Patterico's Pontifications

12/7/2007

Joe Horn Update x2

Filed under: Law — DRJ @ 6:45 am

[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

269 Responses to “Joe Horn Update x2”

  1. 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.

    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.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  2. 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…

    Scott Jacobs (526a32)

  3. 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.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  4. 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?

    d.s. wilson (9869d0)

  5. 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.

    Mr.Obvious (d3fe32)

  6. 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.

    PCD (09d6a8)

  7. 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.

    Bob Loblaw (23d1c4)

  8. 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.

    assistant devil's advocate (c18246)

  9. 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?)

    jim2 (6482d8)

  10. 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.

    JD (2c9284)

  11. 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?

    PCD (09d6a8)

  12. 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.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  13. PCD – I do not look Vietnamese, since I am not, and don’t want Mr. Horn to mistake me for someone else.

    JD (2c9284)

  14. At any rate, my comment was intended with a healthy dose of sarcasm, which seems to have flown right over some people’s heads.

    JD (2c9284)

  15. 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.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  16. 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.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  17. DRJ,
    Thanks for the candid reply.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  18. vor hijacked the thread before anyone else posted….

    I would say amazing but it completely sucks…

    reff (bff229)

  19. 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.

    Uncle Pinky (3c2c13)

  20. “The fact that the deceased were illegal immigrants is immaterial to the question about Horn’s actions.”

    Hear, hear.

    “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.”

    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.

    “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.”

    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.

    “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.”

    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.

    “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.”

    Indeed, Bob Loblaw.

    “vor hijacked the thread before anyone else posted…”

    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.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  21. 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.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  22. 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!

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  23. 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.

    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.

    Steverino (e00589)

  24. 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.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  25. 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”.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  26. 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.

    jim2 (c68424)

  27. 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:

    hazy (c36902)

  28. jim2, respectfully:

    “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.”

    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).

    In any case, Horn can not have committed murder if Texas law gave him the “legal excuse or authority”.

    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.

    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).

    I may disagree for reasons I discuss here.

    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.

    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.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  29. jim2, you’ll find a little more of my thoughts on Joe Horn’s actions as they relate to the Texas statutes here.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  30. 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.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  31. 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.”

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  32. 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.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  33. 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.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  34. 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?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  35. No, your analogies are just getting you farther away from the point.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. 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?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  37. 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.

    jim2 (92c692)

  38. 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?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  39. Two less illegal aleins to sneak back into this country but this will upset the liberals

    krazy kagu (9baf51)

  40. 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!

    Texas Truth (1b3f65)

  41. That was good.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  42. That event is awesome! We need more action like that…criminals deserve it

    sithlord (4025f0)

  43. 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.

    concerned citizen (bb5e7b)

  44. 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.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  45. concerned citizen, I don’t see in Texas law this exception you mention for the instructions of a 911 operator.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  46. 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?

    JRT (abef59)

  47. 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]

    arian (019db1)

  48. 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]

    david duke (019db1)

  49. 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.]

    david duke (019db1)

  50. Uh, maybe “david” was trying to be sarcastic?

    Would the screen name be a tip-off?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  51. DRJ, yeah, #49 & 50 is a troll pretending to be David Duke. Infantile.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  52. #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.

    Jason (a16e42)

  53. 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.

    DRJ (09f144)

  54. 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.

    DRJ (09f144)

  55. 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.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  56. 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.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  57. 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.

    nk (26f031)

  58. He is a vigilante and we as a society can not tolerate this type of cowboy justice. He should be brought up on charges.

    april (4973b5)

  59. Comment by april — 12/13/2007 @ 7:12 am

    What charges? Be specific.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  60. 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

    harry whitley (57c44f)

  61. 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 .

    John T Floyd (a8a7b7)

  62. 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?

    MrSidewayz8 (1909cd)

  63. 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.

    JimH (282055)

  64. 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.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  65. 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.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  66. 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.

    PCD (09d6a8)

  67. 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.

    nk (6061ba)

  68. 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.

    JimH (5f1d43)

  69. JimH:

    … necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the NIGHTTIME.

    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.

    DRJ (09f144)

  70. 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.”

    JayHub (0a6237)

  71. 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.

    nk (6061ba)

  72. 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:

    nk – That was brilliant.

    JD (eadb61)

  73. 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.

    nk (6061ba)

  74. 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

    JimH (5f1d43)

  75. 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.

    nk (6061ba)

  76. 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.

    JimH (5f1d43)

  77. Thank you, JimH. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too.

    nk (6061ba)

  78. Jim H – Do you read your own links ?

    JD (eadb61)

  79. 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.

    DRJ (09f144)

  80. DRJ – I tried to be nice! That is going to be one of my New Year’s resolutions.

    JD (eadb61)

  81. You, too, JD. You were very nice and I appreciate it.

    DRJ (09f144)

  82. 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.

    JD (eadb61)

  83. The Texas Constitution
    Article 1 – BILL OF RIGHTS
    Section 23 – RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

    “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

    Self Defense Statutes
    (Texas Penal Code)…

    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.

    JD (eadb61)

  84. 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. :-)

    JayHub (0a6237)

  85. 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.

    JD (eadb61)

  86. 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.

    DRJ (09f144)

  87. 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.

    Ronnie Pasadena (cfcc1b)

  88. 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.

    blameblame (f1cf8d)

  89. 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.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. 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

    Richard Haden (d4906e)

  91. That was a rather vapid rant, Haden.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  92. 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……

    JoeVee (a07efa)

  93. 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.

    Wild Rose Ranch (9531b2)

  94. 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…

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  95. 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

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  96. 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

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  97. 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.

    “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.”

    I think you’re making a top quality point here and it explains much of the reasoning behind the Texas laws.

    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.

    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.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  98. Christoph,
    Thank you for the feedback.

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  99. 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.

    JimH (66fe6e)

  100. 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.

    nk (a07608)

  101. 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.

    JimH (0813cd)

  102. 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?

    nk (9ce1c0)

  103. 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

    JimH (5650ea)

  104. 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

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  105. 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

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  106. 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?

    jim2 (a9ab88)

  107. 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.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  108. 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

    Richard Haden (1856dd)

  109. 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.

    DRJ (517d26)

  110. 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

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  111. 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?

    jim2 (282f3e)

  112. 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

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  113. 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.

    Keith (b8dc92)

  114. Here is a link to a supporting article about Kennesaw, GA
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

    Keith (b8dc92)

  115. 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.

    jim2 (92c692)

  116. …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 isolated, misunderstood, anti societal behavior.

    I think most people who side with Horn come under the influence of a modern trench war fair–instead of North verses the southern Ideals of property and slave property–it has become suburban bunker warfare of one class against the other…not necessarily racial either. For serious ISOLATIONISM HAS TAKEN GRIP IN THIS COUNTRY and if you are not with us you are suspect…in that other class are also those suffering from the same late capitalism’s institutionalized, aberrant, alternative behaviors–you misbehave and you get yourself dead. ah ha ah ha. Joy to the Righteous…death to the addicted…

    I like a story I was told by some pot farmers who I once knew in Humboldt county, California: They once caught a thief robbing an illegal out door crop of Marijuana (for it was around harvest time). Instead of shooting the fellow and using his remains for next years fertilizer-they captured him by gun point; tied him up. Then drove him up to the mountains of Trinity county. They stripped all his clothes off; tied him to a tree (so that he would eventually get loose)(gets damned cold up there in September) The fellow eventually hiked the 60 or so miles back to Garberville and not another word or incident ever happened again-with that fellow, at-least. Rehabilitation works…even red neck style (northern Red neck style)

    I had a wood shop in San Francisco once. I new there was always the possibility of a break in. I collected a bunch of old, not working, hand tools and put them in obvious display on the side counters. I stored all the good tools in drawers. I had a couple of those old drills stole…I can only imagine his dope dealers expression when he tried to exchange them…the rest of my larger shop tools were to heavy to steel.

    While I was up on Haight street (San Francisco) one evening. I had left an old dummy wallet in the glove box of my old truck. I had old expired credit cards issued by a bank that I no longer used. Some one broke in, opened up the glove box and stole that useless wallet. I got lucky that time for I also have several inexpensive electronic devices on the floor board. I can only image the thief shopping with my old expired credit cards…

    One advantage of the large screen TVs is that they are hard to carry out. And Guess what? what? Wall mart is engineering and marketing their wares to the eventual goal that our sense of future commodity value will not be worth fencing…to the point where so much crap will have such built in osolencence; what will the crook have to steel…

    All I mean with all this silly word sallad is to point out that one does not have to dwell on or live in fear of the realities of a seemingly screwed up worldlyness. One can keep living with a little creativity while some liberal or non liberal tallented persons figures out how to improve society for all and the Burglar…

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (2a0b5f)

  117. Haden, your bile filled commentary have the opposite result from your intention.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  118. One can keep living with a little creativity while some liberal or non liberal tallented persons figures out how to improve society for all and the Burglar…

    It’s too late for the burglar but his children can live in a world a little bit better for not having their father in it.

    nk (eeb240)

  119. Richard Haden,

    I’ll take your word for it that you are a Southerner but you don’t sound like one. However, the pot story did ring true.

    DRJ (517d26)

  120. Richard,
    I’m not sure I completely understand the point of view you are trying to put forth here. So, since you distorted mine, allow me to return the favor.
    What you are really attempting to say above, to me, is that bad things, people have no right to stop such things from happening, so you might as well plan to get robbed, raped, etc. I wonder if you could keep this moral high ground if your wife or daughter were being raped in front of you? Would you, in order to not harm another or rob them of their “due process” stand idly by while criminals ravaged your wife and/or daughter? All the while praying that your 911 call to the police will actually help them?

    The point that I think everyone has kinda tap danced around is that the police are here to Protect NO-ONE! That is not there jobs. Police are an emergency response organization as such they respond to incidents AFTER they happen, hardly every during and never before. We, as citizens, can not possible be so naive as to think that the our police officers (No disrespected implied, police Officers do the best job the can) will always been there exactly when we need them. That would statistically be impossible unless police officers number on almost a 1:1 ratio with private citizens.

    There’s an AD I saw awhile back that I took a likening to: “Dial 911 and DIE.”

    Keith (1b541c)

  121. My point is this: If I find someone in the act of steeling from me, I will do harm to that person, if I am physically capable. If I have to defend a girl friend or some ones child from a rapist I will do harm to that individual, if I am capable. If I am present at any event that I can intervene in to help some one out, I will do harm to the perpetrator. When I say harm I mean that I will use what ever force I am capable of. If a victim is in desperate need of assistance I will risk bodily injury to help, if I am physically capable (I will offer a few free cheap shots to the their rib cage as well); I would defend you, your wife or child as well as your pet if I am physically capable. Any one who is in distress will get my attention if I am there. Now, is that clear enough?

    In the same spirit of that expression; if I am not at a location where a crime is happening I am not going to dwell on situations that do not concern me. I will keep what belongings I cherish as protected as I can. I will remember to lock my shop door as well as my home before I leave. I will also install an alarm system if necessary and I will plant dummy tools just in case I am robbed while I am away. That is just preemptive common sense; but I will not live in a bunker mentality other than creatively anticipating how thieves and criminally insane or addicted individuals think. I will also get to know all my neighbors and get a heads up on who to look out for in my area. I will not isolate my self from a community or area that is alien to me….so on and so forth. Those who chose to stay in there local bubbles and ignore the out side world are not my concern. But those who need to move on for economic or career opportunities better wake up and realize it is not going to be a world of assumed ideals. People will have to learn how to grow less alienated…As corporations grow larger and monopolies manifest wealth, things are going to get worse…as the fewer have more; as the concentration of power and wealth centralizes, the masses will have to share the rest. The great divide between those who have and those who have not is going to eventually reach abysmal proportions…unless a new breed of politician comes forth to redistribute the wealth. That is one way crime will decrease…And if you can not see that, you must get out more–into the real world…

    As for a police presence, I do not know what kind of community you are talking about but from my experience local police, federal agents and other law enforcement agencies most regularly patrol looking to protect or be in areas where crime often erupts. You should visit Miami some time. I see a very large police presence all over town. In the Wynwood area of Miami there are 70 or so art galleries that participate in collective open gallery night–every second Saturday of the month-you can bet there is always a visible and undercover police presence. In San Francisco there are beat cops who still patrol on foot and in cars. In New York (even before Giuliani) I witnessed beat cops on many streets of the city. On the coastal waters there is coast guard. In the fisheries there are the Eco police. I am sure that there are cities where law enforcement has inadequate budgets….little money for beat cops; but who’s fault is that…poor administrative decisions…
    Go to London, Paris, Roam, and even a lot of third world cities and you see a major police presence…New York City (at least in Manhattan) is one of the safest large cities to hang out in. It is not necessarily because of police presence but because of the abundant witnesses awake around the clock. It is harder to commit crimes when everyone is watching. New Yorkers are a little more accustom to aberrant behavior as well. Now in Los Angeles…I go blank…I lived there back in the early 80’s and certain neighborhoods were very dangerous and probably still are. Except Eco park maybe. Los Angeles is just so spread out….

    Then there is that logistical problem, like on the US borders, where there is just to many square miles to realistically patrol. Look at British Columbia, crime statistics. Yes, of course they have crime but…? A There are more violent bar fights than gun shot victims in their emergency rooms–at least the last time I lived their.

    In Vancouver, there was a gang responsible for many home burglaries. I tell you the truth…the way they got caught was: they did not hear the alarm sound. And why you might ask? They were literally deaf. It was all over the news. Deaf gang of thieves arrested without resistance…they were treated and prosecuted like any other home invaders. Only in Canada.

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (2a0b5f)

  122. Where did you get the idea that socialism and redistributed wealth will solve crime?

    DRJ (517d26)

  123. Richard,
    I think we are coming to more of a common ground in understanding each other. However, I will offer this: I grew up in South Tampa, I frequented the Miami / Orlando Locations many times, I have been to Paris (twice), along with Munich, Koln, Malmao and Amsterdam. You are correct about the mass number of police officers in Paris, on this past new years night they were out in groves all around the Arc D-Triumph (Spelled wrong I know). So, I am a world traveler, I’m not speaking from a closed mind set.I do not have a “bunker” mentality, I am not an isolationist.

    However, I do disagree with you on the “redistribution of wealth” statement. I don’t think this is the way. I think allot of things could be done to help level the playing field, however, I think we should help lift society up and not punish the top tier for being successful. Instead, lets focus on our education system and stop and teaching to the lowest common denominator.A better solution would be to raise the bar, make sure that everyone who graduates are able to survive this world and fluish. I also think we need to focus on making our society more “worldly.” We need to teach people additional languages , besides English and bad English, so that our kids will be able to compete in the world economy that we will become. (We are so far off topic)
    Trying to steer back to us on topic:
    I too would defend my family, my neighbors and society at large if I am in the vicinity of someone in need. However, I will use lethal force if needed. I won’t shoot first and ask questions later. But, I wouldn’t hesitate if its needed to save someones life. However, I am sick of people worrying about the rights of criminals over the rights of law bidding citizens. What we really need are policy changes in a criminal system. Something similar to Florida’s 10-20-life program that has done very well. We just need to apply this on a broader level, if you commit a violent crime there needs to be a mandatory sentence without the possibility of parole. The judges of this country have proved that they are unable to actually be “tough on crime” so we need to lessen their load. Look no further that Philadelphia, there are on path for record level homicides and an unprecedented crime rate. The whole time the politicians are screaming for new gun control laws, that will fix all the issues. The root of the problem is that the current laws are going unenforced. Police are arresting criminals, only for judges to tap the on the wrist and let them go back to the streets to terrorize more citizens.

    I would love to go “more-in depth” here however, I have a room full of people yelling at me to go to dinner. I’ve enjoyed the debate, and look forward to more discussions. (esabacz.blogspot.com)

    Keith (1b541c)

  124. Richard Haden –

    You are hand-waving, and did not address any of the specific points I raised that rebutted your spiel. You state that you aren’t qualified to interpret the applicable laws, then opine anyway and base your “case” on those faulty interpretations. You do not appear even to have read the legal discussion in the very thread you’ve posted into so late.

    The tactic you just discussed was tried recently and reported widely on the web. That is, a lady placed some of her goods out to be stolen along with a note to please take no more than that. The robbers then took all they could, breaking in to better ransack her house.

    As to your hand-waving on the dead career criminals, how “ancient”, and all that artsy posturing, why did you not simply look up the info? That is, why make an argument that depends on facts that you did not even trouble yourself to learn?

    You actually have consistently done the above since you first began your posts here. You don’t know the applicable laws on the case, you haven’t troubled yourself to learn them, you haven’t apparently even bothered to read the rest of the thread that discussed it. But, did that deter you from hand-wavingly declare the legal situation? No, but it should have.

    There is little point in discussing your positions if you do not defend based on facts and do the research to build your theories and, instead, just excrete handwavium.

    jim2 (282f3e)

  125. Is “Richard Hayden” just a new identity for one of our old favorite thread hijackers, and absurdum posters?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  126. Flag or Banner waving perhaps.
    You asked for specific points of where I believe Horn broke the law…I gave you a few as a token…for what little I know or do not know about statutes or case law is not the point. Any one can read and interpret the statute, “Castle Law” as it is applied in Texas and 14 other odd states. The bigger picture or larger issue is the question a to why “Castle Law” is borrowed from English law in the first place. Perhaps, initially it was to counter potential civil law suits against those who might defend them selves against intruders….I do not know for sure but I do no for sure that it is obvious that it is not a deterrent. Castle law is not the true subject, for any law written in similar spirit would be suspect…be it another in it’s place–“The Mote Law”, “The do not mess with Texas Law” or what ever. There are all ready laws which grant self defense by violent means. You know the ones…And there is common sense that grants it as well–No, Jimmy it is not a cloaked Richard Haden speaking to you as masked appropriator of your string. It is a sincere fellow citizen of the Human Race who finds it disgusting that Homosapien has not yet risen above the dark days of ritualized bloodletting. And it is also disgusting that Thieves still find it in favor to satisfy natural or unnatural needs by pillaging. Your low brow attitude toward quick fixes for society (by promoting legal Murder) are panacea and do not work. (you look that up)(Just do a google search on “Castle law” and read many criminal prosecutors stating the same…And your insistence on detailed understanding of absurd law does nothing but add fog and camouflage your myopic vision toward social improvement. To dwell on the pixels is to not see the jpeg.
    Do you really believe a drug addicted fiend is going to way his chances at survival before embarking on his evening shopping spree? Do you really believe a sexual predator is going to think twice and control his glands in self reflection before acting as predator? If you believe such nonsense you might find friend and kindred spirit up at the Creation Museum http://www.creationmuseum.org/–where groups of missing links apply similar logic to beliefs counter to Darwin. Perhaps those who believe that the dinosaur lived at the same time as man might be a willing audience for your crap and statutes…as I stated earlier, any one has the common sense and common write to defend there life and body from harm by any means at hand; Bat, gun, bow, glass, good beating and so on. In that spirit it means defending personal property in ones own home… as apparent danger would be implied either way-of coarse one would have the same right to self defense. But to kill a burglar who would have got caught, by Police, any way, is still murder. (SIC) Horn did no one a favor. To assume the worst or generalize those two bungling burglars as rapers and child molesters or violent is prejudging as though Divine knowledge were in play. Now that they are dead what else is going to be said but the worse. As far as a detective watching the event take place, well, I read that on another news site. I can not authenticate the source or can I…I will try…oh here it is: A Mr Corbett said…Now comes word from the Pasadena, Texas police. Horn shot the two men in the back and the incident was witnessed by a plainclothes detective.
    From the Houston Chronicle:
    Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn’s house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn’s house and his neighbor’s before they crossed into Horn’s front yard.
    Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present.
    Read rest of story:
    Joe Horn: Shot Burglars in the Back
    Source:
    Joe Horn: Shot Burglars in the Back
    Houston Chronicle
    This is not the exact thing that I read but it may be good enough for you to go farther…
    So if this story is true it may be a case of murder and interfering in police business.
    To kill when not necessary; for the satisfaction of revenge, is Murder; Morally, ethically, legally and so on, no matter how the hastily written the document, in well intentioned statute can be. For you and all to assume that many people do not get over addictions and move on is naive. For you to believe sexual predators do not get over their perversion (without castration)( voluntary castration perhaps) is probably more correct. But that is another issue. Thieves will be thieves and will not easily change, behaviors, unless real intervention is mandated up on incarceration>>prison training programs; prison education or permanent prison for the lost causes.
    As said in another posting–I am perhaps better suited to handle dangerous situations than some. And I realize that those that can not as easily defend themselves have at there discretion the ability and the choice to buy and learn how to use fire arms, as one means to self defense. But what I find irritating is when groups pretend to hide behind convenient politically writ laws for mere constituency satisfaction…it is mere posturing as a way to mask basic vigilantism. For me the Value of human life is what it at stake here. It seems that bankrupt ethics and government coffers are finding it convenient to look the other way… in stead of fulfilling governments contract: to take care of those who can not take care of them selves. Or even to coral and attempt real correction in the prison system for those incapable of self guidence. The ever expanding idea of punishment as determent is so archaic and without provable result.
    I just can not get out of my head a vision of an over weight Joe Horn acting out fantasies of Tom Horn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Horn.
    I was born in the south…kind of…if Kentucky counts. What does birth place have to do with ‘reason’ any way. Territory or circumscribing ones identity to a GPS location seems a sure fire trap toward isolation and territorialization.
    And Yes Keith, Seems we may have some common ground instead of not. Perhaps on the isthmus: a narrow strip of real estate that runs between two bodies of thought… instead of spreading out all the wealth… limit the grotesque amounts of overly concentrated perdition in soul-less market behavior by way of colossal corporate entity. (spread out that wealth) Not all socialized ideas are limp “IMHO”. Well intentioned social experiment in adult and child education is a must do if a “Putsch” is to be replaced by “Fifth Column” commonsense change. Education will certainly alleviate the aneurysm of hatred and despair and lack of choice. Any one who would argue that excess money would not aid in educating the uneducated is like arguing carbon monoxide/dioxide is not ruining the air supply while chain smoking camel non filters in a smoky bar.

    just excrete handwavium. sincerely conscientiously “Modus Vivendi” instead of “Mundus Vult Decipi” http://www.yuni.com/library/latin_4.html

    Richard Waven Haden

    Who knew? Drew had another comment. Or did he? At least an intelligent one.

    Richard Haden (61f6ec)

  127. Richard Haden –

    The age of the criminals? The statute you say he violated? The precise Texas Penal Code words?

    After again avoiding facts and specifics, you posted:

    +++++++++
    “To kill when not necessary; for the satisfaction of revenge, is Murder; Morally, ethically, legally and so on, no matter how the hastily written the document, in well intentioned statute can be.”
    +++++++++

    I am reminded of a scene out of Princess Bride, when Andre the Giant tells the Sicilian guy, after the Sicilian guy declared several sequential things that actually did happen were all “impossible” — “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

    “Murder” does not mean what you think it means.

    You appear to be asserting that your personal view of morality should be an absolute truth, so much so that it should be the law.

    It is not.

    Nor, I submit — and I mean no dis-respect here — is it ever likely to become so if your method is to try to convert all your non-acolytes by the posturing I’ve read here by you so far.

    It may not have been the highest moral act by Joe Horn to shoot the predator criminals instead of letting them escape. But it appears that it was not murder.

    The points that I (and Keith and others) have tried to get you to consider include that it is also not a positive moral act to encourage and let go free predators who injure innocents and who will do so again if you permit them to go free and even prosper, emboldened by their evil success. The crimes of those two men were not victimless crimes.

    jim2 (92c692)

  128. ‘consider… that it is also not a positive moral act to encourage and let go free predators'(?),’who injured innocents’ (here?) (not in this case) ‘and who will do so again if you permit them to go’ (how do you know for sure?)’The crimes of those two men were not victimless crimes’. (Who were the victims?) (and how did the crime deserve the death sentence–being non violent as it was.)

    It takes flag waving and posturing to cause law or change to happen–or movements to begin…First some one has to decide what is write or wrong and then move on to writing change…

    I realize that I am not preaching to the choir here. But compared to other sites that have the Horn incident as Topic, this location seems to be the less absurd—-like other sites that argue in rage using the “N” words. …and some anointed King Barbarian, keper of intolerance. As official word…liberals leave this country to US TEXANS who know what we want attitude…we know how to take care of our…(the same old isolationist rant)(linchen is comen bak-take clases in rope tien)(Sheeit man now we better get the coolers out for this one…)(dust off the rebel fag–whhoops Froodien swip man) Yes, that kind of site exist for every possible social issue.

    If you want me to sympathize with shooting some one in the back you better show me that that dead man as perpetrator was running from his/her rape victim, a murder, an arson, planting a bomb, beating up and robbing the elderly, killing the homeless or any such crime that puts that crime in an elevated status.
    But to “execute” some one, who’s crime non violent), that was about to be apprehended or eventually apprehended is still murder in my mind. And in Horn’s case premeditated. He explained to the 911 what his intention was. His neighbor was not at home (to have been assaulted). The neighbor did not asked Horn to protect his property with lethal force…which is apparently another aspect of a “Castle Law”. That Vietnamese family may not have wanted Horn to kill in there behalf.

    Horn knew that the burglars had not assaulted any one. He knew that they had illegally entered the house (I can only assume that they were in the act of a crime) and not the cable guy. No, he murdered them. He was not in danger and went out of his way to execute the intruders for there bad behavior. As illegal as it was.

    They should have been arrested put in prison–reeducated and released after their time was up; and deported.

    The reason why judges release so many “re-offenders” is because of prison over crowding. And a great percentage of people in that overcrowded prison system are not violent offenders. And a lot of those non violent felons are given excessive sentences….minimum mandatory(s) that swell prison population. For example those inmates convicted of pot crimes or personal drug or alcohol use that voids probation is also causing crisis. As I am sure you have heard–the prison system has become more of a long term way station. In stead of dealing with the issues of “why” people get locked up, we store the problem away–for it to fester and recur like a resurgent cancer.

    California’s three strikes law has created such overcrowding that Mr. Steroid himself is looking to rethink the three strike tactic–to include only violent acts as strikes…

    Drug treatment and job skill training would greatly reduce the re-offending inmate. and if money was reapplied back to those programs-and increased it is obvious to me that positive results would prevail. But then that deprive people like Horn of the opportunity to kill while masking his own issues in stead…what ever they may be…

    There are so many cures out there for societies growing crime problem. One of which has to do with Urban Design. San Francisco dealt with this issue by looking at where was a lot of crime coming from. It was obvious that a great deal of crime was coming from projects like Valencia Gardens. So many studies were conducted and many ideas popped up…someone brought up the notion of “dispersion”(or what ever the term was, I do not remember exactly) What seemed to make sense was to see that isolating a large number of sub poverty line citizens in concentrated areas (in Bunker like projects) was a basic breeding ground for…so the experiment that was adopted was to build smaller affordable rental units mixed in all over the city instead of outside it…they got positive results with that effort. A lot of the relocated welfare recipients felt more included in society and some moved up and out of the welfare system…A couple of more large projects were torn down as a result.

    Their are alternatives to Horn style murder.

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (8afc29)

  129. Richard Haden –

    The bases for statements I made and which you “( )” were in previous posts.

    The men Joe Horn shot made their living by preying on innocents. They had multiple aliases, per the various false IDs found on their bodies. One had been deported before and had returned to continue to commit crimes. There was considerable thought that they were part of a crime ring that targeted new immigrants.

    If you are willing to theorize that their crimes had no victims, then go forth in all good cheer, thou Pollyanna.

    Perhaps Joe Horn’s way was not best, but those two will terrify no more young children, will no longer pose a threat to being chanced upon during their crimes by vulnerable innocents.

    The search for the best is often the enemy of the “good enough”.

    Killing the pair might not have been “best”.

    But the two bad men are dead and will prey upon innocents not again – that’s good enough.

    jim2 (92c692)

  130. And so the tit for tat goes on. The entropy of pent up misanthropy continues to enrage–on all sides.

    Horn’s actions will certainly be yesterdays news. Crime and vigilantism will most spectacularly continue. But not in all neighborhoods of civilized citizenry–where ever that seed of conscience awakening sprouts. and the lack of false desire reify common sense living in this world, with what we have produced–even the unseemly under side of capital’s decomposition…will further isolate those of limited thought…

    The Ideals of the lazy social arm chair critique will never change any thing for the better—I guess that is what some prefer…

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (8afc29)

  131. And so the tit for tat goes on. The entropy of pent up misanthropy continues to enrage–on all sides.
    Horn’s actions will certainly be yesterdays news. Crime and vigilantism will most spectacularly continue. But not in all neighborhoods of civilized citizenry– wherever the seed of conscious awakening sprouts, the lack of false desire produces commonsense living in this world, even in the underside of capital’s decomposition. Those who persist in the illusion will continue to perpetrate violence in a misguided attempt to protect what is “theirs”
    The ideals of the lazy social armchair critique will never change any thing for the better—I guess that is what some prefer…
    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  132. Perhaps I can offer a better version than that last “word salad” example
    And so the tit for tat goes on. The entropy of pent up misanthropy continues to enrage–on all sides.
    Horn’s actions will certainly be yesterdays news. Crime and vigilantism will most spectacularly continue. But not in all neighborhoods of civilized citizenry– wherever the seed of conscious awakening sprouts, the lack of false desire produces commonsense living in this world, even in the underside of capital’s decomposition. Those who persist in the illusion will continue to perpetrate violence in a misguided attempt to protect what is “theirs”.
    The ideals of the lazy social armchair critique will never change any thing for the better—I guess that is what some prefer…

    Richard Haden

    I like the “Pollyanna” character, Jimmy, I see a modern day version, though–updated something like this: I reintroduce Polly Ann with spiked hair, combat boots, armed with taser and paint ball rifle, wired with blue tooth soft ware and a smile…
    Marching as instagator of Ludic display and “Glad games”forever positive and seeking the good nature in all—even the corupted.

    “When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will.”—Abraham Lincoln

    Pollyanniac Haden

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna

    Richard Haden (1be68f)

  133. To who ever is listening,
    Perhaps I can offer a better version than that last bowl of “word salad”. And so the tit for tat goes on. ‘The Entropy of pent up misanthropy continues to enrage’
    Horn’s actions will certainly be yesterdays news. Vigilantism and crime will most spectacularly continue. But not in all N Neighborhoods of “civilized” citizenry–wherever the seed of conscious awakening sprouts, the lack of false desire produces commonsense living in this world– even in the underside of capital’s decomposition. Those who persist in the illusion of “Us versus them” will continue to perpetrate violence in a misguided attempt to protect what is “theirs”.
    Horn’s actions will certainly be yesterdays news. And future Crime and vigilantism will as well. Horn’s actions have outraged and created sympathy for two who did not deserve it. Horn’s actions went beyond a simple execution. His actions symbolize how fat white imperialism seeks to over react to those who depend on or who are stuck in a hierarchical class system. To a greater number of the US “Thinking” population Horn’s actions create tension between those who seek peaceful solutions to societies problems and those who like things the way things are. Those who persist in the illusion of the status qoe, will continue to perpetrate violence in a misguided attempt to protect what is “theirs”.
    The ideals of the lazy social armchair critique will never change any thing for the better—I guess that is what some prefer…Violence begets violence–that keeps Passions flowing?

    Richard Haden

    I like the “Pollyanna” character, Jimmy, I see a modern day version, though–updated something like this: I reintroduce Polly Ann with spiked hair, combat boots, armed with taser and paint ball rifle, wired with blue tooth soft ware and a smile…
    Marching as instagator of Ludic display and “Glad games” forever positive and seeking the good nature in all—even the corupted.

    “When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will.”—Abraham Lincoln

    Pollyanniac Haden
    Richard Haden

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna

    Richard Haden (1be68f)

  134. Joe Horn did the right thing. We have a right to fiht back against the thugs, no matter what color they may be. Many Americans of hispanic origin are also sick of the crime wave that the illegals bring. I am fluent in Spanish, and if all these sympathizers actually knew Spanish they would find out that the some, not all of the people they support insult them on a daily basis, because they are inferior, because they are not de “la Raza”, The Race. Don’t buy it when they make this a racial issue. Mexico has the worst race and caste system of all; The Castillians,(the whites)sangre mezcla,”average Mexican mixed blood and los indios, the indians. When an ex-Mexican friend found out that my girlfriend was Apache, he began to treat her badly and tried to force himself on her. Indians are spit upon and blacks are treated even worse. The average Mexican hates the white Castillian class, but can’t retaliate against them because they rule everything in Mexico. The average Mexican along with a small criminal element come here looking for the chance to make money, and see the whites as the enemy because they consider them to be like the Castillians. My ancestry is German, Irish,Czech, and Otoe Missouri. They all learned how to speak English and no one catered to them. America is E plurbis Unim “out of many one”, not La raza and everyone else.

    ogleska mato (7b29f9)

  135. Texas statutes which seem to justify death in certain theft situations would fail on constitution grounds if challenged. Even applying Texas law, Mr. Horn’s actions are not justified. He killed two rotten burglars in the middle of the day; Texas statues dictate that such force can only be justified at nighttime. Those supporting the actions of Mr. Horn do so out of incurable IGNORANCE.

    JimH (a57a6a)

  136. What constitutional provision obligates a state to imprison or otherwise punish its citizens for anything? Or the federal government for that matter (although there is some implication that it will — for treason, rebellion and insurrection)?

    nk (eeb240)

  137. JimH, first of all, I’d love to see the citation to the Constitution or a S.Ct. decision that supports your bold claim.

    Secondly, I think we’ve discussed the statute, and the most reasonable parsing does not limit the use of force to nighttime, instead the clause about night is just part of one reference to a specific named crime – that of theft at night – rather than modifying the entire statute.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  138. Betcha we see Due Process, SPQR. I’ll wait for his answer before giving him a hint to hunt “where the ducks are”. Not that it will apply to Joe Horn’s case but at least it will not be totally off the wall.

    nk (eeb240)

  139. Maybe, but I’m expecting a quote from the Declaration of Independance or the Preamble…

    SPQR (26be8b)

  140. I give you the same challenge, SPQR, with one hint. No liability on Joe Horn but liability on the police.

    nk (eeb240)

  141. nk, I think you are refering to a sec 1983 action if the police did not prosecute a homicide based on the race of perp or victim?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  142. Ok.

    There was an undercover police officer there watching the whole thing transpire. So what happened to “one Ranger, one riot”? Why didn’t he jump out of his car, whether armed or unarmed, and say, “Put down that gun you stupid fat old man before you destroy several lives including you own”. And to the burglars: “You’re under arrest and I just saved your lives. So don’t move, morons.”

    Section 1983 is good, but I was thinking of anti-lynching laws, which find “state action” in jailers unlocking the jailhouse doors and doing nothing while a mob dragged the prisoner out and hanged him.

    Which still puts no liability on Joe Horn.

    nk (eeb240)

  143. Actually either way no applicability here, as the issue is not the actions but the state law definition of homicide.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  144. Yup. Like I said, I wanted to send JimH to at least a semblance of a constitutional argument. But even that does not exist. The police have no constitutional duty to protect us according to our Permanent Constitutional Convention.

    nk (eeb240)

  145. Richard Haden –

    Do you read what you write? It is all hand-waving. You express your personal opinions, but assert that they are laws or facts but provide no bases for such enshrinement.

    I see no point in discussing this further with you.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  146. Yes, I agree to no further…
    How can you argue with blood thirsty head hunters?

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (2016d4)

  147. Flags are at the top of my mast.

    Do you read what you write? (Yes I do). It is all hand-waving. (Yes, and then some). You express your personal opinions, but assert that they are laws or facts but provide no bases for such enshrinement. (SO what)
    I see no point in discussing this further with you. (OK)
    jim2

    I enjoy hand waving. I find ways of practicing what I preach, though. I have been involved with children from the projects, as well as children from low income or middle income family’s. I have taught children mechanical, woodworking, computer and artistic skills.
    I try to treat my personal beliefs as though they are written law. That is a pretense for a way to reify them from the abstract realm to a real world application. I have seen kids grow up that I have influenced…those kids that became young adults and not young gangsters. I have seen a few of those kids selling crack as well…they always hid in embarrassment when I walked past Valencia gardens or…

    I have facilitated in drug rehabs. And I have seen many drug addicts (once drug fiends) change from thief to productive citizen. I have helped with many political causes, with good intent and I still influence young adults through art and life theories toward “Praxis”. Miami is ripe with opportunities to make change and wave a few flags…I bet there is plenty to do in all of your areas as well.

    Flag waving? perhaps. But what have you done lately MR Jimmy 2 complainer about useless details. What have you done to enact change other than justify useless murder.

    Perhaps I feel a bit superior to your sub moral pedagogy–concerning the value of all human life.

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (2016d4)

  148. Richard Haden,

    You’re welcome to talk about this subject but I urge you not to call other commenters “blood thirsty head hunters.”

    DRJ (517d26)

  149. Ah, blast, DRJ, I was going to add it to my business card.

    SPQR
    Attorney at Law
    Blood Thirsty Head Hunter
    Licensed in XX, XX jurisdictions

    SPQR (26be8b)

  150. It looks a lot better when you capitalize it that way.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  151. Maybe a sans serif font too?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  152. I’d go with color. Maybe red.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  153. Of course not all who defend Horn’s actions are “blood thirsty head hunters” yet a percentage gratefully embrace the “Castle law” for just that reason. It gives some misanthropic patriots a legal justification to kill; a cathartic release of pent up frustration with what ever… Do not assume I meant all posters on this site favoring Horn’s actions are blood thirsty…No, those posters are just wrong–morally and practically (especially, in the sense that vigilantism is a deterrent). I hope the word “Thirsty” is most generally true though, for at least, that may mean some are looking for social change and not barbaric setback…
    For execution, “Texas Style”, is not progressive. And “change” takes place in progressive environments… it sounds ridiculous to argue–hiding behind legal inventions–as to whether some one is justified at executing burglars. (especially when the perpetrators are assigned, outside a court of law, all the ills of modern society). Those involved in this “particular”, non violent act of escape—on there way to the arms of Johnny law…(assuming Johnny law had the balls to do his job) were to be caught…as all should be.

    Head hunters still seems approptiate to me.

    Now, I assume this is not a Harvard law school sight, set up as a Q. and A forum to pass the barr or to debate the fine details of intelligent law. It does not appear that the topics of this string are reserved for non subjective opinion. If it were merely a site to discuss legal issues without emotional subjective comment I would not be here. Since it is a site open to public comment I find it an appropriate place to-call em as I see em. If the topic were an issue of law, such as copy write or real estate law or even subtleties dealing with criminal post arrest sentencing, then that would be another matter. If that were the “case” then the head hunters would be of another sort. Like the head hunters of Corporate slipstreaming.

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (2016d4)

  154. Hmmm, red is good DRJ.

    Maybe on the back of a playing card, sort of a subtle John Wesley Hardin reference?

    So, Richard, to sum up, you still think that name calling – lots and lots of repetitive, droning, namecalling – is debate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  155. How can you debate with those who are looking for loopholes to execute Murder?

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (2016d4)

  156. Another fine example of your strawman and ad hominem style, Richard, albeit less long-winded.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  157. John Wesley Hardin?

    nk (398aa2)

  158. In a nominal sense the red, as in “red blooded” is in essence what flows through us all. It is blood not an abstract concept. It is that thing of life. Symbolically, spilled blood is not always ….spilled “Red” food colored died milk. Spilled illegal alien blood still has in essence that same nominalistic element shared by all of us and animals. So if we are going to spill it–there better well be a worthy purpose. At least in a historical or teleological sense a “what for” What is the end desired. If it is justifiable to spill that red blood in self defense or for the advancement of a real defensive war effort— we all share in the act of that action as conspirators (active or passive) in a sense, by the proclamation of approval, either in oral written or silence form. (in silence well?) Looks like in this case it was spilled while escaping blood.

    THE LATEST IN THE POLICE PROBE OF THE DEADLY SHOOTING IN PASADENA!

    This is the latest information from the Pasadena Police Department. It addresses how the two burglary suspects were taken down by concerned neighbor Joe Horn last month. Here’s the information The Insite received:

    THE PRELIMINARY AUTOPSY REPORT SHOWS THAT THE WOUNDS TO THE FRONT OF THE 2 VICTIMS WERE ACTUALLY EXIT WOUNDS. THE 2 SUSPECTS WERE SHOT IN THE CHEST AND LOWER FRONTAL (ABDOMEN AREA). ORIGINALLY DETECTIVES AT THE SCENE THOUGHT THE WOUNDS WERE ENTRY WOUNDS. WE HAVE NOW LEARNED THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY AUTOPSY REPORT THAT THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS TO THE FRONT OF THE MEN WERE EXIT WOUNDS. WHICH MEANS THAT THE 2 SUSPECTS MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT IN THE BACK.

    There is more to this case than meets the eye.

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (2016d4)

  159. We knew that, Richard.

    DRJ (517d26)

  160. Mr. Haden: I hope you are enjoying the banter; you are otherwise wasting your time. You make intelligent comments, and get grossly IGNORANT responses. I retired as a detective lieutenant from a major police agency and have been in the practice of law for 16 years. The arguments that I read in support of Mr. Horn are not unlike the ramblings I have experience when working with true criminals. Their arguments just make no sense, and when you attempt to explain intelligently their response is along the lines of name calling or a major shift in the subject being discussed. Good luck!

    JimH (ee542d)

  161. Jim H –

    Ah, yes. You waved your hands a few times above, the last being #136. However, when rebutted two posts later, you were apparently unable to offer any sort of refutation until now, when 23 posts later you wave your hands again.

    Goodness, if only you and Richard Haden had feathers on your arms, the heights you would have attained!

    jim2 (6482d8)

  162. I don’t care if he shot them in the back. No one will miss them. Viewing the welfare of society as a whole, the plain fact is Joe Horn did humanity a favor by killing them. No property is worth human life, true, but you also have to consider the positive or negative value of that human life to society as a whole. They were criminals, they had a net negative value to society. Therefore, other human lives are best benefited by them being dead. They forfeited their right to life the moment they engaged in illegal activity. Good riddance.

    Mary (3cad99)

  163. Therefore, other human lives are best benefited by them being dead. They forfeited their right to life the moment they engaged in illegal activity. Good riddance

    So if one of your loved ones shoplifts from my establishment you have no qualms with me killing them because it would be a net benefit to society.
    Or perhaps allow police officers the authority to execute you the next time you break the law by speeding?

    Think about what you are saying….

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  164. Jimmy two and entourage,

    ‘Goodness, if only you and Richard Haden had feathers on your arms, the heights you would have attained!’

    Reactionist gesturing?
    Adj. 1. reactionist – extremely conservative
    far-right, reactionary
    right – of or belonging to the political or intellectual right.

    If Icarus is who you have in mind concerning the attributes of avian plumage. I would then say that, engaging an ancient story of imprisonment and repression in perceived character of King Minos (JIM 2) is quite apropo and relevant to my sense of your argument. As Icarus’s father warned his son not to fly to close to the sun. Icarus drunk with sublime freedom lost track through over aesthetic reflection and fell back to the status quoe. King Jim the second and his quantity of side kicks (represented in one form as–Minotaur) are ever so happy to welcome back and re-peat the “same old”, as warning to those who would try and relocate the “Labyrinth”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

    I still like the non reactionist, updated version of Polly Anna, with the “Glad Games” and all. Perhaps a merging of Polly Anna with Barbarella (who is tasked with finding and stopping the evil Durand-Durand), Mother Teresa on steroids, Simone De Beauvoir, Kasturba Gandhi (Ba) Wife on steroids, Margarete Thatcher for meanness, Susan B Anthony for persistence, with a “Fright Wig” and many other positive charactors thrown in for added spice. http://lkwdpl.org/wihohio/figures.htm

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  165. King Jim the second
    Maybe you might prefer an Anti-reactionary reference to “Sisyphus” who was condemned to roll a huge boulder up a mountain for eternity….Instead, as he became enlightened and progressive in Spirit, or rather “Pollyannic” in “positivism’s” spirit–he found that he had reached the top of that utopic, “Tatlin Tower” to let go, side step, and watch it roll back down to crush the archaic, dangerous ‘Texas Castle Tower’ below.

    “D’oh” said Homer…[not that Homer;Homer, (Homer Simpson) Jimmy], the boulder accidentally rolled over a couple of escapeing convicts—bad, bad, boy, Oi Oi, ah o, Old Sisyphus.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatlin's_Tower
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Simpson

    Just in case you want to look any thing up…

    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (4de85b)

  166. I was looking for an update on Mr. Horn. This is the first time I’ve seen this blog, but I have noted several typically liberal comments about the “poor illegals” who were shot.

    Call it “incurable ignorance” or whatever you want, but the fact remains: The ba$tard$ are DEAD! And good riddance.

    End of discussion.

    Ed (b65065)

  167. It looks like Mary (163) and Ed (167)state with clarity the true feelings of those who argue the “proper” actions of Mr. Horn. This is the true logic of redneck thinking; it follows that until 1972 Texas statutes permitted a Husband to kill any man caught with his Wife. However, of course, the Wife had no such right. This was another Texas statute that failed when challenged, like this “kill the thief” statute will do when challenged.

    JimH (cb3459)

  168. Looks like another version of Ed Norton showed up. I think I like the “Honey Mooner’s” version better. At least that Ed worked in the sewer and was knee deep in crap–not speaking it.
    I think it is time to move on.

    Thanks for reading my rants–Everyone.

    Richard Haden
    richard_haden@yahoo.com

    Richard Haden (4ab2bf)

  169. Yes Jim (168), but in this case, we’ll let the women shoot the theives too, so there’s no sexual discrimination.

    Please state what Constitutional challenge will topple 9.42 and 9.43… This should be good.

    Sam (d671ab)

  170. To Sam, Jim2, and all others who believe Mr. Horn is free from liability. I will explain why you are wrong and cite applicable law; when you respond, try to do so by showing the wrongness of my citations and try to avoid personal attack. Each document I quote will have been CUT and PASTED from their source. These are not my opinions, they are statements of fact.
    nighttime from escaping with the
    property; and
    WHAT HAPPENED: In the middle of the day Joe Horn saw two burglars steel from his neighbor and attempt to escape. He thought they were black. He called the police and was told to stay in his house. From a room upstairs in his home, he told the police he was going to shoot the two. Despite being told repeatedly not to go outside, he went out and shot two thieves in the back.

    A careful reading of Texas statutes, 9.42, and subsequent, will show that for the defense to apply the conduct had to take place in the nighttime. Mr.Horn shot two people in the middle of the day. This is State Law:

    § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
    justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
    tangible, movable property:
    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the
    other under Section 9.41; and
    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
    deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of
    arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
    nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
    immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
    robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
    property; and
    (3) he reasonably believes that:
    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or
    recovered by any other means; or
    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to
    protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
    another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    If that is not clear enough, this comes from the supreme law of Texas, their Constitution:

    The Self Defense Laws Of Texas

    The Texas Constitution
    Article 1 – BILL OF RIGHTS
    Section 23 – RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

    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.”
    “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.)” SEE FOR YOUR SELF

    http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

    There is no ambiguity here, but when there is we look to the intent of the writer for clarity. Senator Wentworth wrote the Texas law at issue. Here is what he said of Mr. Horn’s action:

    Was the castle law designed to cover those circumstances?
    No, said the law’s author, state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio.
    “You’re supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle,” he said – but not your neighbor’s.

    The above comes from an article in The Dallas Morning News — myoung@dallasnews.com

    From the same article former Dallas County prosecutor Toby Shook gave this example: “You hear someone stealing something off your front porch. You come out there with a gun, and they’re running off. It’s NIGHTTIME. The law in Texas allows you to shoot them,” said former Dallas County prosecutor Toby Shook.

    I have great sympathy for Mr. Horn; he was misguided by poorly drafted legislation passed for political purposes. Why he has he not yet been prosecuted? The State is very nervous. They realize when it hits the fan, the State will be sued along with Mr. Horn. Why haven’t we heard from Mr. Horn? He is in seclusion suffering greatly from mental stress. His life and the life of his family has been changed for ever, and not in a favorable way.

    I feel strongly that each of these recently passed Texas statutes will be the subject of action under
    42 USC 1983; Texas will lose that law suit.

    JimH (fc3fef)

  171. JimH –

    Many times the one who prepares a draft has the final product turn out differently, so I would immediately discount the Wentworth words even if they were not irrelevant, as they truly are in law.

    Secondly, I urge you to review the previous threads on this site concerning Joe Horn and those statutes. You are far from the first to offer your argument. The phrase “during the nighttime” modifies only each immediate antecedent, and not the other crimes. For example, damage from arson cares not if it is night or day; once done, it may not be possible to be undone.

    Consider that burglary and theft are different crimes, in that burglary requires house invasion and theft does not require that, nor does criminal mischief (robbery could be either). Hence, no nighttime qualification on arson and burglary (and robbery).

    These above aspects and the grammar analyses of them have been discussed and analyzed many times on this and other boards. In fact, I initially interpreted them as you have offered, as you will see in an earlier post by moi on this site. I was mistaken and admitted that in later posts.

    The consensus everywhere I’ve read of folk with legal stature is that the nighttime restriction applies legally and by grammar only to the crimes the phrase is attached to. Otherwise, for example, there would be no need to have it there twice in that series.

    I do not care to re-re-re-argue this point, however, and am merely making some modest attempt to re-re-re-summarize what many others have said above and elsewhere. Go read.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  172. To Jim H (171),

    There’s no need for me to restate Jim2’s response, as that’s as close to my opinion as I’ve seen.

    (Although I disagree with your argument, it was made very well.)

    Sam (d671ab)

  173. Jim H, your analysis of the statute is plainly incorrect with respect to the issue of nighttime, as your own quotation shows the crime of burglary is not so modified.

    Further your comment about Wentworth claiming that the statute was not intended to permit one to defend other people’s property is just meaningless as Texas statutes explicitly do allow it. Read all of 9.41, 9.42 and 9.43.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  174. Come on! Your comment that: Consider that burglary and theft are different crimes, in that burglary requires house invasion and theft does not require that, nor does criminal mischief (robbery could be either). Hence, no nighttime qualification on arson and burglary (and robbery).

    Do you really believe that these two dead idiots were not committing theft; and you must be aware that burglary almost always includes theft.

    Finally, the State Constitution tells us: “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.”

    Note that in the constitution the word “or” is not used; and, of course, if there is an ambiguity, the constitution prevails. Do you really believe that the plain meaning of the above means that nighttime is not an issue in any theft.

    JimH (0c4b73)

  175. JimH,

    Based on your last comment, I have to assume you think there is no right in Texas to use deadly force to stop arson if it occurs during the day. Is that correct?

    DRJ (517d26)

  176. MY GOD, how ignorant can you be? We are all ignorant in some areas. We remain ignorant when we refuse to open our eyes to the obvious. Many choose to remain ignorant.

    JimH (0c4b73)

  177. By the way, JimH, I don’t think the deadly force provision is in the Texas Constitution. It’s a statute.

    DRJ (517d26)

  178. I may be ignorant, JimH, but this is your chance to educate me. Can you please answer my question?

    DRJ (517d26)

  179. JimH, you keep wanting to repeat the untenable view that the nighttime modifier modifies all circumstances. But you’ve no real argument for that except repetition.

    Also, I’m surprised that you don’t seem to realize that burglary and theft are different crimes with different elements. Claiming that burglars are stealing something so the references to theft apply is just plainly not rooted in criminal law. Burglary is a specific crime originating in common law and usually its definition does not actually require a theft. Theft is a distinct crime.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  180. So you are saying that these two idiots were not committing a theft?

    JimH (0c4b73)

  181. JimH, I’m saying you like to keep using the word ignorant when it is plain that you are not really in command of the concepts being discussed here.

    Arguably, they were committing a burglary – and if so, it appears the statute permits deadly force against them regardless of the time of day. That they may also have been committing theft does not itself give them immunity from deadly force that they were subject to because of the burglary.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  182. Note JimH’s personal claims in #161.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  183. jim2, yes well frankly that was hard to believe after he confused statutes with Constitution in #75.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  184. SPQR –

    I was willing to let that one slide as an excited pounding on the keyboard to quickly get a post out. The burglary versus theft business, however, is an item of substance that I cannot reconcile with #161.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  185. Finally I understand your argument! It is grammar and definition of theft vis-a-vis burglary. Under Texas law:

    § 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
    without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
    (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or
    attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.

    If you are saying that the dead dudes did not commit a theft, then I give up attempting to convince you on that issue. If you are saying that the plain meaning of the statute and constitutional provisions fail because of grammar, I give up on that issue.

    Are you saying they did not commit a theft?

    DRJ: As I explained prior, I cut and pasted the constitutional verbiage into the text of my message. You can find it if you look.

    JimH (0c4b73)

  186. JimH, I’m saying that the theft is irrelevant. And I’m saying that the plain meaning of the statute is that only certain crimes are modified by the “nighttime” requirement and burglary isn’t one of them.

    You did not cut and paste any “constitutional verbiage”, Jim H. You’ve cut and pasted statutory language and evidently you don’t understand her point – which is key to our belief that you don’t understand the language at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  187. You are not going to answer the question:

    ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE CROOKS DID NOT COMMIT A THEFT?

    Here is the site for the Texas constitutional verbiage. Please don’t stop reading after the first line. The language is the same as the statute.

    http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

    JimH (0c4b73)

  188. JimH, I have answered your question. I’m saying that it does not matter. The issue is what the Texas Penal Code says about the use of force for stopping the commission or escape from a burglary. What can’t you understand about that?

    Secondly, you keep linking to that page but it is not the Texas Constitution. It is a page of excerpts from the Texas Constitution and the Texas Penal Code. It only quotes one sentence from the Texas Constitution. Then it quotes statutory language. Right after the first line where it has the header “Self Defense Statutes “. Please learn to read your own links.

    Especially before calling other people ignorant.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  189. Why does JimH remind me so much of Phil?

    Yes JimH, the crooks committed a THEFT NOT IN THE NIGHTTIME. They also committed a burglary of a residence. Did the THEFT NOT IN THE NIGHTTIME grant them immunity from being shot while escaping with the proceeds of the burglary?

    BTW, guys, there is no way JimH was ever a police lieutenant or lawyer.

    nk (398aa2)

  190. Sadly, nk, it is also obvious that JimH never took the suggestion made 40 days ago and actually read his own sole link.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  191. JimH –

    Are you saying the two men did not commit burglary?

    Per the very statute you just posted, the crime of burglary can include within it theft if it were from “a building or habitation”.

    If a misdemeanor were stealing, say, 50 dollars or less and a felony were stealing more than 50 dollars, and a person stole 300 dollars, would you ask if the man had not stolen 50 dollars? And, as such, his crime was a misdemeanor?

    jim2 (baee46)

  192. Heh! Using JimH’s unique logic, Joe Horn could not possibly be liable for the burglars’ deaths, in any case, since they died from purely natural causes — their hearts stopped beating.

    nk (398aa2)

  193. JimH,

    I understand you cut and pasted from your link. The top of the link has a Texas Constitution provision but the remaining quotes – including the one you provided – are from Texas statutes. It’s a minor difference for these purposes but the language you quote isn’t in the Constitution.

    The main point is that you are not reading the language you quote with sufficient rigor. Legal terminology is precise and difficult for everyone, including lawyers, to master. There may be dozens of cases from many courts interpreting just a few terms or provisions. I’m not certain how the Texas courts interpret the provision you cite but I believe the nighttime limitation is not as universal as you suggest.

    DRJ (88b2c0)

  194. Thank you for your responses. I have done a bit more research and reviewed several articles concerning Mr. Horn’s actions. Of the ones that discuss “nighttime” and Joe Horn, ALL agree that the nighttime requirement is an issue, and because Joe Horn killed during the day, the Defense statutes do not protect Mr. Horn. Google Joe Horn and nighttime if you have doubt.

    Not one article suggests that the statutes could in any manner make a distinction between burglary and theft; the crimes are the same for purpose of application to these statutes. The distinction seems to be a creation of jim2 and no others. If any authority suggests this argument, please tell me what that authority is. They all seem to attach the plain meaning of the verbiage in the statutes.

    Finally, not even Mr. Horn’s attorney asserts the statutory defense. He states that Mr. Horn shot in self defense because he was in fear for HIS safety. That defense, too, will fail. He shot these two idiots in the back after being told by the police to stay in the house. The facts simply do not support his having a reasonable fear for his safety.

    Please show me any authority that agrees with your position.

    nk is simply ignorant; he has no argument so he resorts to statements like this:

    Heh! Using JimH’s unique logic, Joe Horn could not possibly be liable for the burglars’ deaths, in any case, since they died from purely natural causes — their hearts stopped beating.

    Not an intelligent response.

    JimH (0c4b73)

  195. The police do not have the right to order anyone to stay in their house under such circumstances. That was a dispatcher “advising”, not a cop ordering.

    And any lawyer who would choose to go after Joe Horn is the same POS who would make excuses for the two illegal alien criminal scum.

    martin (f61c6a)

  196. HEY JIM H,
    …among other voices “or” victims of reason, In that roman lion Pitt of vigilantism, I commend your tenacity amongst bent string surfers– I would like you to check out this link called “Property is theft”. It is a good read for anyone who likes to argue philosophically about law theory; This link does not actually search for loop holes– Loop holes for murder, that too many people lately find as sporting pleasure. Included in this link is far left thinking with grains of truth content. Got to “Digger” it–“Property is theft” it is about real and personal property as applicable to social alienation; as is the argument and applicable Praxis to the extreme…. at the bottom of the Wikipedia article is another link for “Libertarian social thought”

    Property is theft! (French: La propriété, c’est le vol!) is a slogan coined by French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.

    The link to this site is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft
    ______________________________________________________
    Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies – a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[1]

    this link is here and at the bottom of the first link I provided.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

    I just thought I would share alternative theories to property in general.

    Almost out of here
    Richard Haden

    Richard Haden (e3fdf1)

  197. JimH,

    I don’t have much time right now but the common law nighttime requirement has been eliminated in most jurisdictions for felony crimes such as burglary, arson, etc, but it has been retained in misdemeanor cases like theft and criminal mischief.

    Here’s a FindLaw link to the California case that discusses how modern statutes have changed the common law rules. FindLaw requires registration and I don’t know if the link will work for you, but if not the link is to People v. Gauze, 15 Cal.3d 709, [Crim. No. 18482. Supreme Court of California. December 12, 1975]. Here is a portion of the opinion that discusses how statutes have changed the common law rule in California:

    “California codified the law of burglary in 1850. (Stats. 1850, ch. 99, § 58, p. 235.) That statute and subsequent revisions and amendments preserved the spirit of the common law, while making two major changes. First, the statute greatly expanded the type of buildings protected by burglary sanctions. Not only is a person’s home his castle under the statute, but so, inter alia, are his shop, tent, airplane, and outhouse. (See fn. 1, ante.) This evolution, combined with elimination of the requirement that the crime be committed at night, signifies that the law is no longer limited to safeguarding occupancy rights.”

    In addition, here’s a link to an excerpt from a Criminal Law textbook that agrees modern criminal statutes have altered the common law rule to eliminate the nighttime requirement (page 7):

    “Under common law, burglary was defined as the breaking and entering of a dwelling during the nighttime. State legislatures, in contrast, generally have defined burglary as occurring at anytime. They have extended it to apply to structures beyond dwellings and even to automobiles.”

    I’ll try to find something on Texas law when I have time but I doubt I will have time tonight.

    DRJ (517d26)

  198. DRJ — Good intelligent response. Some states go so far as to call breaking into an interior room, ie a closet, within the house already entered, is a second count of burglary. A person putting an ATM card into its slot at the bank with intent to obtain cash of another is burglary, according to some states. One more that comes to mind: An armed robber was convicted of burglar (and robbery) for entering an enclosed area of a store which was no more than four feet in height (he jumped over the counter) and stealing from within this partitioned area within the store. You are so right, states have deviated greatly from the common law.

    JimH (0c4b73)

  199. That’s fascinating, JimH. Isn’t law an interesting thing?

    DRJ (517d26)

  200. We have missed the point!!

    The statutes we have discussed are irrelevant. I, and the media, have made much of Texas law as it relates to defense of another persons property. The night or day distinction is a non issue. Mr. Horn’s attorney has no intent on trying to excuse his client’s conduct based on the discussed statutes. He has apparently already realized they do not protect his client. Instead, he plans on asserting a straight plea of self defense. The following was taken from one of many articles which quote the attorney:

    Horn’s attorney, Tom Lambright, said his client opened fire in self-defense.

    “I think he did what he legally had the right to do,” Lambright said. “He defended himself.”

    Lambright said that the two men were in Horn’s yard when his client shot them. “He said they lunged, he thought, at him,” Lambright said.

    So we have only one issue: Was Mr. Horn in reasonable fear that his personal safety was immediately threatened to an extent that he was required to use deadly force to protect himself?

    I am sure there will be people who will argue in the affirmative. However, I cannot see how a man who is upstairs in his house, tells the police dispatcher that he is going outside to shoot the idiots, and goes outside and shoots them in the back can reasonably assert self defense.

    JimH (d1fab9)

  201. DRJ, it has been a pleasure; it is so refreshing to engage in adult conversation. Thank you for the reference suggestions. I have used “FindLaw” on a few dozen occasions as well as many similar web sources available.

    Most states now define burglary without referring to nighttime as an element. Many do use the nighttime element as a method of labeling the crime as first or second degree, or as an enhancement in the penalty phase.

    JimH (d1fab9)

  202. Mr. Haden,

    I have read the links you provided re: “Property is Theft” and related matters. That is fascinating and heavy in the extreme; it also explains a lot of today’s philosophies. Thank you.

    JimH (d1fab9)

  203. JimH –

    In your #201, you are quoting a newspaper reporter’s version of what a lawyer supposedly said verbally in response to questions on possible charges not yet filed in a case that did not yet exist.

    Just how binding do you consider that to be?

    Can you provide a source or link to any document filed with a Court by Joe Horn or his counsel in response to charges?

    jim2 (a9ab88)

  204. JimH, I still find it fascinating that you don’t understand that theft and burglary are different crimes. Comparison of the elements would give a hint as to why. The key element is that of breaking into a building, itself an act that has always been seen as what increases the danger of the crime.

    Further, you have a habit Jim H of forgetting things you’ve written in this thread, above in #186 you quoted a definition of burglary for Texas which includes the elements.

    It does not matter what Horn’s attorney has said about self-defense, that does not prevent Horn from also claiming the benefit of the use of force statute with respect to burglary – they are not inconsistent defenses. But if there is no indictment, the question of the exact defense is moot.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  205. “Hopeless” comes to mind; I agree he is not now precluded from asserting any defense. It is just that he has only mentioned self-defense. If the attorney believes Mr. Horn is protected by Section 94.1 et.seq. I cannot imagine why he has not said so. I feel that he recognizes it would be futile.

    jim2 – What a ridiculous question: Can you provide a source or link to any document filed with a Court by Joe Horn or his counsel in response to charges?

    Of course not; no case has been filed to elicit a response. Are you suggesting the writer of the article I quoted lied about Mr. Lambright’s statement. If he did, he lied like the writers of many other articles which quote the attorney who spoke solely of self-defense.

    The burglary v. theft issue: too absurd to further discuss. The plain meaning of the statutes is that each of the stated crimes, including theft and burglary, are inclusive and protect Mr. Horn only if the crimes occurred at nighttime.

    You show me anyone who has made your argument that theft and burglar are not used in the same manner for these purposes. You have plucked a very tenuous argument from the air which you, and you alone, base on grammar.

    SPQR — I totally do not get your point when you say I quoted the elements of burglary in 186; I did. I cut and pasted right out of the Texas Penal Code.

    It would be great if Mr. Lambright would assert the deadly force justification as described in Sections 94.1 – 94.3 as a defense. I feel, as it appears he feels, he would be torn apart by the opposition. Every article I have read that discusses the defense as it relates to daylight v. nighttime has concluded that the statutes do not work for Mr. Horn.

    JimH (d1fab9)

  206. JimH –

    No, it was not a ridiculous question because you have asserted that you are a lawyer of 16 years experience after a career as a police lieutenant yet drew a conclusion from a newspaper story as to a lawyer’s defense strategy to charges still not filed.

    “Mr. Horn’s attorney has no intent on trying to excuse his client’s conduct based on the discussed statutes.”

    If there is something ridiculous there – and likely there is – it is not my question.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  207. JimH, it is amusing that you think the burglary v. theft issue is “too absurd to discuss”. What is absurd is your failure to see that these are two distinct crimes. And that they have distinct elements and that they are treated differently in the use of force statute. You seem puzzled by your own arguments – after spending so much time claiming that the modification of “theft” with nighttime also affected the distinct crime of burglary that is not so modified. You wander around with definitions of burglary from other states after having the Texas definition in front of you. Very strange.

    You claim in one breath that my claim is just “based on grammar” but yours is based on nothing but your own version of grammar. A version of grammar that seems to rely on your poor understanding of criminal law and a weird reading of the structure of the statute.

    If you have a Texas court decision that claims that the use of force statute only applies in nighttime for all purposes, then feel free to cite to it. I’d enjoy reading it. Until then, vague assertions about everything you’ve read outside of the statutes themselves fail to impress.

    Horn’s attorney’s public statements are obviously not legal arguments and are not intended to be. Of course Horn’s attorney would make public statements designed to elicit the most public support, not the best technical legal argument.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  208. jim2 are you a twin to SPQR, or do you use two screen names. One to present an argument and the other to give support to yourself. Both follow the same illogical lines with the same illogical conclusions. Until you come forward with something documented to support your conclusions, nothing can be accomplished by our discussions.

    JimH (d1fab9)

  209. JimH –

    I am not SPQR and I doubt you’re a lawyer. If you are, I recommend that you never act in your own defense.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  210. JimH, your demand for documentation seems a standard you apply only to others.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  211. The plain meaning of the statutes is that each of the stated crimes, including theft and burglary, are inclusive and protect Mr. Horn only if the crimes occurred at nighttime.

    Forget him, guys (and you too, DRJ). He’s not worth responding to. Unless you enjoy playing with him like a cat playing with a ball of string.

    He’s no lawyer and no ex-police lieutenant. He’s a loon with nothing better to do. Why not go down to the street corner and start a discussion with the panhandler hawking StreetWise? That goes for Joe Haden too.

    nk (398aa2)

  212. To JimH (206)

    Per your statement: “The plain meaning of the statutes is that each of the stated crimes, including theft and burglary, are inclusive and protect Mr. Horn only if the crimes occurred at nighttime.”

    Would you agree if the facts as we know them were the same, except with the addition of the nighttime element, Mr. Horn would then face no criminal liability?

    Sam (d671ab)

  213. I am very curious. Are SPQR and jim2 sitting in each others lap. One sends a message then the other follows within a minute or two. Let the second person just say, “yeah, me too.” (Do you suppose Harvard would return my tuition?)

    Sam — I would agree that under the Texas statute and constitution Mr. Horn would be protected if the incident occurred at nighttime.

    I should be paying to have this much fun!

    JimH (d70ad9)

  214. JimH –

    I am amused that you suspect cabal or sockpuppetry when more than one person points out your errors.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  215. JimH, indeed you should demand your tuition back.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  216. 215 plus 216 == Mutt and Jeff, the Bobsy Twins, Frick and Frack, Ollie and Stan; really, how close are you two? Do you date, live together, going steady, work in the same place where there is only one computer? I’m really curious – “more than one person points out (my) errors.” I think there is only one person with two names. Since you are joined at the hip, why not just send one message and both (if there are two) sign. You certainly do not have independent thoughts. Even you syntax is identical.

    JimH (d70ad9)

  217. JimH,

    You may not know this but Patterico takes sockpuppetry (comments left by one person posting under different names) very seriously. If you believe a commenter is a sockpuppet, you should immediately email Patterico with your concerns along with specific reasons, examples and links. His email address is on the side bar.

    In the meantime, I think you should be careful about making sockpuppet allegations without proof.

    DRJ (517d26)

  218. To JimH (214)

    “Sam — I would agree that under the Texas statute and constitution Mr. Horn would be protected if the incident occurred at nighttime.”

    I suppose it would follow then, if you believed 9.42/9.43 applied to burglaries during the daylight, Mr. Horn would be protected.

    Is it also your belief that all crimes mentioned in 9.42 must be committed during the night to avail yourself of the justification defense? (Arson, Burglary, Robbery and Aggravated Robbery)

    If so, you must also believe DF would be unjustified under 9.42 to stop someone from say, pouring gasoline on your house and igniting it, unless it occurred at night? Is this correct?

    Sam (d671ab)

  219. JimH, actually I think your comment reveals that you are not paying attention. Jim2 and I actually have made different points, we don’t share syntax and we are not the same commentor. So how are you doing on finding a Texas court that interprets the self defense statutes as you claim?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  220. You still have not told me how you two are related? It’s ok, Iam just curious .

    Have you found a Texas case that supports your position? Will you be jim2 on your next message?

    JimH (d70ad9)

  221. JimH, I’ve found Texas cases that apply the statute to use of force for burglary without any analysis of what time of day it is.

    And the attorney writing an article for this very topic in the Texas Prosecutors’ journal agrees with me. Sept-Oct 2006 issue of The Texas Prosecutor pp 14-15 written by David C. Newell, Asst County Attorney.

    http://www.tdcaa.com/files/newsletter/SO06Prosecutor.pdf

    SPQR (26be8b)

  222. However, I cannot see how a man who is upstairs in his house, tells the police dispatcher that he is going outside to shoot the idiots, and goes outside and shoots them in the back can reasonably assert self defense.

    BECAUSE IT’S MY BY GOD FRONT YARD AND I’LL BE DAMNED IF ANY CRIMINAL IS GONNA KEEP ME FROM ENJOYING. AND IF THEY TRY I WILL PUT A .40 HOLE IN THEM. AND GUESS WHAT? HERE IN DALLAS TEXAS I WONT BE PROSECUTED. WHAT IS YOUR DEAL IN THIS? WHEN THE CITIZENRY RETREAT FROM CRIMINALS SOCIETY DECAYS JUST A BIT MORE AND CRIMINALS JUST GET MORE BRAZEN. THIS KIND OF ACTION HELPS ALL US. IT LETS THE SCUM KNOW WE WONT ALLOW THEM TO RUN FREE.

    Now if your just being contrary and trying to play devil’s advocate you’ve taken it to far. The citizenry hasnt taken up arms and started forming vigilante mobs, but if they did would it be so bad? Take a long look at whats happening in Great Britain where the scum arent scared at all of those they victimize.

    chas (fb7ad4)

  223. Participate in any lynchings lately? How’s the clan doing now days?

    JimH (d70ad9)

  224. Second twin, SPQR, that propaganda is 44 pages; I am not about to read that drivel. Cut and past the parts to which you allude.

    JimH (d70ad9)

  225. JimH, I gave you a page cite. Meanwhile, your cheap namecalling has gone on far enough, and your continued allegations of sockpuppetry without any basis too.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  226. JimH,

    I encourage you to focus on the message and not the messengers. I gave you a method to complain to Patterico so, at this point, I can only assume you are trying to provoke other commenters.

    SPQR’s link is excellent and the article begins on page 14. You should be able to reach page 14 by using the page prompts at the bottom of your screen. It is written by a Texas assistant county attorney for The Texas Prosecutor, the Official Journal of the Texas District & County Attorneys Association. The article specifically notes that the nighttime requirement applies to theft and criminal mischief. See the right-hand column on page 15 subtitled “Night Falls on the Penal Code.”

    DRJ (517d26)

  227. SPQR/jim2; come on, what is the relation between you two? I said it does not matter, I am just curious.

    The reference you gave says exactly what I have argued. The offense has to occur in the NIGHTTIME.
    That is what the article to which you refer says; the writer is correct. If there is something different, please cut and paste it for me.

    JimH (d70ad9)

  228. SPQR and Jim2,

    It’s your choice but I suggest you refrain from further comments on this thread until Patterico is available, which will probably be sometime this evening or tomorrow.

    DRJ (517d26)

  229. DRJ, as always I defer to your good judgment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  230. DRJ –

    Fair enough. I’ll be heading out for the weekend in a few minutes anyway and will be AFK until late (ET) Sunday night. If JimH can’t be bothered to read page 15 of a provided link, he’s just a troll.

    jim2 (baee46)

  231. DRJ – I do not allege sockpuppet stuff; I don’t know. I feel that being double teamed is unethical. It is very suspicious how the two follow each other within two to three minutes with the same theme.

    Why doesn’t one of them simply answer the question; what is their relationship? If there is none, say so. The evidence that they are in collusion is very strong and deserves an explanation.

    JimH (d70ad9)

  232. Did jim2 call me a troll? Shame! That is very immature and not the kind of conduct I would expect on this site.

    JimH (d70ad9)

  233. Yawl don’t have to tell on me. I be good. I’m done here; good bye and good luck to all.

    JimH (d70ad9)

  234. Participate in any lynchings lately? How’s the clan doing now days?

    Because anyone who thinks we have an obligation to not let criminals run rampant in our towns can only be a racist. You act if ole’ Joe has been champing at the bit for 70 years to kill someone and was wetting his pants at the chance. Why are you so invested in him being prosecuted? Those guys were robbing his neighbor, its not like he killed innocent choirboys. Whats the big push to make a criminal career risk-free? They can go to England if they want that. Over here, Texas especially its a high-risk occupation.

    chas (fb7ad4)

  235. chas

    You said: BECAUSE IT’S MY BY GOD FRONT YARD AND I’LL BE DAMNED IF ANY CRIMINAL IS GONNA KEEP ME FROM ENJOYING. AND IF THEY TRY I WILL PUT A .40 HOLE IN THEM. AND GUESS WHAT? HERE IN DALLAS TEXAS I WONT BE PROSECUTED.

    When I read that, I had a picture flashed in my mind of a white supremest group in sheets taking out a minority and executing him. Remember the KKK never lynched anyone for no reason. Black children did horrible things like look at a white woman or talk back to a white man. Your assertion that in Dallas you would not be prosecuted was the icing on the cake. That is exactly what happened to lynch mobs of those times, nothing.

    I have a few questions to all of you who support Mr. Horn’s conduct.

    If the two persons killed by Mr. Horn had been 17 year old runaway white blond girls, would Mr. Horn have shot them in the back?

    What if one of the two actually lived there but Mr. Horn did not recognize her; and, she had broken in to steal food.

    Suppose a black man entered your front yard, grabbed a chicken and began to run away. Kill him? What if the day before a white supremest group had burned down his house and he stole the chicken to feed his family. The death penalty?

    JimH (af3e72)

  236. What if JimH’s grandmother had wheels? Would she have been a shopping cart?

    nk (12118a)

  237. NK has the right idea. I think JimH is a troll. Please stop feeding him.

    DRJ (517d26)

  238. My God, attacking my sainted Grandmother and referring to me, again, as a troll. I am so hurt.

    Now, dare you answer the hypothetical questions? It will give all who read your answers a better picture of your true feelings.

    I do not mean to say this as an insult, but your responses sound like those of an ignorant person who has no argument and must resort to name calling. Your answers to my hypothetical scenarios would assist in assessing you intelligence and personality.

    JimH (af3e72)

  239. NK,

    That wasn’t directed at you. I just don’t see the point of engaging him on substance.

    DRJ (517d26)

  240. I’m with you, DRJ. He’s on ignore from here on. I’m sorry I could not follow my own advice.

    nk (12118a)

  241. nk, DRJ — Thank you for giving up; it is the right thing to do!

    JimH (af3e72)

  242. nk – you, earlier, held yourself out as being an attorney! This can not possibly be the case. Considering:

    “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.”

    Your assertion that only theft relates to nighttime is so ridiculous, no half intelligent attorney would ever make such a claim. When a statute reads “Any person who resists, delays or obstructs a peace office…is guilty of a misdemeanor,” is it your belief that when he resists or delays he is not guilty of a misdemeanor. Does the OR separated the word misdemeanor from resists or delays.

    I feel I have been arguing with several people who are intimately related to each other; it is not quite a sock puppet situation, but damned close. Really, several of you are closely acquainted in places other than this place; right? My father, and please do not say anything that would be insulting about him, would say of this kind of double teaming and winning at all cost conduct, that “one would lie and the rest would swear to it.”

    In previous threads I have seen you and you group gang up and run off any person in opposition. I think this highly unethical; but, it looks like, this time I have run you off.

    JimH (af3e72)

  243. Agreed, DRJ, the dishonest misrepresentation made about the Texas Prosecutor article was enough to confirm a troll.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  244. DRJ — Stick to your previous comment. Put me on ignore. All the rest have given up and abandoned their outrageous arguments. Go away, like you promised.

    JimH (7cd419)

  245. DRJ — But, thank you for not attacking my family as your buddies have done.

    JimH (7cd419)

  246. I feel that being double teamed is unethical.

    I totally agree.

    Randy Moss (99243e)

  247. 1 Timothy 5

    The goal of this command is love which comes from a pure heart and good conscious and a sincere faith.

    (6)Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.

    (7) They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

    (8) We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.

    JimH (21a7c8)

  248. I feel that being double teamed is unethical.

    I totally agree.

    Your not outnumbered & outgunned… you’re in a target rich environment!!!

    What a bunch of whiners… and what is really pathetic is that many you cannot even interpret a simple statute…

    Wild Rose ranch (9531b2)

  249. Good shooting Mr. Horn! Dead criminals are never repeat ofenders.

    john (7d8d06)

  250. Math question. If each American killed 2 illegals per day how long would it take for America to be illegal free and what would the crime rate be after the little brown criminals left?

    john (7d8d06)

  251. It would take a lot longer than it just took me to ban you.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  252. I think that when you commit a crime or are in the act of committing a crime, you give up all of your rights except to be represented in court. These people by the very fact that they are illegals have given up whatever pseudo-rights they have or think they have. I don’t condone killing people as they are running away but by the same token don’t put yourself in the target area by committing crimes. If you are going to violate someone’s rights ie: to own property, to assume you are safe, to want a crime free neighborhood, you put yourself in a situation where anything goes. God forbid the owner would have come home and confronted these two nitwits and they had killed the owner. Do you think the protesters would be out in force? Don’t believe that for a minute. They only show up when they think they’ve been wronged. If you’ve been wronged they won’t be there. They have an agenda and it is definitely not your right to defend yourself and live as a peaceful person. They are liberals and they are going to blame anyone but themselves for the miserable conditions they themselves have created.

    Ted (973801)

  253. Let see, 3 1/2 months & still no charges filed. Still a good shoot.

    Wild Rose Ranch (ac322c)

  254. How can the prosecutor be such a coward?

    NJoe (03fba4)

  255. NJoe, try a more coherent thought.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  256. Patterico — “john” absolutely went much too far; his callus disregard for the preciousness of life, and his bigotry in general, warrant the extreme remedy of banishment. Many others commenting on the Joe Horn case were almost as bad. Thank you for your actions.

    NJoe (03fba4)

  257. spqr — is that an insult? Very vague.

    NJoe (5c06d5)

  258. As predicted, Joe was no-billed. He is a free man because of the way our law was written… pay attention to the commas, as I said early on.

    Justice has been served!!!

    Wild Rose Ranch (f74ab2)

  259. Great Idea USA!!! Kill the niggas that cross the frontier. Cool!!! Intelligent! Killing spree all the way, with the blind rubberstamp of your so called justice! And once again you will look stupid in the tv of all the planet who will look at you with disgust. Bravo. And now that the people in washington have guns, the show will be terrific. And keep the phone cams rooling barbarians! Would it not have been cool to see Joe Horn kill the niggas on Youtube? And all the planet will watch and wonder how deep you will sink in your own shit and blod.

    François Privé (d0fe3c)

  260. Foreign racists are not attractive.

    DRJ (2ccf5c)

  261. And once again you will look stupid in the tv of all the planet who will look at you with disgust.

    Oderint dum metuant, Frenchy.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  262. ” Oderint dum metuant, Frenchy.” Dixit Caligula, a paranoid and violent megalomaniac Roman emperor who ended killed by one of his guards after a few years of tyrany and sister fucking. It means “Hate me, as long as you fear me!” Yes, i agree to fear you and to fear Texas ans all other same places. No problem. Nice reference

    François Privé (d0fe3c)

  263. Heh. You are so fixated on the loss of French prestige that you can’t see how a man defending himself on his own property is someone who is seen as the hero, and the burglars invading his property and running from arrest are the criminals. In your book, it seems as if the roles are reversed.

    steve miller (e5eca4)

  264. Dixit Caligula, a paranoid and violent megalomaniac Roman emperor who ended killed by one of his guards after a few years of tyrany and sister fucking.

    Why bring him up? The quote is from Lucius Accius, a Roman tragic poet (circa 170 BC).

    More morons out there than one can shake a stick at. Even French morons…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  265. True. The words come originaly from the tragic poet. But Caligula made them more famous.

    And i could understand that someboddy defended his own self with lethal force if menaced. But here we have two men with bullets in there back, and people saying right here that the same thing should bo done by every american to “clean” the country. I just wanted to underline that it does not make you look good, and that the laws permitting such a thing are frightening. A strong smell of hatred comes from all of that. And the news will be interesting to watch in the next few days, just to see if your twisted laws induce a killing spree in the kkk states.

    When i was young and a bit naive, I had a great image of the good american people. But with Gitmo, Depleted Uranium, Oil Wars, and legal neibourhood shooting, this image is fading away more and more every day. People see you from all around the world, and they feel the same moral decay, the same loss of control. Let’s hope that you will come back to your previous prestige someday. Curently, you look lost realy frightening.

    I did think about coming to USA as a tourist this summer, but now, i realy think that a country where people can have guns everywhere and shoot is’nt a good place to visit. Too scary. I’l wait a few decades until it calms down, and all the Joe Horn and the John White of the country calm down, drop there guns, and have a good conversation together with all there supporters and neibours.

    François Privé (d0fe3c)

  266. Francois, Tu est Fu!

    The Swiss have automatic weapons in their homes, yet you wouldn’t think twice about not visiting Zurich or Geniva, would you?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  267. Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity, or pencils cause misspelled words. Something that Frenchy seems to forget.

    Britain has a severe gun ban in place, yet interpersonal crime has skyrocketed. You are more likely to be mugged in London than in Houston.

    DC had the most draconian gun bans in the country, yet the murder rate was an entire order of magnitude worse than Pasadena, Texas.

    How is the rioting by “youths of undetermined ethnic origin” that happen every summer in “peaceful” France (something that we don’t have anywhere in those places you feel are too dangerous)?

    Nevertheless, I’m sure you would be treated with more respect in Texas than I would be in France.

    If you want to depend on only government agents having guns (which worked out SO well in the last century), more power to you.

    We might not be so willing to come save your asses again.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7076 secs.