 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2008The Saga Of Joe Horn: Texas Man Cleared In Shotgun Shootings
Bravissimo! Another Victory In The Continuing Battle Of The Right To Bear And USE Firearms In The U.S.A. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor ------------------------------------------------------------- Texas man cleared of shooting suspected burglars By JUAN A. LOZANO ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER 1 July 2008 HOUSTON -- Ever since he fatally shot two men he suspected of burglarizing his next-door neighbor's home, 62-year-old Joe Horn has been both praised and vilified for his actions. Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the intruders. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but a defiant Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back. Some community activists wanted Horn to face charges for the deaths. Supporters of the retired grandfather said what he did was justified under the law. After listening to evidence in the case, including testimony from Horn himself, a grand jury on Monday cleared him of the shootings. "He wasn't acting like a vigilante. He didn't want to do it," said Tom Lambright, Horn's attorney. Lambright said Horn was not a "wild cowboy" who took the law into his own hands after he saw the two suspected burglars, with bags in hand, crawling out of windows from his neighbor's home on Nov. 14 in the Houston suburb of Pasadena. The neighbor was out of town at the time. Instead, Horn was a frightened retiree who tried to defend his neighbor's property and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn defended himself, Lambright said. "He was scared. He was in fear of his life," he said. Grand jurors had to consider two issues in the case: the intentional killing of another person and whether the killing was justified either by self-defense or the defense of property, Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters. "I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense." Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town. It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house. Frank Ortiz, a member of the local League of United Latin American Citizens chapter, said he hopes federal authorities investigate the case further. "That's amazing that they would no-bill him with so much evidence against him," Ortiz told the Houston Chronicle in Monday's online edition. "This was no more than a vigilante." Horn did not speak with reporters on Monday. A large red sign with the words "No Trespass" on it blocked the path to his front door and a handwritten sign on the door said "Please no media," "No Trespassing" and "Do not knock or ring bell." A couple of neighbors also had signs on their doors asking media to leave them alone. A few police cars patrolled the area near Horn's home. The two suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction. The city of Pasadena, where protesters and defenders of Horn engaged in counter-demonstrations, pledged to keep its police force staffed enough to protect its citizens. Keith Hampton, a Houston attorney not connected with the case, said he didn't expect Horn to be indicted. "This is a real conservative county," he said. "A lot of folks in Houston and Harris County are saying this man was doing a good thing." In the 911 call, a dispatcher urges Horn to stay inside his house and not risk lives. "Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think." "You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them." After the shooting, he redialed 911. "I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick." > Bravissimo! > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > After listening to evidence in the case, including testimony from Horn > himself, a grand jury on Monday cleared him of the shootings. Not so fast there - Apparently US Rep Sheila Jackson Lee has now weighed in on the case. ********************************************************************* "U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee on Sunday called for congressional hearings to investigate what she calls ''the many downfalls" of the Harris County judicial system. Recent incidents, including a grand jury's decision not to indict a Pasadena man who shot and killed two men suspected of burglarizing his neighbor, have brought into question whether the system is fair and unbiased, she said. Jackson Lee said she plans to bring the congressional hearings to Houston in the next couple of weeks. The hearings, for example, will assess how the evidence in the Joe Horn case was presented to the grand jury. Jackson Lee questioned why the case did not go to trial. Jackson Lee said the federal government has an obligation to look into these matters because they deal with civil rights issues. Also, the jail and the district attorney's office both receive federal funding through the state, she said." ***************************************************************************** 1. The case did not go to trial because a Harris County Grand Jury, after considering all of the evidence including the testimony of Mr. Horn and a Police Officer who witnessed the shooting - decided that Horn was justified in using deadly force. 2. Sheila Jackson Lee does not even represent the citizens of the City of Pasadena which lies in the Congressional District 29 of Rep. Gene Green. 3. Civil Rights Issues???????? - Was it a civil rights issue because Joe Horn is white and the two dead crooks were black? 4. A day after white Joe Horn shot and killed the two black crooks, another Harris County man fatally shot an individual who was burglarizing his home - Damone Barone told investigators that he awakened at 2:30 am to the sound of glass shattering. Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a shattered window and shot and killed him. Does Sheila Jackson Lee rise to the defense of Dunbar demanding that the case go to trial???? Of course not - both Barone and Dunbar were black and Jackson Lee only sees a problem in the Horn shooting - but clearly both Horn and Barone were acting in accordance with the law. Nigel Brooks > > Bravissimo! > > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Nigel Brooks actually, the two dead criminals in this case were both illegal Hispanics.... redc1c4, not that race should matter when a criminal is killed while committing a crime.  Signature"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide >> > Bravissimo! >> > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > not that race should matter when a criminal is killed while committing a > crime. They were Hispanic only because they were Colombian Nationals - Their skin color was black. And their skin color is the reason for the outrage from Sheila Jackson Lee and the other rabble rousing clowns. Had they been Latinos or White - no-one would have given a sh.t. Nigel Brooks Had they been >>> > Bravissimo! >>> > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > Had they been Latinos or White - no-one would have given a sh.t. Probably true, but the 911 tapes reveal a real eagerness on this guy's part to go out there and kill somebody. > Nigel Brooks > > Had they been > Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a > shattered window and shot and killed him. Completely different situation. Shooting someone breaking into your home is amply justified, you don't have to wait until he threatens you directly, it may be too late then. But the other case is completely different. The two crooks were LEAVING a neighbor's house and posing no danger whatsoever to the shooter. If they had been assaulting or raping someone the shooting would be justified but not for just stealing things. ONE tooth for ONE tooth, not the whole f.cking head for one tooth. >> Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a >> shattered window and shot and killed him. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ONE tooth for ONE tooth, not the whole f.cking head for one tooth. The point is that Jackson Lee would never have bothered about it if it were a black on black or white on white killing. She is weighing in because of her perception that racism was involved. She now seeks to initiate a Congressional Investigation and look into what evidence was presented to the Grand Jury. Something that is clearly outside of her purview. Grand Jury proceedings are secret and she has no right whatsoever to evaluate the evidence that was presented by the DA. As a matter of fact Ken Magidson - the acting DA is actually on loan from the US Attorney's Office. Knowing the way he is - I have every confidence that if he had felt there was anything wrong with the decision of the Grand Jury, he'd have done something about it. The fact is that given the circumstances, and after reviewing the testimony of the eyewitness Police Office and Horn himself - a Texas Grand Jury decided to No Bill Mr. Horn. Case Closed Nigel Brooks Let's hope so... And let the word go out to all burglars in Texas. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > The point is that Jackson Lee would never have bothered about it if it > were a black on black or white on white killing. She is weighing in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Nigel Brooks > Let's hope so... > > And let the word go out to all burglars in Texas. Why don't we extend all this "right to kill" stuff to white color crime? For instance there are a lot of poor people who have lost their homes becasue of the mortgage frauds. That Countrywide CEO Angelo whatshisname would look good after a 12 gauge thankyou. >> Let's hope so... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That Countrywide CEO Angelo whatshisname would look good after a 12 gauge > thankyou. you can only shoot people poorer than yourself. >> Let's hope so... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That Countrywide CEO Angelo whatshisname would look good after a 12 gauge > thankyou. Did this fellow know these thieves were black and if so, was that the reason he shot them? >>> Let's hope so... >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> That Countrywide CEO Angelo whatshisname would look good after a 12 gauge >> thankyou. > Did this fellow know these thieves were black and if so, was that the > reason he shot them? He saw them and called in to 911, and told the operator he was going to shoot them. About the only real world justification that he had for shooting them is the daylight brazenness of entering a home and obviously dragging out booty in the shooter's neighberhood, implying an aggressive disregard for law, people and property that could well escalate, then or later. > >> Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a > >> shattered window and shot and killed him. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > a black on black or white on white killing. She is weighing in because of > her perception that racism was involved. If THAT is the point I'm not interested. I've no time for perceived racism and political correctness bullshit. The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder. If Texas law allows to take life to defend property as I believe it does, then Texas need be put on trial. ... > The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder. > > If Texas law allows to take life to defend property as I believe it > does, then Texas need be put on trial. Having personally sat on the grand jury & heard all of the evidence, you're in a position to make that determination, no doubt. JM > ... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Having personally sat on the grand jury & heard all of the evidence, > you're in a position to make that determination, no doubt. The evidence is OUT in case you didn't notice. They were not attacking him. Horn shot them BOTH in the back, after telling 911 he was going to kill them. If you find any of this exculpatory or other piece that is show it. > JM > ... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Having personally sat on the grand jury & heard all of the evidence, > you're in a position to make that determination, no doubt. The evidence is OUT in case you didn't notice. They were not attacking him. Horn shot them BOTH in the back, after telling 911 he was going to kill them. If you find any of this exculpatory or other piece that is show it. > JM > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If you find any of this exculpatory or other piece that is show it. Not up to me; I'm not the one making the claim. It's a basic principle of law that, whomever makes the claim must provide the evidence to support it. The one who claims that an act was murder is the one who must furnish evidence of such claim. That's how it works in court, at least in TX. JM > > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > was murder is the one who must furnish evidence of such claim. That's > how it works in court, at least in TX. The claim is made, read it again. I ask again. What part of the evidence I base my claim on you find insufficient or exculpatory? > > > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The claim is made, read it again. I ask again. What part of the > evidence I base my claim on you find insufficient or exculpatory? The claim was: > > > > > The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder. Now it just needs supporting evidence. For example, what you saw & heard in that grand jury room. JM > > > > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Now it just needs supporting evidence. For example, what you saw & > heard in that grand jury room. The central piece of evidence -- the 911 call tape -- is online. I posted the URL. Try to keep up. > > > > > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > The central piece of evidence -- the 911 call tape -- is online. I > posted the URL. Try to keep up. Again, what exactly did YOU see & hear in that grand jury room? Please enlighten on the deliberations that you participated in. One piece of evidence, as displayed via media, does not equate to a complete case. Since the grand jury chose to no-bill, I must presume that there was OTHER evidence considered & weighed. THAT is what I am asking about. Please try to keep up. JM > > > > > > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > that there was OTHER evidence considered & weighed. THAT is what I am > asking about. Please try to keep up. You presume WRONG. There is not MUST about the decision not to indict, that necessarily implies that the jury saw some evidence not available to the rest of world, that if it was available we all would go "Aha!" and decide that not indicting Horn was appropriate. The simpler explanation is well in evidence in most of the reaction to the case by other Texans and other Southerners: "Good Riddance!" "Kill the scum!" "Horn is a hero!" etc, etc. It's not as if it's out of character for Southern juries to let off white people who kill black people. Your insistence that only people in the grand jury are able to form a fair assessment of the case is risible. This case has been under an intense spotlight for a while and all key elements of the evidence are in the public domain. Folks, this poster suggests no less that there is some exculpatory key evidence that Horn's lawyer has neglected to mention to the world when he vociferously proclaimed his client's innocence before and after the grand jury, and which the media has overlooked as well. Hilarious. > > > > > > > > ... > > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Hilarious. No, this poster suggests that perhaps those who DID hear all of the evidence against the accused (not just the evidence presented in the media) believed that it was not enough to warrant a charge of murder, or any other charge for that matter. The simplest explanation of all is that there wasn't enough evidence against Horn to convict him of a crime. Had the evidence presented to the grand jury been enough to indicate that Horn had committed murder, under the law, I have no doubt that there would be a trial. JM > > > > > > > > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > JM Interesting, the dispatcher heard him say he was going to kill them before he left the house, there was a plainclothesman in a car parked across the street, both men were shot in the back. I wonder what it takes. > Tiglath > > It's not as if it's out of character for Southern juries to let off > white people who kill black people. It's not as if it's out of character for a jury to let off someone who kills a criminal in the act of committing a crime. I don't have any problem with this at all, the criminals were committing a pretty serious offence and refused to stop and wait for the cops to arrest them when Joe Horn pointed a shotgun at them. Good riddance. Bingo! And that appears to be the way the Grand Jury saw it as well. Joe Horn told the burglars to freeze and they didn't... BANG! -- BANG! -- BANG! 'Nuff Said. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >> Tiglath >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Good riddance. >Joe Horn told the burglars to freeze and they didn't... > >BANG! -- BANG! -- BANG! Had a law enforcement officer behaved *exactly* as Horn behaved in identical circumstances, then he or she would certainly have faced criminal charges. Had the law enforcement officers, who were actually on the scene at the time Horn started shooting, done their job instead of hiding behind their cars, then they would have used deadly force to have prevented Horn from killing the suspects; for that action, the LEO probably would *not* have faced criminal charges as it would have met their guidelines for the use of deadly force. It must be nice to live in your world; everything is so simple, huh? Jones >>Joe Horn told the burglars to freeze and they didn't... >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It must be nice to live in your world; everything is so simple, huh? I believe that one can determine much about a person's character by those whom he hero worships. Joe Horn virtual shrines pop up in the most obscure places .... - nilita >I believe that one can determine much about a person's character by those >whom he hero worships. Joe Horn virtual shrines pop up in the most obscure >places .... Yes. I recall back in the '90s ... early '97, I think, a group of marines on an observation post shot and killed a kid (18 y.o.) who was obliviously popping cans with a .22 To shoot him, they had to leave their covered position and stalk him for several hundred yards in defiance of their own rules of engagement. The MC wanted to give the guy who shot him a medal and were incensed at "political interference" when congress flatly ordered them not to. The shooters weren't charged, of course. Jones Where did this allegedly take place? You need to learn how to tell a story properly. WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN HOW WHY. Remember That. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >>I believe that one can determine much about a person's character by those >>whom he hero worships. Joe Horn virtual shrines pop up in the most obscure [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jones >Where did this allegedly take place? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Remember That. Please keep in mind that a question or questions on your part carries no obligation on mine to provide you with an answer to that question or questions. You may begin here: http://ndsn.org/july97/goats.html In the future, please do your own research. Remember that. Jones > !Jones > > D. Spencer Hines [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It must be nice to live in your world; everything is so simple, huh? If it were as simple as it should be, the only question the jury should have been required to consider was whether the guys who got shot were committing a burglary when they were shot. If they were, then case closed. >> !Jones >>> D. Spencer Hines [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > If they were, then case closed. I think you could round it out by saying if you are killed while committing a crime above a mister-meaner, you have received your just reward and a no bill charge will result. SignatureBILL P. & DOG >If it were as simple as it should be, the only question the jury >should have been required to consider was whether the guys >who got shot were committing a burglary when they were shot. The police should have been quicker to assume site control; there was at least one police officer there and backup seconds away. The cops had 'em... if the LEOs had shot the suspects, they'd have been charged. Perhaps Horn did not commit criminal homicide; Texas law is odd in that a private citizen may open fire in many cases when a LEO may not. OTOH, he most certainly disobeyed a lawful police order and placed the officers on the scene as well as himself in danger by his reckless actions. I'd have forgotten homicide, but he should have faced misdemeanor charges on that; he clearly committed a crime. This thread has lived too long, Jones >> If it were as simple as it should be, the only question the jury >> should have been required to consider was whether the guys [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jones I did not hear the 911 operator declare himself as a LEO. So how could you say he disobeyed a lawful police order. I agree he should have stayed in the house,but under Texas law he was within his lawful rights. SignatureBILL P. & DOG >> Perhaps Horn did not commit criminal homicide; Texas law is odd in >> that a private citizen may open fire in many cases when a LEO may not. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >you say he disobeyed a lawful police order. I agree he should have >stayed in the house,but under Texas law he was within his lawful rights. Horn called 911, the dispatcher didn't call him; therefore, he knew to whom he was talking. If he wasn't going to give the police the opportunity to make an arrest, then why bother them with it? If a person calls 911 and the dispatcher says, "Remain in the house, I have officers on the scene," or words to that effect (which is exactly what the dispatcher did repeatedly) and you subsequently disobey that order, then, under Texas law, you have committed a crime. As I have pointed out: if the officers had done as Horn did, then they'd have certainly been charged; had they fired upon Horn, they probably would not have been charged. In Texas, we have always been trigger-happy; it probably won't change. We had one guy drive his car into a cafeteria and start shooting. Law enforcement did, in fact, kill him; however, I have no doubt that he would have claimed self defense had he gone to trial... they almost always do because it frequently works. Jones > >I did not hear the 911 operator declare himself as a LEO. So how could > >you say he disobeyed a lawful police order. I agree he should have > >stayed in the house,but under Texas law he was within his lawful rights. I don't think that is an issue, not a clear one anyway. Some think the law didn't quite cover his case, but nobody who decided was bothered with that level of detail anyway. The scales of justice were pre-loaded. Nice, avuncular, fat white guy <-----> Nasty black criminals No contest (for the average Texas jury) > Horn called 911, the dispatcher didn't call him; therefore, he knew to > whom he was talking. If he wasn't going to give the police the > opportunity to make an arrest, then why bother them with it? Excellent point. > If a > person calls 911 and the dispatcher says, "Remain in the house, I have > officers on the scene," or words to that effect (which is exactly what > the dispatcher did repeatedly) and you subsequently disobey that > order, then, under Texas law, you have committed a crime. I'd like to see the statute for that. > As I have pointed out: if the officers had done as Horn did, then > they'd have certainly been charged; had they fired upon Horn, they > probably would not have been charged. Probably right. > In Texas, we have always been trigger-happy; it probably won't change. > We had one guy drive his car into a cafeteria and start shooting. Law > enforcement did, in fact, kill him; however, I have no doubt that he > would have claimed self defense had he gone to trial... they almost > always do because it frequently works. It can change only if new generations produce fewer trigger-happy people, as cases like Horn's underscore their embarrassing codified backwardness No trigger-happy hick alive today will change his mind, much as it is fun to poke them in the eye with the poniard of truth. Nonsense. Let's hope Joe Horn lives a long time and is honored as a stand-up Texan. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > Perhaps Horn did not commit criminal homicide; Texas law is odd in > that a private citizen may open fire in many cases when a LEO may not. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jones >Nonsense. > >Let's hope Joe Horn lives a long time and is honored as a stand-up Texan. As usual, you completely miss the point. Let me start by stating what is *not* the point. It's not an issue that Horn shot a couple of burgs. IMO, that couple needed killing and I have no sympathy at all for them. Had he simply walked out and dispatched them, I'd have had no comment. The point is that Horn called the police, waited for the police to arrive, *then* decided to walk out and open fire. If he was going to shoot them anyway, then why bother calling the police first? This just put the police officers (1) possibly in the line of fire and (2) legally obligated to stop him from killing the suspects. I don't care that he killed the burgs... good on him! I care that he waited for the police presence on the scene and *then* killed them. That was irresponsible as well as cowardly, and I dislike irresponsible cowards with guns. Jones This PFK pogue is obviously not interested in the facts. 'Nuff Said. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >>Nonsense. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jones >This PFK pogue is obviously not interested in the facts. As usual, an impetuous, single line top post. Your "replies" usually consist of one word, so I suppose that I should be flattered. Tell us, Spencer, have you ever done any original writing wherein you performed some significant research and developed your own, independent conclusion? I see a lot of your postings; however, they're all either completely copy and paste or they're a single line that usually has nothing whatsoever to do with the posting to which you prepend. "Nuff said." Jones >>This PFK pogue is obviously not interested in the facts. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jones Oh Great! Now you are going to get insulted in Pig Latin. >>This PFK pogue is obviously not interested in the facts. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > performed some significant research and developed your own, > independent conclusion? Well, no,,, you see,, he's learned to avoid that. ;-)) He thinks Rush Limbaugh is on par with Newton.. >>>This PFK pogue is obviously not interested in the facts. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >He thinks Rush Limbaugh is on par with Newton.. Part of his problem is excsssive time spent perusing Helmutt's works. Peter Skelton >>>This PFK pogue is obviously not interested in the facts. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >He thinks Rush Limbaugh is on par with Newton.. Not long ago, we were up to our a.s in left-wing idiots... what was that moron's name? "Ed Toured", or some sibilant sound (??)... everyone called him "Turd". So now, we have right-wing idiots. I think that, when one set of cretins leaves, it creates an "idiot vacuum" and idiots, morons, and witless wonders from all over Usenet immediately rush in to fill it, thus assuring an unending supply of fools. Jones > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:22:16 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "J A" > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jones Please note if you remove alt.war.vietnam from address list you drop almost all of those. If you can keep one former wash out housing officer from doing that in the first place you get all of them. >Please note if you remove alt.war.vietnam from address list you drop >almost all of those. If you can keep one former wash out housing >officer from doing that in the first place you get all of them. Yeah, well... that's where I am. Odd to continue to call it "alt.war.vietnam" because I've not seen a posting in weeks that was even close to being on topic. I wonder who chose that distribution list? Jones >>Please note if you remove alt.war.vietnam from address list you drop >>almost all of those. If you can keep one former wash out housing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > even close to being on topic. I wonder who chose that distribution > list? Your hero did. > Jones >>> This PFK pogue is obviously not interested in the facts. >> As usual, an impetuous, single line top post. Your "replies" usually [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He thinks Rush Limbaugh is on par with Newton.. He is. With Wayne Newton. Both have good voices. -- Les Cargill > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:37:36 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "D. Spencer > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jones Original work by D.S. Hines "The linens in 456 are torn, please replace them with new linens from storage" > > legally obligated to stop him from killing the suspects. I don't care > that he killed the burgs... good on him! I care that he waited for > the police presence on the scene and *then* killed them. That was > irresponsible as well as cowardly, and I dislike irresponsible cowards > with guns. Amen! And I wouldn't want such irresponsible impetuous cowards in *my* neighbourhood! - nilita >> > legally obligated to stop him from killing the suspects. I don't care >> that he killed the burgs... good on him! I care that he waited for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - nilita I beg to respectfully disagree. I think that if they were robbing everything out of your house, and your neighbor saved your stuff, you might have a different opinion. But that's just me. Situational ethics R us. >>> > legally obligated to stop him from killing the suspects. I don't >>> care [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > might have a different opinion. But that's just me. Situational ethics R > us. Situational ethics indeed, Colonel. I can't imagine anybody doing *me* a favour by shooting in the back someone who stole my TV set. It's only a TV set, fer gawd's sake! Especially if police were already on the scene and would be taking care of the matter. Cultural differences and all that ... - nilita >>>> > legally obligated to stop him from killing the suspects. I don't >>>> care [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - nilita I lived in Texas for nearly 20 years, and I still don't completely comprehend why it is that way. But it most certainly is that way. Part of it is the ledgermain, the tradition of the Rangers, Western movies - but that doesn't explain it all. -- Les Cargill >>>>> > legally obligated to stop him from killing the suspects. I don't >>>>> care [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Part of it is the ledgermain, the tradition of the Rangers, Western > movies - but that doesn't explain it all. Is that what is known as "frontier justice"? - nilita >>>> > legally obligated to stop him from killing the suspects. I don't >>>> care [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Cultural differences and all that ... This time it was tv set... -- msosborn at msosborn dot com >>> > legally obligated to stop him from killing the suspects. I don't care >>> that he killed the burgs... good on him! I care that he waited for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >everything out of your house, and your neighbor saved your stuff, you might >have a different opinion. But that's just me. Situational ethics R us. There's nothing in my house portable enough to take, and valuable enough to fence worth killing someone over. There are soft, cuddly, easily-damaged things wthin shotgun range. Peter Skelton >There's nothing in my house portable enough to take, and valuable >enough to fence worth killing someone over. There are soft, >cuddly, easily-damaged things wthin shotgun range. Burglars have been known to pull up in a van and load up everything including the wiring, plumbing, and furnace. Everything. There are alarms, but when they go off, they send guys with guns, As for cuddly and easily damaged, I have five cats and two dogs. While he isn't very cuddly or soft, I am kind of fond of Boltcutter, the snapping turtle, and I don't want him molested by burglars. Or accidently shot. Guy I know had a burglar take his snake. Luckily the cops caught the guy. Whatever. Casady >>There's nothing in my house portable enough to take, and valuable >>enough to fence worth killing someone over. There are soft, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Guy I know had a burglar take his snake. Luckily the cops caught the >guy. Whatever. This sounds like a job for snoper-man Peter Skelton >I beg to respectfully disagree. I think that if they were robbing >everything out of your house, and your neighbor saved your stuff, you might >have a different opinion. But that's just me. Situational ethics R us. I see your point and it's a perfectly valid one. It's even valid to say that the pair needed killing and that he saved other people from being burglarized in six months or a year when they got out of jail. Where I had my issues is when he called the police, waited for the police to arrive, and only then decided that his name was "Bronson" "Go ahead, punk, make my day!". Wait, that wasn't Bronson, was it? What did Bronson say? "Hasta la vista, bay-bee"? No, that was Terminator... I know! "Twenty-three skidoo, kiddo!" <BANG> //********************************************************************* Best: Dirty Harry; it's well delivered and to the point. Worst: The "Jules" character in Pulp Fiction who grossly misquotes Ezekiel 25. It's long winded and I haven't a clue what it has to do with shooting someone. Jones >> I beg to respectfully disagree. I think that if they were robbing >> everything out of your house, and your neighbor saved your stuff, you might [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jones Hell! you guys cant even get a top movie straight, it was Clint Eastwood, not Charles Bronson. SignatureBILL P. & DOG >Hell! you guys cant even get a top movie straight, it was Clint >Eastwood, not Charles Bronson. That's what I said (Mead's Fine Bread)... what was Bronson's line? Dirty Harry had "Make my day" and Terminator did "Hasta la vista, bay-bee"... what was Bronson's line? Jones >>Nonsense. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >irresponsible as well as cowardly, and I dislike irresponsible cowards >with guns. I don't know 100% where you are getting your information from, but it is my understanding that he was frustrated with the slow response time & lack of sense of urgency on the dispatchers part and that is why he went outside. I believe the police arrived simultaneously with the shooting on Horn's property. Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." >...is my understanding that he was frustrated with the slow response time > & lack of sense of urgency on the dispatcher's part and that is why he > went outside. Sounds reasonable... That he thought the burglars were going to get away scot free -- as no police were stopping them -- in broad daylight no less. Now, if the Vietnamese neighbor were to turn out to be a drug dealer who kept lots of cash in his home that would sweeten the story. DSH >>>Nonsense. >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > went outside. I believe the police arrived simultaneously with the > shooting on Horn's property. >>...is my understanding that he was frustrated with the slow response time >> & lack of sense of urgency on the dispatcher's part and that is why he >> went outside. > >Sounds reasonable... But anybody who's been reading the thread knows it to be untrue. Peter Skelton >I believe the police arrived simultaneously with the >shooting on Horn's property. Police have a response time... burgs know what it is; if they can get in and out in under four minutes, they're usually good. The pros run a stop watch. Your neighbors are your best defence because a person on the line usually speeds up the response, where it'll take 'em 20 minutes to get to an alarm. My point is that, if Horn was going to kill 'em, then he should have simply opened fire and not called the cops. The fact remains that cops were present and witnessed the shooting. Jones >>I believe the police arrived simultaneously with the >>shooting on Horn's property. > >Police have a response time... burgs know what it is; if they can get >in and out in under four minutes, they're usually good. The pros run >a stop watch. If they read things like http://www.click2houston.com/news/4512431/detail.html they'll know exactly what it is for each neighborhood. Some of the response times are horrendous. >Your neighbors are your best defence because a person on the line >usually speeds up the response, where it'll take 'em 20 minutes to get >to an alarm. I've always thought that I am my best defense. My neighbors come in second. >My point is that, if Horn was going to kill 'em, then he should have >simply opened fire and not called the cops. The fact remains that >cops were present and witnessed the shooting. Way to many people are focusing on what he said in an effort to get a point across to the dispatcher. Only Mr. Horn truly knows what was in his heart & mind at the time. Anything else is speculation & conjecture. >Jones Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." >Way to many people are focusing on what he said in an effort to get a >point across to the dispatcher. Only Mr. Horn truly knows what was in >his heart & mind at the time. Anything else is speculation & >conjecture. This is true. My position is that he did us a favor by shooting a couple of burgs... that he shot them in the back isn't an issue. I used to say the same thing about officers in Vietnam... if you didn't want the SOB dead, then some other person did, and a good deed ain't forgot. I also firmly believe that he accomplished his "gift to Texas" in a cowardly and dishonorable manner. I'm not going to weep over their demise; however, I have no respect whatsoever for Joe Horn. Had he simply walked out from jump, looked 'em in the eye, and shot them, then it would be different... but he waited for police protection and only then started shooting, and that's my definition of cowardice... you may define it as you wish. Shooting a man when he is looking you in the eye is a whole different thing than killing him after the police have him. I won't change your position and you won't change mine; therefore, let us agree that we disagree. This thread has lived too long already, so... you get the final word... I'm outta here! Jones >>Way to many people are focusing on what he said in an effort to get a >>point across to the dispatcher. Only Mr. Horn truly knows what was in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >in the eye is a whole different thing than killing him after the >police have him. But again, that is a "said you". I do not believe that he waited for the police to arrive as much as it was pure consequence that they arrived when they did. You also mischaracterized where both buggies were shot. They were not clean back shots, but more of a side-to-back shot as would happen as one turns to run from you. >I won't change your position and you won't change mine; therefore, let >us agree that we disagree. This thread has lived too long already, >so... you get the final word... I'm outta here! > >Jones Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." OR turns to run TOWARDS you... Or FEINTS and ZIGZAGS. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > You also mischaracterized where both buggies > were shot. They were not clean back shots, but more of a side-to-back > shot as would happen as one turns to run from you. >>Way to many people are focusing on what he said in an effort to get a >>point across to the dispatcher. Only Mr. Horn truly knows what was in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >in the eye is a whole different thing than killing him after the >police have him. But again, that is a "said you". I do not believe that he waited for the police to arrive as much as it was pure consequence that they arrived when they did. You also mischaracterized where both buggies were shot. They were not clean back shots, but more of a side-to-back shot as would happen as one turns to run from you. >I won't change your position and you won't change mine; therefore, let >us agree that we disagree. This thread has lived too long already, >so... you get the final word... I'm outta here! > >Jones Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." >>Nonsense. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Jones The point, I think, is not what Horn did to the bad guys, but what he did for society. There was a family leaving a local amusement park just a week or so ago when some punk grabbed a 15 year old girl's butt. Her dad stepped in and told the guy to leave her alone. The guy got on the cell phone and called six or seven friends over and they put dad in the hospital. It's uncertain if dad will ever regain consciousness or if he will ever be normal again if he does. As it happens, the cheek grabber and all his friends survived many previous encounters with standup citizens who merely turned them over to police. Look where that got us... -- msosborn at msosborn dot com >>>Nonsense. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Look where that got us... What it has got us is a Society that constantly either turns the other cheek, looks away, or walks away. The infamous "It ain't my business" excuse. It has also gotten us to the point where most people would not have said anything at all and at best possibly gathered up their family & simply left the ass-grabber to seek out other victims. What is really sad in this tale is that apparently nobody came to the Dad's aid, since of course they didn't want to get beat-up as well. Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." When Mr. Hines started this thread little he suspected that he would end up hemmed between the Trigger-Happy Crowd and the Bigot Crowd. How can a man of his advanced age have such bad judgment? The Trigger-Happy Crowd is very bad for the already controversial Second Amendment. No responsible gun owner should support those true gun nuts. The Bigot Crowd requires no comment. Instead of doing a quick face about, or upon reflection temper his position, after some 400 articles in the thread we have Mr. Hines posting: "BANG! -- BANG! -- BANG!" Fair Readers should not pay much attention to Mr. Hines on matters related to guns and self-defense. Over the years he's been asking me the same questions as to what gun and ammo he should get for home defense. Which is odd for a military man. Then again, how many times does a housing officer get to own?, carry? never mind using a gun in anger? Yet, Mr. Hines and I have been often in agreement on guns and self- defense, but here is were we part ways. Trigger-happiness and laws that permit it have no place in a civilized society that has learned to use deadly force only in the gravest extreme; and protecting replaceable property can never amount to a gravest extreme unless it's a pacemaker or the like. Such a society will ultimately be the ONLY place in which individuals we'll be permitted to own and bear arms without being marginalized. Sadly many Southerners are still caught up in a culture of trigger- happiness, not unrelated to the enormous success of Hollywood's Wild West movies no doubt, and are years if not generations, from feeling in the marrow of their bones what that police dispatcher -- a smart Texan -- talking to Horn knew and put so well: "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over." Stay tuned for Mr. Hines next phase: "RAT - TA -TA -TA - TA - TA - TA - TA -TA" ======================================== Double Glazing ======================================== > Bingo! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > DSH Only ONE point needs to be made. and one only: If the criminals had not tried to commit a crime, none of this would have happened. That's the bottom line. Doug McDonald Bingo! Doug McDonald is also a man who understands Texas and Texicans. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > Only ONE point needs to be made. and one only: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Doug McDonald Pogue Tiglath also has massive troubles with the past tense of English verbs, in other than the most simple of constructions. Vide infra pro risibus. How Sweet It Is! Spanglish? SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > When Mr. Hines started this thread little he suspected [sic] that he > would... > > Tiglath > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Good riddance. Convenient yes, justice no. > > Tiglath > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Good riddance. Would you shoot to kill in the back thieves who were running away with your laptop if they refused to stop? If so, all that has been said about Joe Horn would apply to you as well. You live in Arizona if I remember correctly. You may want to be careful using your ideas on this issue to guide your actions, for it appears, that Arizona does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Any Fair Reader going through this thread would come away with the notion that the pro-Horn crowd has nothing to offer other that vengeanful use of excessive for and disregard for the fact that they are diametrically opposed to most of the world on the issue of using deadly force to protect property, and time will NOT vindicate them, on the contrary, it will only accentuate their backward barbarity. Mr. Hines, the Bush lover, has bet on another wrong horse, again. > Tiglath >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Would you shoot to kill in the back thieves who were running > away with your laptop if they refused to stop? I wouldn't, because I wouldn't want to get in trouble with the law but that's my point, I _shouldn't_ be in trouble with the law if it is proven that the criminals were stealing my laptop when I shot them. I worked damm hard for my stuff and the legal system should bend over backwards to protect law abiding, tax paying citizens who are protecting their property (and possibly their life). Otherwise, we'll end up like the UK; By Luke Salkeld 09th July 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033266/Yobs-threw-rocks-house-years-But -father-fought-arrested.html "Yobs threw rocks at his house for years. But the father who fought back is arrested For more than two years, Sydney Davis's house has been under siege from youths throwing stones. After two hours of bombardment in the latest attack and no sign of the police, the 65-year-old retired builder decided enough was enough. As a particularly large missile landed in his kitchen, he grabbed a plank of wood from the garden and ran towards the gang to scare them away. The police arrived just in time - to arrest Mr Davis for possession of an offensive weapon. He now faces up to six months in prison. Yesterday Mr Davis said he was bewildered by the decision to prosecute him. He claims objects have been thrown at his house on 700 separate occasions. His windows have been smashed five times in eight months. 'Something needs to be done to stop these kids. They are out there every night,' he said. 'One of my neighbours even had a seven-month-old in their kitchen when a brick came through the window. 'It showered glass across the baby's face. When these kids see the police they are off through the alleyways. The police have got no chance of catching them.' Mr Davis's 42-year- old wife Pauline dialled 999 when their home came under attack yet again last week, but two and a half hours later officers had failed to arrive. The couple's two sons, five and seven, were cowering behind the sofa when their father ran at the gang. He recalled: 'My wife called the police at 6 o'clock. But [the youths] just kept on throwing stones. 'I have two kids and if one of those stones hit them it could have caused some really nasty damage. 'I left the back door open to stop them smashing it.' When officers arrived outside his home in Swindon, Wiltshire, Mr Davis was handcuffed and led away to the cells, where he was later charged. The youths ran off. 'What in the world is this country coming to that the police arrest people like me for protecting their own property?' he said yesterday. 'The police say they want to reduce crime, yet they let evil little toe-rags like this off. Then they prosecute hard-working, upstanding residents like me. The law is, quite simply, a colossal a.s.' Wiltshire police claim to have increased their patrols after two houses in the region were attacked by arsonists. Officers' shift patterns were also changed so they would be in the neighbourhood after dark, while the local council is considering blocking-off some of the alleyways. Yesterday a spokesman confirmed that no youths were arrested in relation to the incident. Local councillor Justin Tomlinson said homeowners in the area were 'living in fear' of unruly youths. 'We have sympathy with frustrated local residents - the Government continues to ignore a broken society, and therefore it is little wonder that frustrations boil over.' > You live in Arizona if I remember correctly. Michigan, (metro Detroit area) where we do have the right to use deadly force to protect ourselves and there is no requirement to retreat in the face of a threat (both in the home and on the street). But what constitutes a "threat" in Michigan depends on what the county prosecutor thinks is a threat and unfortunately, Joe Horn would have had a much harder time in court here. > You may want to be careful using your ideas on this issue to guide > your actions, for it appears, that Arizona does not allow the use of > deadly force to protect property. Same in Michigan and most other states. Still don't make it right. > > Tiglath > >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > Same in Michigan and most other states. Still don't make it > right. > > Tiglath > >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Otherwise, we'll end up like the UK; This sounds like the fallacy of the excluded middle, it's either like wild Texas, or utterly stupid UK. THERE IS a middle where to strike a balance. I strongly disagree that people should have the right to use deadly force to protect non-vital property. That's what insurance companies are for if you can't bear taking some property loss in stride. Have you ever killed anyone? If you ever are free to exercise the right you desire and are unlucky enough to kill someone to preserve some replaceable property and you are not charged, do not assume you will be penalty free. If you've been in war and killed lots of people it may be different, the scar tissue is already there. >>> Tiglath >>>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I strongly disagree that people should have the right to use deadly > force to protect non-vital property. I don't. At least, you should be able to use the *threat* of deadly force to make it not worth it for the thief. And Castle Doctrine laws hold that to be true. > That's what insurance companies are for if you can't bear taking some > property loss in stride. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you've been in war and killed lots of people it may be different, > the scar tissue is already there. That's for sure. -- Les Cargill >> > Tiglath >> >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >I strongly disagree that people should have the right to use deadly >force to protect non-vital property. And what is vital property & non-vital property? My property is my property. If I make a living selling vacumns door-to-door my shoes are vital. >That's what insurance companies are for if you can't bear taking some >property loss in stride. Why should anyone be forced to bear any loss in stride? Give em inch, they take a mile -- that is where we are at now. >Have you ever killed anyone? If you ever are free to exercise the >right you desire and are unlucky enough to kill someone to preserve >some replaceable property and you are not charged, do not assume you >will be penalty free. >If you've been in war and killed lots of people it may be different, >the scar tissue is already there. Cool, veterans get to defend their property. Maybe it will get more kids to sign-up. Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." <G> SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >>If you've been in war and killed lots of people it may be different, >>the scar tissue is already there. >> > Cool, veterans get to defend their property. Maybe it will get more > kids to sign-up. >> Tiglath >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "Yobs threw rocks at his house for years. But the father > who fought back is arrested You mean that where you live you're allowed to shoot naughty boys dead? (Don't forget this is a Daily Hate story, it's probably a lie.) SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> Tiglath >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Otherwise, we'll end up like the UK; No, it's because of incidents like the one in Texas that you'll have incidents like the one you described. What it takes to get that sort of bullshit going is public reaction to folks getting off scott-free on deliberate manslaughter. >By Luke Salkeld >09th July 2008 >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033266/Yobs-threw-rocks-house-years-But -father-fought-arrested.html Peter Skelton > >> Tiglath > >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Peter Skelton I did think it kind of funny that this rather large (140,000) town in Texas didn't have an ordinance against discharging a firearm within the limits. >> >> Tiglath >> >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Texas didn't have an ordinance against discharging a firearm within >the limits. IMO it would be apprpriate to charge him with everything from littering to interfering with police in the performance of their duties and see just how high his legal fees could go and how long he could be tied up in red-tape and compensatory community service work (perferably clean-up in the local ER). Peter Skelton It's remarkable -- and amusing -- how many pogues here are ready to defend a couple of burglars -- members of an organized burglary ring in Houston, Texas. Joe Horn did the residents of that region a Great Service by blowing these two away -- on perfectly legal grounds. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > It's remarkable -- and amusing -- how many pogues here are ready to defend a > couple of burglars -- members of an organized burglary ring in Houston, > Texas. That shows that you are not interested on what other people write, and this is just a game. I don't recall anyone here defending the burglars. Hard time is the just punishment for burglary not death. People who don't agree with your barbaric sense of justice are defending a BETTER sense of justice not burglars. Learn the difference. There he goes again! Just can't get his prepositions right. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > That shows that [redundant] you are not interested on [sic] what other > people write > There he goes again! > > Just can't get his prepositions right. You need to keep enlightening him, until he understands modern concepts of neighborhood protection.... >> That shows that [redundant] you are not interested on [sic] what other >> people write > > There he goes again! > > > Just can't get his prepositions right. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message