brotherpeacemaker

It's about our community and our spirituality!

Getting Away With Murder by Joe Horn

I have no love for thieves, politicians, Presidents, or anyone who flagrantly disrespects the law. I don’t have a problem with thieves getting their comeuppance. When Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas took his shotgun outside his house to shoot the two burglars breaking into his neighbor’s house, two burglars breaking the law, I have no problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Horn made the choice to break the law as well. He shot two unarmed men in the back trying to run from him. However, Joe Horn was acquitted for his crime when a Texas grand jury refused to indict him.

The two men Mr. Horn killed were two illegal aliens from Columbia. Some people feel that the fact that they were undocumented makes it okay that Mr. Horn shot and killed them. However, this was unknown to Mr. Horn when he pulled the trigger on his twelve gauge shotgun. The audio tape that was made when Mr. Horn called emergency operators recorded the altercation when Mr. Horn confronted the burglars. Not once did I hear Mr. Horn ask the men if they had any documentation. I cannot help but wonder if the fact that the two men he shot in the back are referred to as illegal aliens instead of undocumented foreigners has any bearing on the issue. The fact that the men were illegally here was simply a matter of circumstance. Besides, is it some people’s contention that foreigners are not entitled to protection by the law?

I have no problem with thieves getting their comeuppance. I don’t have a problem with murderers getting their just desserts as well. If Mr. Horn made the decision to kill two men by shooting them in the back then Mr. Horn made the decision to suffer the consequences of being a murderer.

Without question Texas is the single state within the union that enjoys a reputation for the highest rate of state sponsored murder. Texas has put people to death on the testimony of a single witness who is legally blind and “saw” the defendant and the victim struggle from a block away with an office building blocking the view. Texas will put people in jail for library book and jay walking violations. While Texas does have a reputation for being hard on some, Texas is very lenient on others. Texas is one of the most fucked up states when it comes to the disparity of murder charges and punishment.

In Texas, a woman with a daughter trying out for a cheerleader competition will hire a hit man to kill the mother of her daughter’s rival. The hit man she tried to hire was an undercover cop. The woman is on visual and audio tape saying that she wanted that woman dead and is ready to pay for it. The woman’s daughter’s rival will be so upset that she would drop out of the competition and the woman’s little girl would undoubtedly win. However, when the woman is busted, with intent and a videotaped confession, the most the woman suffered was a fine and six months of a ten year sentence.

In Texas, a woman with a cheating husband hires a private investigator to track him. When the detective finds the philanderer in the middle of philandering, the woman is called and shows up on the scene. While her husband is walking to his car in the parking lot of the hotel of the illicit rendezvous, the woman uses her high dollar Mercedes Benz to run her husband down. While the man is on the ground, she puts the car in reverse and parks it on top of him. The couple’s daughter is in the passenger seat watching her mother killing her father. But due to its application to specific circumstances associated with only the most reprehensible crimes, the death penalty is not even an option as punishment.

This is the same Texas that threw the book at a fourteen year old black girl who received a maximum sentence of seven years in a juvenile facility for shoving a hall monitor at her Paris, Texas high school. I guess the girl should have made sure she only shoved illegal alien hall monitors.

Texas is tough on crime, but only when there are special circumstances that allows the heaviest punishments to be handed out like the non white condition of the defendant.  It isn’t any surprise at all that Mr. Horn didn’t even get charged. If anything is a surprise it is the fact that it took six months or so for a grand jury to determine that it wasn’t going to indict a white property owner who admitted on tape that he was going outside to kill two men who were never a threat to him or his property. He cocked his twelve gauge rifle and challenged the direct order from the emergency operator telling Mr. Horn not to engage or kill the men. He ran outside, hollered freeze, and shot two men in the coldest of blood. He is one of the most despicable of law breakers. He is a murderer. One day he will get his comeuppance.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - Posted by | Life, Philosophy, Racism, Thoughts

30 Comments »

  1. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person
    is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
    protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
    under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, 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

    9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
    in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
    justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
    actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
    prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful
    interference with the property.
    (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
    movable property by another is justified in using force against the
    other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
    is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
    property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
    after the dispossession.

    Joe Horn did not commit murder.

    Comment by 4hournotice | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

    • Yes he did. He shot two men in the backs as they tried to run away when his life was not in danger and when the dispatcher specifically told him not to as the cops were on the way. A murderer and a coward.

      Comment by ... | Saturday, October 6, 2012 | Reply

  2. 4hournotice,

    Whatever. Just because Texas law says it’s all good doesn’t mean this man did not commit murder. What if the police tell their dispatcher that they don’t care what the situation is they’re going to kill the suspects. People in Texas will say it’s okay, until it happens to them or to one of their loved ones. What if someone saw Joe Horn kill the burglars. That person is now free to kill Joe Horn in order to protect others. The only reason it’s okay is because it happened to a couple of undocumented foreigners that were Hispanic.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  3. 4hournotice,

    Those laws do NOT protect a person from PREMEDITATED MURDER! Joe Horn clearly and concisely says on the 911 tape “I am going to KILL them!” Then he goes outside and kills them. That is premeditated murder no matter how you slice it. Also, he claims they were coming to attack him. Really? What were they doing backing up towards him menacingly?

    You can not tell me that shooting people in the back is reasonable. They were obviously fleeing and it does not matter what the law says you can NOT voice that you about to kill a person and then carry out that deed and it not be a planned murder.

    So he committed a cold blooded premeditated murder. Plain and simple.

    Thanks

    Comment by theblacksentinel | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  4. Thanks for the feedback theblacksentinel,

    As usual the disparity of the situation is lost on people in the dominant community. Laws will never be applied in this country equally or fairly. This shit gets more ridiculous with each and every passing day.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  5. ehhh, i think premeditated, come on fellas don’t you think that’s a bit of a stretch? let’s be reasonable.

    premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

    calling a 911 dispatcher i think pretty much knocks that argument out. with that there was no planning involved, joe walked out, gave the robbers a command, they disobeyed and he shot…. twice. i can appreciate that you don’t agree with texas laws but let’s be fair, joe horn was well within the law.

    i would venture to say that though you think that the american legal system is the pits it’s got to be a lot better than where those burglars came from (columbia).

    Comment by 4hournotice | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  6. Let’s see…

    According to the dictionary premeditated means to meditate, consider, or plan beforehand.

    Somebody says “I’m going to kill’em” and then he goes out and kills them. He planned it. He considered it before he went outside. He admitted it to the emergency operator before he went outside and we have it recorded on tape. And lo and behold they wind up dead.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s the Columbian legal system or America’s. They both tolerate disparate forms of justice. What’s the difference?

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  7. 1. okay, i guess you got me on the definition of “premeditation” but i probably wouldn’t use that definition in front of a judge or a legal setting seeing as how the law defines it as what i had written previously.

    2. you really think that america’s legal system is so bad that you would compare it to columbia’s? sheesh… i don’t know even know where to begin there.

    all i have left to say is…if the glove don’t fit you must acquit!

    peace-out brotherpeacemaker…

    Comment by 4hournotice | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  8. Thanks for the feedback 4hournotice,

    I do believe that you were the one who brought the comparison of the legal system of Columbia into this discussion when you wrote, “i would venture to say that though you think that the american legal system is the pits it’s got to be a lot better than where those burglars came from (columbia).” If you don’t know where to begin I’m not surprised. Typical dominant culture selective reasoning enhanced with overt examples of hypocrisy.

    Word to the mother’!

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  9. “if the glove don’t fit you must acquit”

    was to show you that i agree with you in that sometimes the american legal system does not seem to make any sense (oj simpson case).

    Comment by 4hournotice | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  10. 4hournotice,

    A better example would have been the trial of Scooter Libby. Although the president and others promised that people would pay dearly for the outing of Valerie Plame, when the dust cleared and the fall guy for the crime was uncovered, the president pardoned the man saying the poor guy suffered enough. This is the same president that, as governor of Texas, wouldn’t pardon a black man convicted on the sole testimony of a blatant, racist, liar, with their own fingerprints all over the murder weapon. Prison for treason against one’s country doesn’t merit a prison term. This is a far better example of the disparity of justice that is the norm here in America.

    Besides, O.J. Simpson went to trial. This man isn’t even going to be indicted.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  11. 4hournotice,

    I am sorry but if I look outside and say that I am going to kill some kid who is taking a pee on my car, whether or not I am talking to the 911 dispatch or my best friend, if I go out and kill that kid it is premeditated murder.

    Because if you are saying that it can’t premeditation if you are talking to the police when you kill someone that is just plain wrong. And in case you wondered about that just do a google search and you will find tons of cases of premeditated murder after the killer called 911 first. So it is still premeditated even if you do tell 911 you are about to kill someone.

    I don’t care where the hell those guys came from. This is AMERICA where we are supposed to uphold the law not circumvent it because the people killed might have gotten worse in their own country.

    Also, until you can show me the statement in the law where it says that you can make a statement of premeditation which means you had previous consideration or some degree of planning. Now that did NOT say that he had to sit and come up with a plan then mull it over for days while planning. A statement of “I’m gonna kill them” is planning enough.

    So NO Joe Horn was NOT well within the law.

    Thanks.

    Comment by theblacksentinel | Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reply

  12. Crazy stuff man. I live in Austin…
    All this legal maneuvering when you have the man on the phone telling the police and stating a “law” that says you can kill. Shit it sounds like he knew he was gonna kill them before he picked up the phone. When the police are on your side to begin with of course, he’ll call them. Cuz, he know ain’t shit gonna happen.
    Slavery, murder, rape, torture of black people was once legal… I use once very loosely.

    Comment by Damien | Wednesday, July 2, 2008 | Reply

  13. Thanks for the feedback Damien,

    Once legal? This crazy shit has never stopped being legal. Cops shoot black people in a hail of bullets, boot camp guards murder a fourteen year old with a baton across the neck and try to blame it on a latent sickle cell trait, cops jump an old black man in New Orleans for calling cops unprofessional and then try to accuse the man of drunk and disorderly conduct, an unarmed black man is killed as he tries to go home for his wedding, black man is killed for pulling out his wallet to identify himself, white kids hang nooses and get in a fight with black kids and black kids are accused of attempted murder, a black woman holding a baby is killed because police are after her boyfriend, a black girl receives a seven year sentence for shoving a hall monitor, and a ten year old black girl gets raped and the judge minimizes the crime by accusing the girl of being promiscuous. This shit is crazy and is getting crazier by the day.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Wednesday, July 2, 2008 | Reply

  14. God’s law is above all laws and he says “Thou Shall Not Kill” regardless what some law describes. Joe Horn is murderer and should repent for his actions. When he dies he can will go straight to hell and there won’t be jury to save him from this. No person’s life is worth $2000 no matter what. I pray that he repents because God’s law is the only law and he doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.

    Comment by Agnes | Thursday, July 3, 2008 | Reply

  15. Thanks for the feedback Agnes,

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Saturday, July 5, 2008 | Reply

  16. Agnes I got to agree with you. This man, his town of Pasadena, and his state of Texas all appear to be pro-perty, not pro-life. A man reaps what he sows, so if I was any of the former I would be watching my back right now.

    This man and his supporters, are a disgraceful band of hooligans. The men he killed were guilty of robbery, Joe Horn is guilty of murder. Joe Horns supporters are worthless spirits who need to find god in a hurry.

    Comment by geber22 | Monday, July 7, 2008 | Reply

  17. Thanks for the feedback geber22,

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 8, 2008 | Reply

  18. There is no question in my mind that no one’s life is worth $2000 worth of jewelry and cash. But the persons who first need to hear and understand that are perpetrators of crimes. It isn’t of any value for me to think no one’s life is worth that if the person committing the crime thinks his life is worth less than $2000.

    I don’t want to see anyone get the death penalty for a $200 burglary, but should they just get off scott free? I heard the tape, Horn yelled, ‘Move and you’re dead.’ He tried to hold them for the police, which is why he took his phone out to the confrontation. I think this would have never happened if a guy with a long criminal record hadn’t wanted to lengthen his record.

    Our society needs to start caring more for the rights of VICTIMS than they do about the rights of CRIMINALS. Until that day arrives, I’d be glad to have Joe Horn for a neighbor. Let criminals be afraid.

    Comment by Toad | Saturday, November 29, 2008 | Reply

  19. Thanks for the feedback Toad,

    I don’t think anybody is getting the death penalty for burglary. But I think we have a problem when we allow people to take the law into their own hands and become judge, jury, and executioner. You said you heard the tape and Mr. Horn took his phone outside and tried to hold the burglars at bay. I heard a different tape. I also heard a gunshot immediately after that. I heard a man tell the emergency operator that he was going outside to kill them. Yes he said, “Move, you’re dead!” But, how did Mr. Horn know the burglars even spoke English? You say our society needs to worry about victims. What about Mr. Horn’s victims? You said your self no one is worth killing over a two hundred dollar burglary. But then you support a man who kills people over a two hundred dollar burglary. Your hypocrisy is deep.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Saturday, November 29, 2008 | Reply

  20. First, people take crime into their hands every day. I think our society could use less crime, not more, which is why I consider it tragic, but I still think society is better off with at least one long-time criminal dead, rather than planning his next crime.

    Second, defending yourself, your property, or your neighbor’s life or property is not taking “the law into their own hands.” It’s defense. This incident would not have happened if someone hadn’t wanted to commit a crime. The primary cause of this incident were the burglars, not Horn.

    I heard the same tape. It was foolish of Horn to go out. According to the police report, the burglars were about 10 feet away from him. That’s way too close for an old man, and way too close to attempt to apprehend. It’s not sufficient time to react, either to give them a chance to be startled but still freeze, or to react if they had split up and charged him. Plus Horn didn’t consider that their might have been a third burglar behind the other two, to shoot Horn in the back. But that’s what heroes are made of – people who risk their lives to stop something bad from happening.

    Sure, it was only $2000. Now, tell me how Horn didn’t know they were kidnappers with the neighbor’s 8-month old child in the bag? Maybe they had his chemotherapy medicine and the neighbor would die without it. The point I was trying to make above is that the amount that was being stolen isn’t the cause of the action taken – it’s the fact that they were burglarizing someone’s house and (apparently) either assumed they were invincible, or assumed they wouldn’t get caught, or assumed that Horn wouldn’t come out with a shotgun, or assumed their life wasn’t worth as much as what they were stealing. (Take you pick.) THE BURGLARS set the scene for the drama that played out, but you are only blaming Horn for the conclusion.

    “What about Mr. Horn’s victims?” First, do you agree with my point about the victims of crime or are you willing to completely blow off their rights over the deaths of two criminals? Before you talk about hypocrisy, you might want to answer that. You see, that’s my problem with what you wrote above. I’m not trying to start a fight – I’m asking, “What is your solution?”

    If your solution is the status quo is fine, because people shouldn’t be killed for burglarizing someone’s house, then we aren’t even going to come to an agreement. What solution do you propose to reduce crime? What do you offer to the people terrorized by criminals? My cars have been stolen 4 times, my identity once, and my home suffered one attempted burglary which I foiled without shooting anyone. What do you offer to the victims of crime? Because if you want there to be no killings you you can be satisfied/happy/feel right/whatever, but don’t care about how I feel about those issues, then it’s YOU who are the hypocrite.

    I care about all the rights of all the law-abiding people of our country. And I care about the rights of criminals, illegal aliens, and others like that, but I think that their rights are subordinate to the first set. Peace isn’t going to come from giving precedence to the rights to criminals, or to illegal aliens, or to people of a particular race. If the drama were recast as 2 joy-riding, white, inheritance babies who were shot by an illegal Mexican immigrant while burglarizing someone’s house, I’d support that immigrant’s petition to become a citizen. In my opinion, the surest road to peace comes through the rule of law, applied impartially to everyone, and with law-abiding citizens enabled to defend themselves and their neighbors. With the criminals are more afraid that the citizens, there will be more peace than their is today.

    So, before you tell me what a hypocrite I am, tell me what solution you have to offer? Or is complaining about something you don’t like the limit of your compassion?

    Comment by Toad | Sunday, November 30, 2008 | Reply

  21. ”First, people take crime into their hands every day. I think our society could use less crime, not more, which is why I consider it tragic, but I still think society is better off with at least one long-time criminal dead, rather than planning his next crime.”

    I think you meant that people take the law into their hands everyday. People commit murder everyday that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate it. Everyday somebody somewhere is being raped, that doesn’t mean that we should stop prosecuting people for that particular crime. How does people taking the law into their own hands justify the murder of killing people in the back? How did Mr. Horn know they were long-time criminals? Why are we so focused on stopping the crime of burglary but are ready to excuse the crime of murder?

    ”Second, defending yourself, your property, or your neighbor’s life or property is not taking “the law into their own hands.” It’s defense. This incident would not have happened if someone hadn’t wanted to commit a crime. The primary cause of this incident were the burglars, not Horn.”

    Taking a shotgun outside your house, specifically after the authorities told you not to go, after you admitted to the emergency operator that you are going to kill the people burglarizing your neighbor’s house where you have nothing vested, is not defensive at all. It is an offensive act. If I see someone spray painting walls, that particular crime doesn’t justify someone else coming along and killing the impromptu artist. Just because someone is vandalizing property doesn’t give someone else the right to kill them or shoot them in the back when they try to run. Cops aren’t allowed to kill so indiscriminately. A police officer is not allowed to shoot unless they believe their life is in danger. Mr. Horn shooting two men in the back doesn’t sound like they were threatening his life. Because petty crime “A” happened or is happening does not automatically justify a far more serious crime “B” of murder.

    ”Horn didn’t consider that their might have been a third burglar behind the other two, to shoot Horn in the back. But that’s what heroes are made of – people who risk their lives to stop something bad from happening.”

    There is nothing heroic about this man. This man was eager to kill and found the perfect excuse for it. And because we are talking about the murder of a couple of Hispanic men everyone is much more willing to forgive and forget. Compare the acts of white Joe Horn to black John White, who was trying to defend his home and family from a mob of white men who wanted to injure his son, and suddenly there’s a problem here. Why is John White considered a murderer while Joe Horn is considered a hero? Why is Joe Horn considered a hero while John White is a criminal?

    ”Sure, it was only $2000. Now, tell me how Horn didn’t know they were kidnappers with the neighbor’s 8-month old child in the bag…Maybe they had his chemotherapy medicine and the neighbor would die without it.”

    What? You have got to be kidding me! A couple of burglars are going to steal an eight month old child by stuffing it in a bag. Okay, I’ll bite. If the neighbors left their eight month old baby in the house alone for burglars to come and stuff it in a bag then maybe the baby needs to go with them. And if they do have a baby that has been abandoned by its family then maybe they weren’t burglars but rescuers. And if we are going to assume that they could’ve had the baby in the bag then wouldn’t Mr. Horn be jeopardizing that baby’s life when he shoots the burglars point blank with a shot gun? Maybe they had a chemotherapy machine because they are so easy to sell on ebay or hock at a pawn shop. You’re really going to make these suppositions? Do you know how big a chemotherapy machine is? I think it’s an incredible grasp at straws to justify murder. There was no child in a bag. Here in America it is highly unusual for someone to be killed because other people don’t know what they are carrying in their bag. That’s why we call the police and give descriptions and license numbers so they can get to the bottom of the situation instead of taking the law into our own hands.

    ”THE BURGLARS set the scene for the drama that played out, but you are only blaming Horn for the conclusion.”

    You are totally off base and rather clueless about my position. Had the burglars been caught by the police I would have loved to see them rot in prison. I am no harbinger of criminals. In the past year I’ve had my minivan burglarized twice, the plates stolen off of my car, and the storage unit I keep broken into and all my power tools stolen. All in all I have lost about two thousand dollars. I am angry over the lost and the violation. Does that mean I now have the right to go and kill people? No! I hope the burglars rot in hell but I actually believe life is more important than tools and minivans. I can’t see me taking someone’s life because I think they are stealing. I will call the police so that they can get to the bottom of things. All I can do is jump to conclusions about babies in bags and chemotherapy machines.

    ”I’m not trying to start a fight – I’m asking, ‘What is your solution?’”

    Believe it or not Toad, I am not trying to start a fight either. But when someone says no one is worth losing their life over two thousand dollars but then applauds when a man kills burglars over two thousand dollars, that is hypocrisy. It is double speak. I hope people get caught but the average joe does not have the right to kill the suspicious looking people at his neighbor’s house. You asked what if they had a baby in the bag. Let me throw a supposition out, what if they had legitimate business next door and Mr. Horn shot them? Now what? Mr. Horn could have been shooting men who were totally innocent. It might have looked bad, but we need to get all the facts before we start pulling triggers. That’s the job of the police.

    ”What solution do you propose to reduce crime? What do you offer to the people terrorized by criminals? My cars have been stolen 4 times, my identity once, and my home suffered one attempted burglary which I foiled without shooting anyone. What do you offer to the victims of crime? Because if you want there to be no killings you you can be satisfied/happy/feel right/whatever, but don’t care about how I feel about those issues, then it’s YOU who are the hypocrite.”

    I’m sorry that you have suffered with crime. We all suffer with crime. Like you said, ”our society could use less crime.” But unfortunately people killing other people for burglary does not and will not make us any safer. In fact, it will actually make things a lot more dangerous. Declaring open season on burglars means more burglars are more apt to arm themselves the next time they break into someone’s house.

    Personally, as a black man here in America, I have more to lose from someone like Joe Horn than I have to fear from a burglar. I’ll take being a victim of the guy who wants to steal from me over being the victim of the guy with the itchy trigger finger who is ready to blow me away because I look suspicious any day, week, month, or year. One will only steal my property. The other won’t hesitate to take my life. Here in America I have more to fear from a man like Mr. Horn than any petty burglar. Yes I think people who are suspected of committing crime, who look suspicious, should be protected from people who feel that they are not entitled to any rights and are not entitled to life.

    Here in America we hear so many stories about unarmed black men falling victim to people and authorities with a penchant for killing. There is Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Martin Lee Anderson, and etcetera. We justify these cold blooded murders by letting people armed to the teeth who make the choice to put themselves in danger to claim they were in fear of their lives. I’m sorry, but if people were truly afraid for their lives they would have avoided putting themselves in danger. It’s bad enough when police officers in body armor and backup from SWAT and police helicopters and armored police tanks can make the claim against unarmed black men. It gets pretty thick when neighbors come out shooting and claiming they were in fear of their life from inside their home.

    ”I care about all the rights of all the law-abiding people of our country. And I care about the rights of criminals, illegal aliens, and others like that, but I think that their rights are subordinate to the first set. Peace isn’t going to come from giving precedence to the rights to criminals, or to illegal aliens, or to people of a particular race.”

    Everyone needs their rights protected. Simply because you are suspected of committing a crime does not mean you are not entitled to rights. Even after you have been convicted you have rights. No one has the right to take away anybody’s rights without due process of law. There are extenuating circumstances of course. But a man safe inside his own home who picks up his shot gun and goes outside to confront people who don’t have anything to do with him is without a doubt not one of them.

    If we are going to be tough on crime we need to be tough on all crime. People who break into homes need to be prosecuted for their burglary. I do not have a problem in the world with that. I hope every burglar on the face of the Earth gets prosecuted to the fullest extent of law. But the burglars aren’t the only criminals here. Mr. Horn is a murderer. He willfully committed a crime that night. And as a murderer he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is hypocrisy to say we need to focus only on one type of crime instead of all crime. The people whose house was broken into were victims and they need justice. The burglars who were shot and killed were victims as well and they deserve justice.

    ”In my opinion, the surest road to peace comes through the rule of law, applied impartially to everyone, and with law-abiding citizens enabled to defend themselves and their neighbors. With the criminals are more afraid that the citizens, there will be more peace than their is today.”

    And the law says that murderers need to be prosecuted. I cannot agree with you more, it is very important that the rule of law gets applied to everyone without exception. So why are you making a case for a murderer to avoid prosecution? Your hypocrisy is so deep and factual I do not understand why you continue to deny it so.

    ”So, before you tell me what a hypocrite I am, tell me what solution you have to offer? Or is complaining about something you don’t like the limit of your compassion?”

    The solution is not to selectively enforce law. Part of the solution is to make a just society where law is equally applied to everyone. Throwing our hands up and declaring open season on people carrying bags because they might be holding an eight month old children is not the answer. Justifying this type of behavior is just more manifestation of racial disparity that leads some people to believe that they are better off taking a chance of stealing for a living rather than honestly earning a living.

    We can’t tolerate petty burglars. We will justify their murder by any yahoo with a shotgun. But if theft was such a crime punishable by death by the average joe, why don’t we let people kill corporate executives that steal? Why aren’t people who run corporations that steal from the public being shot? Would we say it is okay if someone had walked into Enron and shot Kenneth Lay dead after his company stole money from people who were trying to make trades legally? Would we say it’s okay to kill executives of corporations that steal money from the public treasury through loop holes and fascism?

    I’m pretty sure that if anyone walked up to a corporate thief and blew him away with a shotgun nobody would say that he deserved it. It’s only people who are poor or people who are a racial minority that we want to throw the book at. The law says that no one is entitled to take the law into their own hands. But people like Joe Horn, whose only crime is the murder of a minority, have absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, November 30, 2008 | Reply

  22. First, NO, I really meant people take CRIME into their hands every day. Until our society finds a BETTER way to deal with CRIME than saying, let the crooks run away with whatever they can steal, we are stuck with this imperfect system.

    I asked you what your solution was, but really you don’t have one. You don’t like having been the victim of a crime, but you have no solution to offer except the vague hope that criminals might rot in jail when caught.

    You say, “The solution is not to selectively enforce the law”, and yet what you want is EXACTLY THAT. There for you is the very definition of hypocrisy. You may FEEL Horn is guilty of murder, but that does not make it so, and your claim to my hypocrisy is based on the fact that I don’t agree with you on your insistence that Horn is a murderer.

    On the other hand, the statistics show that burglars are often armed, are often confronted by someone in the house getting up to pee in the middle of the night, and often commit murder, rape, or otherwise do serious injury to the person already being victimized.

    On other difference between you and I. I’m a 36 year veteran of the Army. I’m been in combat zones 3 time, been shot at in two of them. I’m used to the idea of putting my life on the line for people who think I’m an idiot for doing so. It doesn’t bother me to accept a responsibility for more than just what I own, i.e. my neighborhood, my state, and my country.

    I see that same attitude in our fire departments, our police (who a lot of people including apparently you, think are little more than ducks in a shooting gallery) and in similar groups. I know the fear that grips you when you hear an AK-47 bullet whiz over your head like the biggest, meanest, angriest wasp in history. I know the adrenalin rush that leaves you shaking because you want to go find the terrorist SOB who shot at you and choke the squishy mierda out of him. I know those guys are human. There are bad one, but most are doing a job that few other people are willing to do, and doing their best to do it with honor.

    I believe that John White was wrongly convicted, but I think it’s just as likely that it is because he was convicted in New York than because he was black. I believe he would have been exonerated as Horn was if trial had been in Texas. I agree that there has been a disparity of justice, but I don’t see how accusing a man or murder, particularly in this specific case, is helping the situation.

    I see that you trivialize the facts of the case. Burglary is not petty crime, and yet you compared petty crime to murder as if it were. You use the term “suspected” when two suspects who have been in someone’s house packing a bag full of goodies, and then climb out a window, can hardly be trivialized as “suspects”, except by a lawyer or someone with a bone to pick who is more interested in his cause than the truth.

    Well, I could go through your most recent post and point out all the fallacies, trivializations, and rationalizations, but the long and short is that you and I just aren’t going to agree on this, and that’s OK. It’s your blog and you can kill my comments, or trivialize them, or whatever you want to.

    BUT … You’d probably consider me white, even though I have significant spanish, mexican, and indian ancestry. I grow a sparse beard, I have the epicanthic fold to my eyes (like eskimos) and I have no earlobes … i.e. a whole lot of Chocktaw blood. But cool, let’s say I’m white. I live in the next precinct north of the highest crime precinct in Dallas. I can hardly remember the last time I saw a white police officer – the vast majority are hispanic or black. I come from a long line of the poorest of poor people and without the Army, I wouldn’t have gotten a college education. Here’s the question … if race is really the issue, why do I have less trouble with the police and more respect for them than you do?

    I’m all for justice, but that’s not what I’m seeing here. I’m seeing a person who doesn’t like the way the law is written, and not even in his state. But more importantly, I’m seeing someone without a solution based on law, but a solution based on inequities that people have suffered, and not the majority of the cases. I’m glad we have a jury system in this country, even if the juries occasionally make mistakes. I’d hate to have to go to a single government official to have my case heard – that official might be YOU, and I don’t think I’d be treated fairly by someone with so obvious a grievance.

    I suggest less complaining, more concern about the law and less about race, and more working within the system to resolve the inequities that do exist … and while that includes John White, it doesn’t include Joe Horn.

    Comment by Toad | Sunday, November 30, 2008 | Reply

  23. Okay, so you really didn’t mean that people take the law into their own hands but that people take crime into their own hands every day. It still doesn’t explain why you insist on protecting a criminal like Joe Horn? Your solution appears to be protecting some people who take crime into their hands but prosecute others who take even greater crime into their own hands. And so if someone comes out and shoots Mr. Horn for his crime will that be okay since we have a society where the best solution is people killing each other for their crimes? It sounds like your solution to crime is to load everyone up with firearms so that we can shoot people for breaking the rule of law. And whoever is standing at the end of the day will be the winner.

    I thought my solution of assuring that everyone has equal protection without exception was ideal. Obviously, you think protection should be doled out and measured. Only people who are fully innocent of any crime should warrant protection. Typical privileged thinking. You want to look the other way when certain people take the law into their own hands. Be careful of what you wish for is all I have to say.

    You are correct when you say that I have the opinion that Mr. Horn is a murderer. However, we will never know for sure because the prosecutor in Texas has taken it upon himself to decide that Mr. Horn will never face a jury of his peers to be judged for his act of murder. This is nothing but more evidence of selective prosecution of law. Just because you agree that this man is entitled to kill anyone he feels is committing a crime does not mean a crime has not been committed.

    You feel that I am selective on prosecution. I wish I had the words to free you from your delusion. I will say again for those of us who are hard of reading comprehension that the burglars Mr. Horn killed should have been prosecuted by the law and not by some local yokel with a shotgun. Hopefully this point will stick with you this time, although I strongly doubt if you are capable of listening to reason at this point.

    And now you want to say statistics show that burglars are often armed. What statistics are these that support your claim? Do you have a web address for these statistics other than www-pulledoutmyass-com? I bet this is the same site that quotes statistics that say burglars are more likely to stuff abandoned eight month old babies in bags and steal chemotherapy machines. Regardless of what the statistics say the reality is that Mr. Horn killed two unarmed men. Statistics also say that when someone kills unarmed people by shooting them in the back as they try to run away that the person doing the killing should be prosecuted.

    You’re a thirty six year old veteran of the army and have been in three combat zones. This actually helps to explain a lot. You obviously have a proclivity for violence. I’m a forty six year old American citizen. I have been suspected of petty crimes too many times to count. I’m the person people like to watch extra closely when I venture into predominantly white neighborhoods, businesses, stores, and etcetera. I’m the one that gets pulled over and searched for being a suspicious character. I take responsibility for more than just what I own as well. I take responsibility for my neighborhood, my city, my state, my country, my world, my culture, my society, my spirituality, and that of my family and friends and associates and people I don’t even know. As I see it, it is part of being human and part of our choice to live as part of a society.

    It is typical arrogant, holier than thou rhetoric to think that the police, firefighters, and soldiers are the only ones who make a sacrifice as part of our national community. What in god’s blue world does this have to do with some guy taking it upon himself to go out burglar killing? You made a career choice like everyone else. And? Not everybody wants to do that job. Okay! Not everybody wants to be garbage men either. What does that have to do with anything? I guess it’s your contention that being a soldier imbues you with a certain understanding that we need to allow people to kill certain other people without fear of retribution.

    One thing I can say about John White, he had a trial. Mr. Horn got away with murder without even facing a trial. There is nothing trivial about what I see as a travesty of justice. It is a very serious matter. But I do believe that two thousand dollars in property is pretty petty when we start talking about giving people carte blanche to take someone’s life.

    And I think this line of yours is classic hypocrisy, ”You use the term ‘suspected’ when two suspects who have been in someone’s house […] can hardly be trivialized as ‘suspects’…” Classic! I can’t use the term “suspected” but you are free to use the term “suspects”. If suspects aren’t suspected, then what are they? I guess you feel that you and people like your hero Mr. Horn have earned the right to use the word suspect without lawyer approval. But people like me who talk about trying people for murder are trivializing things are not so entitled. A classic example of bold faced hypocrisy.

    I have never once considered you a white person. I have learned a long time ago that narrow mindedness isn’t an exclusive to any racial community. If you feel like you emulate white people’s behavior then that is strictly on you. Quite frankly, I could not care any less if you are one hundred percent Spanish, Mexican, Native American, African, Japanese, Indian, Caribbean, European, Egyptian, Pilipino, Indonesian, Samoan, or any combination in between. What runs in your veins is not the issue. The issue is the thinking between your ears or the lack thereof.

    You asked if race is really the issue, why you would have less trouble with the police and more respect for them than I. Do you really have to ask? Is it not obvious? While you are more than ready to capitulate to the dominant community’s way of thinking, ready to excuse the disparity that runs rampant in America, I prefer to hold everyone to the same standard of behavior. Joe Horn is so guiltless he doesn’t even have to face a trial while it is understandable that John White is prosecuted because he lives in New York. To make such assumptions is to support the status quo of disparity without reservation.

    You say that you are all for justice. I would think that if you wanted to see justice than let people who kill to defend the neighbor’s house face justice. Equal protection under the law is its own solution. It really doesn’t matter if we are a society of people who take crime into their own hands. The law is the law. And in America, if you murder someone, you need to be tried. I didn’t realize so many soldiers were fighting so hard and getting shot at in a number of war zones to support inequality and justice for only some people in America.

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Sunday, November 30, 2008 | Reply

  24. Well, top to bottom, again Joe Horn is not a criminal, except in your mind. So I’m not defending a criminal by defending Horn, except in your mind.

    *I* never said the best solution was to kill people. *YOU* are attempting to put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that there IS crime. There IS a feeling that the courts and/or police aren’t doing enough to stop crime. There are steady increases in many classes of crime, including burglary. People defending themselves and their neighbors is a natural reaction to increasing crime. So if we want this reaction to stop, we need to find a way to reduce crime so people will be less likely to need to defend themselves and their neighbors.

    What you are saying is that you are the judge and jury of Horn and until YOU are satisfied that justice has been done, you aren’t willing to recognize any other people or consider any solution. AND you are enough of a hypocrite not to recognize that nearly everything you accuse me or Horn of doing, you are doing yourself. There is a LEGAL system in this country – it’s far from perfect, but if HORN is wrong for demanding justice HIS way, the so are YOU!

    “the prosecutor in Texas has taken it upon himself to decide that Mr. Horn will never face a jury of his peers” Where’d you get that, www-pulledoutmyass-com? (Don’t you just hate it when you get caught by your own rhetoric?) Joe Horn was NO-BILLED by a grand jury, in which 9 of 12 must vote in favor of a trial for there to be a trial. Oops, guess you let your righteous anger get the best of you. Sorry you don’t like the system – why don’t you move to Iran where a religious zealot/judge/imam can apply your kind of justice directly without the benefit of a court trial? I understand that a woman who is raped in Iran can be flogged for adultery – that certainly ought to agree with your kind of justice.

    “You feel that I am selective on prosecution. [YES] I wish I had the words to free you from your delusion. [Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. I wish the same for you. This is your website. You can block my IP address any time you want to. I know I’m wasting my time, but with a few exceptions, you see like a reasonably well educated and thoughtful man. I’d like to think you can see beyond one incident to the greater good of society.] I will say again for those of us who are hard of reading comprehension that the burglars Mr. Horn killed should have been prosecuted by the law [I NEVER disagreed with that point. I would prefer that as well, but as long as career burglars are going to continue their careers, I understand the desire of the victims to protect themselves and their neighbors from it. In spite of your many attempts to twist what I have said into something else, that’s all I have maintained throughout this “discussion.”] and not by some local yokel with a shotgun. Hopefully this point will stick with you this time, although I strongly doubt if you are capable of listening to reason at this point.” [Again, don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. You were the first to stoop to name-calling, to putting words in my mouth, … well your entire diatribe above is hysterical and demeaning, but that’s YOUR problem, not mine.]

    “And now you want to say statistics show that burglars are often armed. What statistics are these that support your claim? Do you have a web address for these statistics other than www-pulledoutmyass-com? [FBI Crime statistics for 2002 through 2006 are available, although not on a web site. Not every truth in the world is available on-line. Sorry, you might have to crack a book if you really want to know the truth. However http://www.nrapublications.org/index.asp has some derivative data. Of course you CAN’T possibly go there. Surely everything published by the NRA is propaganda.] I bet this is the same site that quotes statistics that say burglars are more likely to stuff abandoned eight month old babies in bags and steal chemotherapy machines. [No such statistics, in spite of your repeated attempts to trivialize my points. There’s another site which claims the burglars were stealing twinkies. Smart move – always lie about the severity of a crime so your can complaints about the result seem even more valid.] Regardless of what the statistics say the reality is that Mr. Horn killed two unarmed men. [But really THIS is the part I like best. You want to challenge me on my statistics and before I can direct you to proof, you say in effect, “Regardless of what statistics there are, I cannot be changed from my viewpoint.” That’s a REALLY open-minded attitude, the kind one would expect from “brotherpeacemaker.” Keep up the good work.] Statistics also say that when someone kills unarmed people by shooting them in the back as they try to run away that the person doing the killing should be prosecuted.”

    “You obviously have a proclivity for violence.” Another assumption on your part. No only have I never fired at anyone, even on the case where I caught a burglar breaking into my house, I did not shoot him. But accuse first, put someone else down first, never back down, stand on your right to your opinion, to hell with the rest of the world – until *YOU* are satisfied, there is no other valid opinion. Yes, that’s a really peaceful and understanding view of the world and guaranteed to get people to agree with and follow you.

    “being a soldier imbues you with a certain understanding that we need to allow people to kill certain other people” Hardly. It means I understand when someone is willing to protect his neighbor’s property at the risk of his own life, something which you seem to be irrationally against.

    “I do believe that two thousand dollars in property is pretty petty when we start talking about giving people carte blanche to take someone’s life.” I said before and you continue to ignore, $2000 *IS* not sufficient reason to take someone’s life. But this is about BURGLARY, not about the amount burglarized. It’s about two people who could have done ANYTHING. Do you have an IMAGINATION or is righteous indignation the limit of your thought process? Isn’t it POSSIBLE they stuffed an 8-month old baby in the sack? Is there even the remotest possibility that they raped and killed the women in the house, planted a bomb, stole life-saving medication? I’m and NOT saying any of these happened, I’m just saying they could have. Burglary is a capital crime.

    Even so, I do not think that death is the appropriate answer, not that you will notice or give any credit to that. It’s too important to you to belittle any opinion which isn’t close to your own. But what I am saying and will say again is that if we don’t as a society find a way to deal with burglary, more states are going to give their citizens the right to defend themselves and their neighbors, and some of those defenses are going to result in death. If YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE THAT, then why aren’t you helping with a solution to the ROOT cause, BURGLARY, rather than carping only about what the law allows? I don’t want to see more people die, even burglars. But of the two of us, only I am talking about reducing crime. You are complaining about what happened to people of YOUR RACE, and implying that every such event is racially motivated.

    I don’t think I need to quote your “suspects” paragraph. It didn’t make much sense anyway. The point I was trying for is YOUR hypocrisy in calling people KNOWN to have burglarized a house “suspects” while calling Horn a murderer. If you are judge and jury, you can make this case, but calling me a hypocrite while so clearly demonstrating your own hypocrisy is truly classic.

    “you are more than ready to capitulate to the dominant community’s way of thinking” Ah, so in your mind I’m the Indian equivalent of an Oreo, or an Uncle Tom, or whatever. Cool, I’ll keep that in mind as more evidence of how you use logic to discuss and not racial epithets. Seriously, maybe so. I don’t have enough Indian blood to live on a reservation, but my grandmother did and choose not to. Maybe we all sold out from there, but I see people on reservations today and I see people waiting for a handout. They can’t get beyond the government owes them something. Your ancestors were slaves. Mine were deliberately starved to death at roughly the same time, through the deliberate extermination of the buffalo as a policy of the government of the time.

    You can call it a sell out, but I call it self-respect. I can make a life for myself in this society. I can work to change the society for the better. I can maintain my identity while being that success. I can accept some failures as long as the general direction of society is for the better. A person of color was elected President. It will never be an Indian, but that’s still a step forward and I can be glad for that step even when it doesn’t affect my heritage.

    You are living in the past. All past grievances have to be settled for you before you can look to the future. I’m truly sorry, but I wasn’t around to make your ancestor’s slaves and I don’t see any need to pay for it, especially when I don’t expect to get any payment for what my ancestors suffered.

    You say, “Equal protection under the law is its own solution. It really doesn’t matter if we are a society of people who take crime into their own hands. The law is the law.” And I agree with this. Horn was no billed – sorry you didn’t get the answer you wanted, but don’t be a hypocrite and insist that “the law is the law” while insisting that if you aren’t happy with the result that he somehow escaped.

    “I didn’t realize so many soldiers were fighting so hard and getting shot at in a number of war zones to support inequality and justice for only some people in America.” Well I did realize that so many of the people I have willingly defended all these years only believed in their personal view of equality and justice, which has nothing to do with the law, but I am still sorry to have run into another one.

    Comment by Toad | Monday, December 1, 2008 | Reply

  25. Toad,

    Technically you are right. Joe Horn is not a criminal. He is a cold blooded murderer. He would not be a criminal unless he was tried and convicted. We both know the chances of this cold blooded murderer facing a trial is completely nil thanks to our multi-tiered legal system that tolerates justice for some and prosecution of the week. In my mind he is a criminal. Nothing on god’s blue earth will change that fact. But yes, technically we have a murderer who is not a criminal. Happy now?

    And technically it is true that you never said that the best solution was to kill people. What you said was, ”I still think society is better off with at least one long-time criminal dead, rather than planning his next crime.” The implication is that you prefer to see criminals shot and killed rather than see them face a jury of their peers. This is no attempt to put words in your mouth. It is a logical interpretation of what you have written here in your own words. To imply that we are better off letting some people kill others because they are ”suspected” (I know you prefer that I don’t use that word without legal approval but until people are convicted by the legal system they are technically suspects), is to imply that the best solution is to kill people. As a society, we should not tolerate murder in order to eliminate burglary.

    I never said I was the judge and jury of Mr. Horn. I’ll try to break this down for you one more time. Joe Horn should be tried for the cold blooded murder of two unarmed men running away from him. To pat Mr. Horn on the back and send him on his way without prosecution is to tolerate murder. His life was not in danger. He said he thought his life was in danger after he told the operator he was going to kill the burglars. He admitted it. It’s part of the tape that you should have heard unless you truly have selective hearing. How in the world can you dismiss his pre-crime…oops…pre-murder confession? If I was the judge and jury of Mr. Horn you can better your sweet ass I’d be more than happy to be his executioner as well. But I’m not. I am not the law and I refuse to take the law into my own hands. If I did, I would be no better than Mr. Horn.

    “the prosecutor in Texas has taken it upon himself to decide that Mr. Horn will never face a jury of his peers” Where’d you get that, www-pulledoutmyass-com? (Don’t you just hate it when you get caught by your own rhetoric?)”

    Yes I do hate it when I am wrong. Good thing you and Joe Horn aren’t around to kill me for my mistake. What I should have said was that the detectives investigating the murder decided upon him self not to investigate Mr. Horn or arrest him for his shooting of two unarmed men. Mr. Horn was never arrested, never charged. He was allowed to come to the police station at his leisure to make a report. The prosecutor never even tried. The grand jury dismissed the case. Thanks for correcting me.

    Now, can we get back to your insistence that statistics that show burglars are arming themselves and killing homeowners in record numbers? Can we get back to your claim that burglars are putting babies in plastic bags and stealing chemotherapy machines through bedroom windows? Do you even have the integrity to address some of your own rhetoric? I must say it looks like the courage to admit being wrong is something that’s not taught in the military. www-nrapublications-com. That sounds like an impartial website. And what do I find when I get there? Are there any burglar statistics popping out at anyone proving any points? Not at all. But I do see a bunch of men in camouflage out in the wilderness with guns looking through scopes trying to find something to kill. Maybe they ought to go back to Joe Horn’s neighborhood and shoot suspicious looking people with bags that might be holding babies.

    ”FBI Crime statistics for 2002 through 2006 are available, although not on a web site. Not every truth in the world is available on-line. Sorry, you might have to crack a book if you really want to know the truth.”

    Actually, the FBI Crime Statistics are very much available online. But don’t take my word for it (as if you would) here is the FBI’s link to their crime statistics. But you’ll have to do your own homework to find those statistics that say burglars are rampantly killing homeowners and stuffing babies in black bags.

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/property_crime/burglary.html

    The greater good of a society is not to allow the knee jerk reaction of allowing people kill without fear of retribution. I will say this again, I would rather be robbed by a burglar than shot by a vigilante. Saying that I would prefer to see a murderer convicted is hardly a soft stance on crime. I will say again that had these men been caught I would have loved to see them face justice. Justice is not Mr. Horn’s to administer. This is not the wild west.

    ”[B]ut as long as career burglars are going to continue their careers, I understand the desire of the victims to protect themselves and their neighbors from it.”

    Joe Horn was not a victim. He had nothing stolen from him. And as a neighbor, I would like to protect society from people like Joe Horn and the other yahoos out there that think they’re Charles Bronson in Death Wish III.

    ”’You obviously have a proclivity for violence.’ Another assumption on your part.”

    Actually, just because you haven’t shot anybody doesn’t mean you don’t have a proclivity for violence. Look at Joe Horn, he waited sixty plus years before he committed murder. It’s just a matter of time.

    ”You are living in the past.”

    Whatever, it was you who brought this up again. I was just trying to address the flaw in your thinking. My mistake is thinking you gave what you wrote some thought. Regardless, I now know that trying to point things out to you doesn’t mean much because you will manipulate whatever is written to support whatever you want to believe. I bet you supported Sarah Palin too. What can you expect from people who write rhetoric like You call Joe Horn a murder but people suspected of being burglars are only suspects to you! Classic! I thought you just might be a hypocrite. Now I know for sure, and then some.

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Monday, December 1, 2008 | Reply

  26. You really do try not to understand, don’t you. Ok, let’s make it abundantly simple. Let’s say there are the following possible outcomes to every burglary:

    1) The burglar gets off scott free
    2) The burglar is killed (by police, citizen, whomever)
    3) The burglar is apprehended (by police, citizen, whomever), receives a jury trial, and whatever the jury decides is it, whether they release him or jail him for 1000 years.

    Personally, I would like to see number 3 be the case 100% of the time.

    Now, do you happen to know what the actual rate of conviction is per burglary? Neither do I, but in 1999 it was less than 5%. (Statistics page? Go to the FBI, number of burglaries reported divided by the number of convictions. Surely you can do the math.)

    So, effectively we only have two possible outcomes, 1 or 2. now if you are right, I favor 2. Not true. I did not say I favored burglars being killed. I said that society was better off because a burglar with a long record wasn’t free to plan his next crime. Muzzle your hate for a second and try to understand. I don’t think it’s the best answer to kill burglars on sight, if for no other reason than you can’t possibly know the burglar is a multiple offender. But in this specific instance, SOCIETY is lucky enough that a long-time predator is the one who was dead and not a punk kid breaking into a house on a lark. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF PEOPLE – even burglars. But I do recognize some good for society in this.

    “I never said I was the judge and jury of Mr. Horn.” You said repeatedly Horn was a murderer. That’s a JUDGMENT. The truth is Joe Horn acting in a manner which was no-billed by the grand jury, killed two burglars. Killing does not make a man a murderer, so by making the unsupported claim, you act as judge and jury in this case, while blaming Horn for doing what you say is the same thing. Further, you can’t seem to get past this incident. It’s not enough for you to say, “I don’t agree with the grand jury, but thank Buddah (or someone) we live in a country where a guy gets a trial.” No, you say “He’s a murderer.” Deal with it – pure definition. If you can read and parse English, you have to conclude that you are a hypocrite.

    “Good thing you and Joe Horn aren’t around to kill me for my mistake.” There you go again. Now BURGLARY is equivalent to “making a mistake.” You never miss a chance to belittle someone else, to make foolish comparisons. Look, *I* know you don’t think people should be killed for burglary. Now what POSSIBLE point can you be making by suggesting that people who support defense of lives and property also support killing people for making mistakes? I assumed that “brotherbpeacekeeper” meant you were interested in building bridges between opposing opinions, and trying to get people to work together. But you have spared no effort to insult me and push me away. I know I’m not going to convert you and there’s no way you can convert me with ridiculous comparisons. But wouldn’t it be better if we found ANY area we could agree on so we can go forward?

    Anyway, thanks for the FBI link. I’m looking forward to correlating the data and seeing what other conclusions can be drawn. I got my information (primarily) from the police. Several members of my unit are or were policemen.

    Well, I’m not going through the rest. It obviously pleases you to insult people that don’t agree with you or that you can’t shout down. You REALLY should be ashamed of misquoting me in your final paragraph and then pretending that YOUR misquote meant I am a hypocrite. I would have expected something a little more devious or at least a little less obvious from you. Like you, I was trying to address the flaw in your thinking.

    Be whatever you want to be, including a hypocrite. But don’t waste time trying to hint that you are a peacemaker. You are no such thing. And you can’t fool me with any of the above.

    Comment by Toad | Monday, December 1, 2008 | Reply

  27. Toad,

    Whatever…I can’t even bother to read your nonsense anymore. Brick walls make for more intelligent conversation than your doublespeak. At least they don’t suffer from such thick delusion fueled hypocrisy!

    Peace

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Monday, December 1, 2008 | Reply

  28. Disgusted,

    I am a police officer on the west coast and I am very conservative when it comes to crime and criminals committing them. With that said, I have a sick feeling in my stomach over this case and many other. or all of you that think this is a good shooting, you are sadly mis guided. This man should be on trial for murder; but that’s Texas. No police officer can use deadly for against a citizen for a property crime. Shooting two thieves in the back and killing over the taking of property is appauling to me. I heard the tape, he went out with the expressed intention of killing someone, he said and he said it more than once. His actions were not based on self defense or the defense of another innocent life. It was based purely on his own arrogance and the fact that he had a gun. Joe Horn your conduct is this case was absolutely disgraceful and you should feel shamed. You are no hero and your were not looking out for you neighbor. The fact that are still walking round a free man iseven more shameful. As for the rest of you out there that thought this was such a cool thing to do, careful. It just might be you on the business en ofsome morans gun!!!!!!

    Comment by Jones | Saturday, January 12, 2013 | Reply

  29. Disgusted, (Sorry forgot to edit the previous entry before submitting it)

    I am a police officer on the west coast and I am very conservative when it comes to crime and criminals committing them. With that said, I have a sick feeling in my stomach over this case and many others like it. For all of you that think this is a good shooting, you are sadly misguided. This man should be on trial for murder; but that’s Texas. No police officer can use deadly force against a citizen for a property crime. Shooting two thieves in the back and killing them over the taking of property is appauling to me. I heard the tape, Horn confronted these theives with the expressed intention of killing someone, he said it and he said it more than once. His actions were not based on self defense or the defense of another innocent life. It was based purely on his own arrogance and the fact that he had a gun. Joe Horn your conduct is this case was absolutely disgraceful and you should feel ashamed. You are no hero and you were not looking out for your neighbor. The fact that you are still walking round a free man is even more shameful. As for the rest of you out there that see this as such a cool thing to do, careful. It just might be you on the business end of some moran’s gun!!!!!!

    if you want to be a good citizen and help the police protect your neighborhood, Keep a watchful eye, call the police, give them as much information as you can,most of all go to court and testify if need be. Do those things and you are doing your community a service.

    Comment by Jones | Saturday, January 12, 2013 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: