same thing. I am not trying to paint the entire criminal systems as broken, but their are certain parts of our country where it is. When faced with staggering crime statics such as they are, it simply isn’t enough to let the justice department sort it out. We the people, must help make society better. We the people, are responsible to each other in helping make a better society. We the people, have to protect not only our lives and family but also our neighbors lives and family, that is a truly civilized society. When we stop holding the rights of life long criminals over the rights of the victims. Luckily, there is a way. We are an armed society, the 2nd amendment provides us with ways to protect ourselves and we must use it effectively. If you need more proof, research the reports they stack legally owner ship of firearms next to crime statics. Where you see a spike in the percentages of owned firearms, you will most certainly see a drop in crime statistics. Look at places like Kennesaw, GA where the law states all heads of household must own a firearm, if legally able. Since this law has been enacted in ‘82, Kennesaw, GA has enjoyed an 86% drop in crime rate over what similar cities have experienced. If you look at your mid-west states where gun owner ship is HIGH, you will also see a drop in crime rates. Places like this are where the civilized society you spoke of are able to exist.
Comment by Keith — 1/25/2008 @ 11:40 am
Here is a link to a supporting article about Kennesaw, GA
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
Comment by Keith — 1/25/2008 @ 11:43 am
Richard Haden -
You posted:
+++++++
According to the Statute I read, one can only mortally wound or shoot to kill after dark. (4th offense).
+++++++
If you would take the time to read the Joe Horn thread(s) into which you have posted, you would see that the interpretation that you have offered is incorrect. In short, you are arguing from a false premise.
In fact, the very fact that Joe Horn has not been indicted or even already thrown in jail seems proof enough that you are mistaken.
You also posted:
++++++++++++++
Looks like, to me, that Horn interrupted police surveillance that may have led to the arrest of the two burglars. As I am very familiar with tactics that law enforcement uses; following a crime back to it original instigators; is a commonly used technique. in other words Horn screwed up what looks to me like an investigation (a tail) that might have led back to the ring leader.
++++++++++++++
The statements of the police in this case do not appear to support your hypothesis. If you have a source to bolster your theory, by all means post it. By the way, note that your hypothesis of a “ring leader” is also inconsistent with your first postings on the matter, not that it matters.
Keith (above) developed some more the thought I advanced previously to you. That is, home invasions are not victimless property crimes.
Presuming you are consistent with your postings and siggy, you are an adult male, confident and with experience in the world. You can move on after such an invasion and loss. The fathers whose houses were ransacked may well face terrified children: “Will the bad men come back tonight, Daddy? I’m scared, really scared!” As for the dad, think Elizabeth Smart, or that man up in Idaho who invaded a house, and killed a family to take two kids for his pleasure. The boy was later murdered, but the girl was recognized at a fast food place and the man captured.
My point is that - even if these men would not have done that - every family they despoiled was left wounded by their evil deeds.
By the way, I doubt any jury would ever agree with premeditation and malice afore-thought being ascribed to Joe Horn. He ordered them to halt and they did not. That is, he did not shoot without warning. That pretty much eliminates premeditation.
Only if the two had halted, perhaps putting up their hands or getting flat onto the ground, and he still shot them, would there be a good case for premeditation. That is, he would have ordered them to do something and then shot them anyway when they did it.
Comment by jim2 — 1/25/2008 @ 1:02 pm
…They had a long career? The Burglars? How old were they? Those two burglars must have been ancient.
The bunker mentality is still in vogue I see. Like if you buy a house that has one of those bomb shelters you can stash a cache of self defence props…go in hiding and hope for a better tomorrow.
I to, was born in the south…and so? So I am quite familiar with the image of redneck(dom). A redneck is just a modern metaphor for that stubborn, anti-enlightened , obtuse, demagogue(ing), recursive, indolent, suffering in lassitude, and then some, individual who dissimulates, infuriates, obstinates in capricious jest, and charlatanry of the annoying kind.
The man who, once upon a time knew how to express himself with letters, as is discovered when one reads archived civil war trench correspondence. What has happened to that lovable red neck now. You know the one> That new version persona that wraps himself in a rebel flag, protesting and promoting his iso