Oh oh; "questionable" shooting in Pasadena, TX....

[crazed_ss]

The alternative was letting two thieves, most likely illegal aliens, get away. Free to keep robbing and possibly hurting or killing others.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/p...n=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/p...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Why does everyone always assume Spanish Surnames = Illegal alien?

Diego Ortiz (left) and Miguel Antonio DeJesus ...

 

[SDC]

The above links certainly help to fill in some of the gaps; Horn's post-shooting 911 call (part of which can be heard on the 3rd video link above) make it clear that they came into his yard after they were challenged, making me think this is going to be no-billed. The "racism" pimps are also out in full force, typified by "Quanell X".

 

[30 cal slob]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/03/reese.tx.shooting.protest.khou

 

[doc2rn]

Over here

Put me on that jury! Two thieves caught in the act of a felony, they advance instead of retreating when orderred to stop.... Yup DRT for them and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep.
You can hear that on the phone call, you can hear how upset he was that the police weren't there and he was. Yes it's unfortunate but since when do people get a pass on breaking the law simply due to skin color? I really do not understand the protesters. I think it should be a crime to racially escalate a situation that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with crime and prevention.

 

[Gato Montés]

If it were not for the 911 tape I think Mr. Horn would be fine, but damn, that tape makes it seem quite obscene. He was proving his case to the dispatcher before anything even happened.

"I'm gonna shoot them. I'm gonna shoot them."

"I have a right to defend myself."

"A shotgun is not an illegal weapon; it's a legal weapon."

Couple this with the multiple pleas from the dispatcher to stay inside make the argument of self defense a really hard sell.

 

[brentn]

I don't think that the criminals deserved to die because of stealing a 'bag of loot'.

He said right in the recording that he was going to kill em, that right there is sending this guy to jail. You can't just kill someone when they steal something, the best action he could have taken would be to fire a round in the air in the yard, point the gun at them and tell them to drop whatever they had and put their hands up. Have them kiss the pavement and hold them there until the authorities showed up. he'd be labeled a hero, and just so for doing it, now he's a killer.

Alot of you may disagree with what I have to say, but like I said before you don't kill a person because they're stealing, you kill a person when they attempt to take your life.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think that the criminals deserved to die because of stealing a 'bag of loot'.

Well my Canadian friend, the criminals should have thought of that before they started their crime. Burglary/home invasion is a very dangerous occupation that comes with the risk of being killed, especially in Texas. They voluntarily risked their lives while engaging in an illegal activity.

They chose...poorly.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I don't think that the criminals deserved to die because of stealing a 'bag of loot'.

Again and again people are leaving out the fact that these guys were shot in the front, not the back. How do you get shot in the front of your body if you are running away?

Think about it folks, it's not a hard question.

The 911 tape doesn't have video with it. The guys are clearly headed TOWARDS our shooter here or they would have been shot in the back.

Work with some logic here Mmmm K?

 

[MakAttak]

This is the perfect example. People latch onto their idea and then find evidence to support them.

Read the whole thread people, it has been pointed out NUMEROUS times that he may have said "I'm gonna kill them" but he didn't just go out there and start shooting. He told them to stop or else get shot. (MOVE AND YOU'RE DEAD!) They then turned and came at him, otherwise he could not have shot them in the front!

READ, please!

 

[Thumper]

Alot of you may disagree with what I have to say, but like I said before you don't kill a person because they're stealing, you kill a person when they attempt to take your life.

brentn, I may even agree with you, but Texas law does not. As far as this discussion goes, that's all that matters.

The only thing he had to be in fear of was that the burglars would get away with the goodies if he didn't shoot.

Seriously, how many here gravely passing judgement have read the law?

 

[30 cal slob]

brentn, I may even agree with you, but Texas law does not. As far as this discussion goes, that's all that matters.

i have to say that i am in the admittedly uncomfortable position of agreeing with brentn, to a certain extent.

i am uncomfortable with the TX law. just because it is legal, does not make it ethical.

i don't have the facts of the case. i wasn't there.

but on the face of it i would not have been inclined to shoot just because these guys were taking off with loot. they're fair game in the home (even then i'm not so sure i'd bloody the carpet, i would prefer to detain them if possible until the cops arrive). outside the home they're no longer a threat - let the cops take over from there.

i would be more supportive of the TX law if it truly served as a deterrent, but judging (anecdotally) from recent events, it doesn't seem to be.

i am not arguing for a change of the law. i don't live in TX, but if i did, all i'm saying is that i would not necessarily avail myself of it to the fullest extent permitted.

feel free to flame away.

 

[30 cal slob]

of course, if it's ZOMBIES we're talking about, all bets are off.

 

[ldyates]

No need to flame

The laws in my State work just fine. You have two dead burglars and a law abiding citizen that will get a No Bill or at least be found not guilty.

As I have stated previously... I don't like the vigilante attitude he seemed to carry at the time, but if you remove the audio, he was justified under the law and he did his community a favor in my book.

 

[jimbob86]

Three cheers for Joe Horn. And a No Bill. And a Medal.

Do I think the Thieves' lives were worth the crap they stole? No. But they did. They bet their a$$es and LOST. If thieves understood implicitly that old men with shotguns mean what they say, MAYBE they would be alive today. But then again, thieves need to understand implicitly that thieving is a dangerous occupation, and I'd be willing to bet that if this were the case, thievery would be a much rarer activity than it is ..........

"If you want more of something, you make it cheaper, safer and more convenient. If you want less of something, you make it more expensive, more dangerous, and less convenient."

Texas, judging by its laws concerning deadly force to protect life and property, wants less thievery. We'll find out if they want Joe Average to put those laws into practice based on how this plays out.........

 

[Dallas239]

i am uncomfortable with the TX law. just because it is legal, does not make it ethical.

You don't say where you are, so we don't know what the self-defense laws are in your state. But they can be either broader or narrower than your personal conception of what is acceptable. In other words, the law can err on the side of either the GGs or the BGs. Texas has chosen a standard that may be broader than it needs to be, but it clearly errs on the side of GGs. Regardless of what I think I might or might not do in a particular situation, there's no doubt in my mind that I prefer that the state give me (and not the BG) the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Gato Montés]

People latch onto their idea and then find evidence to support them.

They then turned and came at him, otherwise he could not have shot them in the front!

Great way to prove your point. For all we know, these BGs could have surrendered to Horn who then proceeded to shoot them.

just because it is legal, does not make it ethical.

Which is a good point. I remember this one country that made it law to turn in people of a certain religion or ethnicity. But the law is the law, right?

 

[MakAttak]

Great way to prove your point. For all we know, these BGs could have surrendered to Horn who then proceeded to shoot them.

Quite true, but we do know FOR SURE that they weren't running away.

However, given the "Move and You're Dead" it seems rather foolish of the guy to call attention to himself if he just planned to shoot them. If you're gonna shoot, shoot! Don't talk.

i would be more supportive of the TX law if it truly served as a deterrent, but judging (anecdotally) from recent events, it doesn't seem to be.

i am not arguing for a change of the law. i don't live in TX, but if i did, all i'm saying is that i would not necessarily avail myself of it to the fullest extent permitted.

feel free to flame away.

I don't think there is enough time/evidence to judge Texas law. It is possible that criminals have a slower time learning than the law abiding. If there are more killings of criminals now with the same amount of crime, we still end up with less criminals on the street. I think, however, as the criminals start to see the risk associated with their profession go up, they may find more healthy lifestyles.

 

[ldyates]

For all we know, these BGs could have surrendered to Horn who then proceeded to shoot them

OMG.... I think I wet myself.

These BG's committed suicide. If the Race Pimps want a conviction, they need to get the legal team that prosecuted Dr. Kevorkian. Mr. Horn was just trying to help ease their pain that the white society has placed on these poor black soles.

I am done with this thread for now. I will check back when the No Bill hits the media.

 

[30 cal slob]

You don't say where you are, so we don't know what the self-defense laws are in your state.

I don't live in a "Castle" state, but I am allowed to defend myself with deadly force in my home when confronted with danger to life and limb.

Where I live doesn't necessarily define my position on the issue.

I just think that armed self-defense should be reserved exclusively for "the gravest extreme" - when you (or other innocents in jeopardy) are faced with immediate grave bodily harm or death. And brother, I have been there, having legally drawn my loaded-cocked-safety-off CCW at bad guys in public.

I don't knock the notion that society is better off without the two unlucky perps, but I submit that society-building is outside the scope of the armed citizen.

Again, don't take this as "you shouldn't do this or that." I am just expressing my own reservations.

 

[Thumper]

I think anyone who posts without having read the relevant law should be beaten with dead catfish.

 

[anygunanywhere]

I think I have read too much.

If it is legal, then for the current state of society it is ethical. Criminals are ethical individuals. Ethics, as defined in the Clinton sense, is subject to the individual. Don't slather your definition of ethics on me. All those who state that they would not shoot over property are like those who are against the death penalty. You will change your mind if one of your family is killed.

Society defines what is ethical.

Morals are different. Morals are derived from virtue. Mr. Horn might have not acted morally, but maybe his morals are different. I can relate.

Have you ever had your stuff that you have sweated and slaved to buy stolen by someone who wants to take the easy route? Where do you draw the line? When someone is stealing your insulin? Last water? Last food?
Your wife or daughter's honor? Your last gallon of gas? Let the thieves have it. You know, deescalate the situation. Your possessions are not worth their life.

Anyone who tries to steal anything from you deserves to pay the ultimate price.

I read this on another board recently:

Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that

"to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil.

To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission.

Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally

The quote addresses major crimes, rape, murder. Theft is evil. Thieves who continue to steal almost always work their way to more serious offenses. Take them out before they kill or rape.

I have been called cruel in my way of thinking. Maybe so. Lots of people carry firearms who will never pull the trigger, not because they are never faced with the reality of having to pull the trigger, but because they have not developed the mindset that they will defend themselves from evil.

If you can't kill a kitten or a puppy, a deer, or a cute little dove, then what makes you think you can kill a human when you need to?

I admire folks like Mr. Horn. I would consider it an honor to have them as a friend.

Please stop the liberal wuss blathering over two dead thieves. Good riddance. They were drinking valuable water and breathing valuable air, and left the world polluted with their ways.

Anygun

 

[30 cal slob]

Calling the cops on two guys leaving your house with earthly goods is not accommodating evil. Quite the opposite.

I have no problem shooting a perp if he is intent on killing me or a loved one or even an innocent stranger. He wants to steal a generator that is powering a ventilator connected to a relative in my house - boom, he's toast. No problem whatsoever. I'll sleep soundly knowing that what I did was right and just and go about my life. I have that much as bedrock in my mindset.

Furthermore, I think a duty to retreat, especially in your own home, is a crock of ****.

However, what would keep me up at night is ... regretting for the rest of my life killing somebody over a piece of property or shooting somebody if the shooting was reasonably avoidable.

Self-preservation is the first priority of the armed citizen. Again, my own thinking is to leave the society building to the do-gooders.

 

[Dallas239]

I just think that armed self-defense should be reserved exclusively for "the gravest extreme" - when you (or other innocents in jeopardy) are faced with immediate grave bodily harm or death. And brother, I have been there, having legally drawn my loaded-cocked-safety-off CCW at bad guys in public.

That's a perfectly fine moral position to take. But I think you missed my point. If you were to write the laws for self-defense so that they said, "You can only be justified in the use of deadly force self-defense if you are about to be killed" how many justified, law-abiding, GGs would go down for murder because they couldn't prove that they were just about to be killed? Probably, all of them. That's why the Great State of Texas will presume that if a BG is in my house that he intends to do me harm. It's not because we believe in the death penalty for burglars, it's because between burglars and their victims, the benefit of the doubt goes to the victim. Same with BGs commiting certain crimes.

Likewise with laws requiring retreat. Why should I have to prove to a jury in a docile courtroom, 2 years after I was attacked that I couldn't have retreated? How can I prove that to them? How can I prove what was in my head or what I saw in his eyes that made me think, "He's going to kill me." Are you absolutely certain that if you had to shoot the BG you drew down on that no jury would have convicted you under your own standard?

Yes, Texas allows the use of deadly force in defense of property, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think that's the issue here.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Morals, ethics, and laws? I don't give a rat's behind for the morals and ethics issues. The question is whether or not Mr. Horn will be going to jail and that won't be determined on morals and ethics.

The people that should have been concerned with morals and ethics are now dead.

 

[Lurp]

Well the way I look at it with all of these people complaining about TX law is that theirs 50 states in the US and you are not forced to live in anyone. That’s what makes the US unique, your ability to be in one country, but yet have so many options to choose from regarding lifestyle. It goes back to the old argument of outsiders moving somewhere and then trying to impose their views on the natives of that area. If you like having the ability of defending your property with force live in Texas, if not theirs 49 other states out there and I'm sure you can find one that will more or less fit your general ideas. In Texas the legislature has decided that defending your property is worth the lives of the thieves and that’s that. I grew up in NY all of my life and have chosen to come to school and live in Texas and among the main reasons for doing so is the culture and legisltation that suites my way of life such as this.

I realize that in this case he also had a self defense motive when they charged and the law will hopefully side with him on that also.