Man Who Killed Burglary Suspects Cleared
| AR Articles on Common Sense in High Places |
|---|
| Convincing the Conservatives (Nov. 2002) |
| Nationalist Politics (Part II) (Oct. 2002) |
| The Great Refusal (Mar. 2002) |
| Search AmRen.com for Common Sense in High Places |
| More news stories on Common Sense in High Places |
A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor’s home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.
Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor’s house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.
{snip}
Horn’s attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor’s home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.
The two Horn suspected of committing burglary, 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 episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn’s supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.
{snip}
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 a neighbor’s property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he’s out of town.
{snip}
[Editor’s Note: Earlier stories about Joe Horn can be read starting here.]
(Posted on July 1, 2008)
Comments
Good. He used a 12-gauge on them.
I’d like Mr. Horn as one of our neighbors.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 5:21 PM on July 1
Good for you, Joe! Now that the Supreme Court has (amazingly) held up gun rights, hopefully more of our friends and neighbors will follow suit, and stand up for our neighborhoods.
Posted by at 5:22 PM on July 1
Alright! Very good news from Texas! Texans still have a little pride in themselves, which was evident in local comments made back when this happened.
Posted by H. Dumpty at 6:02 PM on July 1
5 years to deport an illegal with a cocaine conviction? Why the delay?
We can only hope this story of these two criminals gets big play in Columbia as well. Think twice about coming, amigo.
Posted by at 6:13 PM on July 1
Good for you Joe Horn and the State of Texas.. Good for all of the neighbors who ran the New Black Panther Party and Racist Quannel X from the neighborhood when they THOUGHT that they were going to march into the neighborhood and start a racist demonstration.. The neighbors chased them out!
Leader Quanell X’s expressions of bewilderment and terror were priceless!! The bikers who kept reving the motors on their bikes every time Quanell tried to speak to the media was genious!!
Sure wish that I could have been there!
Posted by at 6:29 PM on July 1
Lou Dobbs interpreted the fact that since it appeared Joe Horn seem to be defending his neighbors who were Vietnamese and were being robbed.The shooting was not racially motivated.Please tell me what sense that makes. I can only assume that if white defend white people it is an evil act. But when we defend people not of our own race it is a noble act.
Posted by Tony Soprano at 6:41 PM on July 1
I wasn’t able to locate the section that pertains to protecting a neighbor’s property, but I did read it when this incident first arose, and I’m pretty sure the newspaper’s allegation that it’s necessary for the beighbor to REQUEST that his property be looked after before the doctrine applies is wrong and, from the looks of the entire story, the reporter is trying to prejudice the reader against the self-protection law because he doesn’t like it. I mean, that’s journalism 101 in these left wing journalism brainwashing institutes now.
Too, notice that the reporter states flately that Horn shot both men in the back. One, I believe was shot as he started to move when he was told not to move or he would die, and I think the other one ran away after he was told to stop or he would die.
Incidentally, a high police official on Fox News, when asked, said he had no problem with the law or no problem if Horn was eventually cleared as firing under the limits of the castle doctrine.
This is one of the best decisions I’ve read in a long time. I just hope there are many more similar ones forthcoming in order to put the black criminal class on notice that if the authorities don’t hold them accountable for their crimes, we the people will.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Posted by Ranger at 6:43 PM on July 1
I would like to shake Mr Horn’s hand and buy him a beer.
Posted by at 6:48 PM on July 1
Awesome…simply awesome. A great story for a change!!
Posted by HH at 6:57 PM on July 1
Does anybody get the impression the above news might be a little biased in favor of a leftist agenda, as most of them are all the time?
Here’s a bit of humour that’s right on the mark about that:
A little girl was grabbed by a lion after putting her hand between the bars of his cage. A man standing by rushed to her aid, pounding furiously on the lion’s nose, disregarding his own safety, until it let go.
A reporter who seen the whole scene says to the rescuer: “Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I have seen a man do in my whole life.”
“I knew God would protect me just as He did Daniel in the lion’s den. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt was right,” the man replied
“I noticed a Bible in your pocket, are you a Republican?” asked the Journalist.
“Yes, and I’m a Christian on my way to a Bible study,” the man
replies.
“Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist and tomorrow’s’ paper will have this on the front page.”
The journalist leaves. The following morning the man buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on first page:
“Right wing Republican Christian fundamentalist assaults African
Immigrant and steals his lunch”.
Posted by Ranger at 7:14 PM on July 1
Great news, great jury, good for Joe Horn! And good for all of us!
Would-be burglars need to know that it is a life threatening risk to break into someone’s house.
Posted by Whiteplight at 7:20 PM on July 1
Why would he even be charged with any crime? He was protecting his neighbor’s property from a crime in progress being comitted by illegals. They got their just deserts in as far as I am concerned. Now the prosecutor who filed these charges needs to be voted out of office in the next election.
Posted by at 7:30 PM on July 1
And of course the blacks are already complaining about this and whining that an African-American wouldn’t have a snowflake’s chance in h** of getting off on something like this!
I say Hooray for Joe Horn! It’s about time that we started being able to protect ourselves!
Posted by Jackers at 8:33 PM on July 1
Joe Horn was never charged with a crime. The DA’s office merely followed procedure in presenting the case to the grand jury, which heard evidence and decided to no-bill Joe. Had the grand jury returned a true bill, the DA then would have filed a charge in a district court.
There’s an unwritten law in Texas that it is a defense to a murder charge that “the SOB needed killin’.” I never thought for an instance that Joe would do time for taking out two illegal burglars - excuse me, I mean “undocumented house guests.”
Posted by Jim Sachsen at 8:38 PM on July 1
In a rare event justice was truly served.Hats off to Mr.Horn we need more people like him……..
Posted by at 8:40 PM on July 1
I can’t help but speculate on what would have happened if this was the United Kingdom or Australia? Can any British or Australian AmReners offer their opinion on the probable outcome?
Posted by at 8:53 PM on July 1
The law does not permit a person to use deadly force merely to protect property, whether his or his neighbor’s. A private citizen does not have the authority to shoot an unarmed suspect in the back simply because that suspect fails to follow that private citizen’s commands, which do not have the authority of law. The statute cited here clearly does not apply to the facts of this case. The suspects were leaving the neighbor’s home, not entering it; and, the killer presumably knew that his neighbors were out of town, and therefore not in jeopardy, regardless. Trespass, illegal entry, breaking and entering and burglary are conspicuous in their absence from the cited statute— which explicitly refers to the property owner (“actor”) himself, not to a neighbor. This is precisely the same type of jury nullification that you folks whine over when it is black jurors letting black criminals, like O.J., go free. You might want to try passing three years of law school and at least one state bar exam before pontificating on things that are clearly beyond your meager ken.
Posted by Jake Prufrock at 9:16 PM on July 1
“I would like to shake Mr. Horn’s hand and buy him a beer.”
I’d like to buy him another box of 12-gauge shells.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 9:21 PM on July 1
Yes, Mr. Horn took the law into his own hands. Sometimes, regretfully, citizens have to do that when common sense tells them that a crime has just been committed, the perpetrators are getting away, and by the time the police get there it’ll just be another case that’s “under investigation” and will never be solved.
A 911 recording of the call Horn made to the police that I heard indicated that he yelled at the men to stop, then fired when they didn’t. For all he knew they could have both been carrying handguns. Real life is not a “B” western; the good guy doesn’t have to wait for the bad guy to turn around and face him before he can fire a shot.
The usual civil rights agitators will scream that the grand jury has declared “open season on African Americans.” Let them scream. Joe Horn has struck a blow for the rights of American citizens to defend themselves. When you break into someone’s house and steal their possessions, you deserve whatever you get.
Posted by Wayne Engle at 9:43 PM on July 1
This video is very inspirational. It backs up Joe’s actions, and lets those of us who weren’t present in the courtroom celebrate JUSTICE along with him.
Posted by Wild Eyed Charlie at 10:03 PM on July 1
Hey Joe… What you doin’ with that gun in your hand…..
For real though, Joe? Could you please relocate over to Charlotte??? We could sure use you over here!!!
Never mind Mr. Rogers. I want Mr. Horn as my Neighbor!
Posted by at 10:28 PM on July 1
It’s too bad that those Anti Racist Action (ARA)/One People’s Project freaks didn’t show up at that neighborhood either. I’ve been waiting a long time to see an opposing crowd give those sniveling commie punks a lesson in manners.
Posted by Angryyoungman at 10:48 PM on July 1
I wonder how many illegal alien criminals moved the hell out of Joe Horn’s neighborhood because it is simply too dangerous for them to live their anymore.
I bet it is a large number.
This is one of the important ways in which the US is becoming divided. Some parts of the US, a criminal, especially a black or illegal alien criminal, can expect to be shot by whites, if they are stupid enough to try and prey on them. So, they will leave….to go and live in those parts of the US where this is not allowed. The places where Joe Horn live will become crime free paradises where people simply don’t put up with liberal nonsense…..and keep lots and lots of guns to make sure that attitude is respected. The places where the blacks live and where the illegals live (those that don’t flee a US suddenly become too dangerous for them) will become hell holes where crime and liberalism rule every aspect of a person’s life.
The former will grow in number and the latter will shrink. Few non-criminals will accept the consequences of living under liberalism.
Posted by at 10:53 PM on July 1
“This is precisely the same type of jury nullification that you folks whine over when it is black jurors letting black criminals, like O.J., go free.” Posted by Jake Prufrock at 9:16 PM on July 1
That “we” whine over? You mean you liked the verdict? You didn’t “whine?” It was o.k. with you, because the victims were white, wasnt it? And you regard the complaints of white people to a brutal black on white murderer as whining?
If you can equate this case with the premeditated, cold blooded murder of two innocent white people who were butchered by a violent black murderer, who traveled over to their property to commit the murder and gave no warning to the effect that if they moved they were dead, then I would like to suggest that it is you who should be looking to educate yourself in the law. O.J. Simpleton is lucky Mr. Horn wasn’t Brown’s neighbor.
True, this is a broad interpretation of self defense as explained in the statute, but it can fit if squeezed tightly enough, and it bothers me not one iota that these black criminals got exactly what they deserved.
But what does bother me is that somebody like you doesn’t seem to be a bit disturbed over two innocent white people being slaughtered, but take issue when it is a white person shooting two black professional criminals who in all liklihood would have killed him if they had a weapon.
Posted by Ranger at 1:33 AM on July 2
This is precisely the same type of jury nullification that you folks whine over when it is black jurors letting black criminals, like O.J., go free. You might want to try passing three years of law school and at least one state bar exam before pontificating on things that are clearly beyond your meager ken.
Posted by Jake Prufrock at 9:16 PM on July 1
If you are an attorney I think you know what the general population thinks of attorneys. You also know that LEGAL and JUSTICE is not always the same thing, seldom in fact is it the same thing. In this case, justice was clearly served and I suspect a lot more of it in the future before total social collapse. I do however, have a modest concern for Mr. Horns safety since his residence location has been blabbed by the media and may subject him to criminal retaliation, especially illegal immigrant, criminal element retaliation. Follow this closely.
Posted by Skip at 1:34 AM on July 2
The law does not permit a person to use deadly force merely to protect property, whether his or his neighbor’s {snip} Trespass, illegal entry, breaking and entering and burglary are conspicuous in their absence from the cited statute [snip] You might want to try passing three years of law school and at least one state bar exam before pontificating on things that are clearly beyond your meager ken.
Posted by Jake Prufrock at 9:16 PM on July 1
Wrong. Conspicuously absent?? Observe: § 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 and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;
You’ve clearly misread or misrepresented this law. Sounds like you owe the Grand Jury an apology!
And in case you are wondering about sections 9.41 and 9.42, they are even more staunchly pro-property protection, allowing deadly force “to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery…” and even “to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;”
Posted by Jill at 1:52 AM on July 2
“Posted by Jake Prufrock at 9:16 PM on July 1”
Well Jake, obviously you didn’t do either since if you had you could probably read and if you could read you would notice this part of the statute:
a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
AS well as:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
That pretty much means Joe did exactly what the law allowed him to do. And yes, this does indeed bode ill for you and your constituents.
Posted by at 2:07 AM on July 2
“A private citizen does not have the authority to shoot an unarmed suspect in the back simply because that suspect fails to follow that private citizen’s commands, which do not have the authority of law.”
- Jake Prufrock
Hey Jake, a private citizen has the right to stop a crime in progress. He asked the perpetrator to stop and the perpetrator made a move toward him. That’s why he got shot.
As far as Mr. Horn’s command having the ‘authority of law’, consider the fact that Mr. Horn had a shotgun. If someone who has a shotgun asks you to stop or he will shoot you, you had better stop. Its called the law of common sense.
- Realist in Atlanta
Posted by Realist in Atlanta at 3:18 AM on July 2
“You might want to try passing three years of law school and at least one state bar exam before pontificating on things that are clearly beyond your meager ken.”
Posted by Jake Prufrock at 9:16 PM on July 1
Well, gosh, Jake! It appears the justice system shot down any arguments similar to yours, backed by your (implied) credentials!
And if the decision frustrates the likes of you, that’s just the cherry on top for those of us with such a “meager ken” of legal matters of this nature.
Perhaps next time you can post your resume and tax return to REALLY impress the unwashed masses on this board.
Posted by ZKR at 4:17 AM on July 2
“This is precisely the same type of jury nullification that you folks whine over when it is black jurors letting black criminals, like O.J., go free. You might want to try passing three years of law school and at least one state bar exam before pontificating on things that are clearly beyond your meager ken.”
No “Jake” you might try common sense for a change. OJ got off when the evidence showed that he was guilty of murdering two innocent people in cold blood. Joe Horn shot two criminals in the act of committing a crime when said criminals failed halt as he said. Mr.Horn was protecting his neighbor’s property and when confronting the criminals had no way of knowing if they had a gun and would shoot him. Get it, OJ=killed 2 non-criminals NOT committing a crime, Horn=killed 2 criminals committing a crime that might be armed and dangerous.
Posted by at 7:23 AM on July 2
“when it is a white person shooting two black professional criminals”
Just for clarification, it was 2 illegal Mexican criminals. For once it wasn’t black criminals. If they had been black, ol’ Joe would be locked up for the rest of his life for commiting murder with a “hate crime enhancement”.
Posted by at 10:29 AM on July 2
“Now that the Supreme Court has (amazingly) held up gun rights, “
Well, I say that remains to be seen. Remember, the Attorney General way back when (1934-era) said that the US govenment couldn’t ban machineguns, but a $200 TAX was perfectly legal.
$200 back then was like the price of a used car.
In Chicago, when they were actually registering handguns, you had to pay $50 a year PER gun. So that means, with the current registration number at 200,000 guns, the City of Chicago is getting $10 MILLION a YEAR from GUN OWNERS..
If you owned a handgun, a rifle, and a shotgun, you are giving $150 a year so Mayor Dick Daley can screw you.
And now, Alderman Dick Mel is going to get the gun registration ban on handguns lifted for a short “amnesty window” so he can get his OWN guns properly registered. So if gun owners decide that they are stupid enough to register their previously unregistered guns, and registration levels rise to the previous 400,000, they would now be giving Dick Daley $20 MILLION a year to screw themselves.
Imagine, $50/year per gun TAX/FEE on a $3-500 gun. Can you imagine a tax on the ownership of a book?
No doubt the communists on the US Supreme Court will uphold that; after all there are four already that say Amereicans have no right to a handgun!
Posted by at 11:36 AM on July 2
Mr Horn should be elected to Congress.
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 12:08 PM on July 2
A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor’s home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury…
GOD BLESS JOE HORN!…I wish he was MY neighbor!…bless the grand jury too!…FINALLY…a score FOR the LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN!
Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor’s house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena…
Correction…two ILLEGAL THUGS from COLUMBIA!
Horn’s attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor’s home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him…
With a REASONABLE BELIEF of imminent danger!…the COLUMBIANS are WORSE and more BRUTAL than the MEXICAN MAFIA!
The two Horn suspected of committing burglary, 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…
UNEMPLOYED, ILLEGAL with a PREVIOUS FELONY CONVICTION and DEPORTATION…yep!…DEPORTATION taught HIM something didn’t it?
The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated…
Civil Rights activists would rather defend ILLEGALS who are FELONS than an AMERICAN LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN!
Horn took the law into his own hands…if those two ILLEGALS would have NOT been there trying to STEAL…they would be ALIVE!…they GAMBLED and LOST!…it was THEIR CHOICE and THEIR ACTIONS that cost them…GOOD for Mr. Horn!
Horn’s supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town…
But, the civil rights activists…LIBERALS…want US bend over and grab our ankles and let the ILLEGALS do whatever they want and to take whatever they want!…Mr. Horn is a TRUE MAN and a TRUE TEXAN and a TRUE AMERICAN!
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 a neighbor’s property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he’s out of town…
GOOD LAW!…My cousin, an 86 year old widow, was KILLED by Columbians!…they cut her up so badly that we had to keep her coffin CLOSED!…had she had her gun in hand and loaded…she might be alive TODAY!
I live in Texas and work at the jail…I deal with Columbians and they are an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and VIOLENT PEOPLE!…chances are that they would have RETURNED and KILLED him!
As a single woman living here in San Antonio…I am LOCKED and LOADED!…and I would NOT hesitate to shoot!
Mr. Horn has done MORE in DETERRING CRIME than anyone knows!…while the death penalty may not have…THIS law will!…because of not getting caught, or not being found guilty…people do NOT fear the death penalty…people who get the death penalty KNOW that they will live another 20 or 30 years what with all the appeals filed…and the good possibility of NEVER being put to death…and the possibility, because of a “technicality” of being PAROLED…people do NOT fear the death penalty…but, those who intend to rob or rape someone OR to carjack someone…now KNOW that there is a LIKELIHOOD that their potential victim has a gun, WILL use it AND will be NO-BILLED!…THAT is a DETERRANT!…are they WILLING to take the chance?…if not…a victim is SPARED as are THEY…if they DO take the chance and LOSE…that is THEIR CHOICE!
I carry a gun in FULL VIEW!…period!…
{snip}
Posted by Suzan Donoghue at 12:55 PM on July 2
“…I do however, have a modest concern for Mr. Horns safety since his residence location has been blabbed by the media and may subject him to criminal retaliation, especially illegal immigrant, criminal element retaliation. (Emphasis added.) Follow this closely.
Posted by Skip at 1:34 AM on July 2”
The we had BETTER GET OUR BUTTS OVER TO HIS PLACE if it looks like it is going to happen, hadn’t we? Even if he isn’t home at the time (which would certainly be ironic). Because, “Jake,” witness intimidation and retaliation are CERTAINLY ILLEGAL in this country.
And Mr Horn has EARNED his right to have us back him up.
Posted by Wild Eyed Charlie at 1:18 PM on July 2
“Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger” Uh… no, that’s not quite right… The US Constitution allows me to do that.
Interesting how the AP writer injected that comment as though it was some kind of special right that normal people in this country don’t have. Let me tell you something, if I feel threatened by what I believe to be a lawless criminal thugs like these guys, I will shoot that person with one of the 5 different handguns that I own, or one of the 4 different rifles I own, or one of the 2 different shotguns I own. Regardless, this deadly force thatI will use will kill that person. And I have a right to use it to protect me and my family from just these types of people. And I will.
Posted by Brad at 1:57 PM on July 2
“Get it, OJ=killed 2 non-criminals NOT committing a crime, Horn=killed 2 criminals committing a crime that might be armed and dangerous.”
Adultry is a crime.
OJ should be considered innocent, if you respect the justice system.
In another time and place, Joe Horn would be considered a murderer. It’s too bad for all of us this is not another time or place.
Posted by at 3:10 PM on July 2
Jake Prufrock: I am probably the only white poster who will agree with you. Killing someone over a property crime is not a good thing to do.I saw a film clip about a black in Texas who shot and killed two whiteboys for stealing something off of his car, and he was not charged with a crime.Violence is justified only when another seriously violent crime is being committed. Texas really needs to change its laws.
Posted by Peejay in Frisco at 4:01 PM on July 2
A few observations:
The San Antonio Express-leftist rag-News also attempted to slant the story negatively toward Mr. Horn,ie. “shot them in the back; dispatcher told him not to do it; etc, while calling the thieves “unauthorized immigrants”.
By the way, the editorial page also constantly slams the border fence.
Ranger, my wife and I ROLF at your joke! The express News would probably print that!
Sounds like Jake Prufrock is from one of the “left coasts” where, when seconds count, the cops are only an hour away, and they would rather draw a chalkline around some innocents’ dead body than have a legal gun owner engage the criminal and stop them.
Kudos to Mr. Horn, who was probably, like me and a lot of others who write on this board, sick to the eyeballs of seeing criminals get away with their crimes, or get probation or some such other slap on the wrist.
This kind of incident is probably more deterrent to criminals than all the million$ spent on “official” ways of dealing with crime, and I, for one, like seeing crooks get what they deserve.
Posted by Superman at 4:57 PM on July 2
Well, Jake, you are flat-out wrong. Any private citizen has the right to stop a felony in process. The only difference between a private citizen and a police officer is that a policeman can also perform arrests for misdemeanors, which the rest of us can’t do.
Burglary is a felony, so Mr. Horn’s orders for the two perps to stop did in fact have the authority of law. In addition, the grand jury agreed. This was not “jury nullification”, because no trial occurred. This was a grand jury who collectively decided that Mr. Horn had not committed a crime. “No true bill” means no indictment, which means no crime. As a “lawyer” you presumably know this.
Realist in Atlanta makes an excellent point as well. If you are an illegal alien committing a felony burglary and someone with a shotgun tells you to stop, stopping and waiting for the police is an excellent idea, unless a permanent dirtnap seems better than a few years in prison followed by an airplane trip home.
Torres in fact had committed a felony merely by returning to the US after his deportation after his felony cocaine conviction. “Unlawful reentry” is a federal felony, for which sentencing guidelines generally awards two years in a medium-security FCI.
Additionally, in most states burglary of a residence is technically a violent crime even if nobody is home, so what we have in the late and unlamented Mr. Torres’s case is a violent career criminal.
I am only sorry about this in one respect, and that is the grand jury missed the opportunity to mail a letter to the government of Columbia telling them to “send us some more.” Perhaps Mr. Horn can remedy this oversight when he sends them a bill for his legal expenses.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 5:58 PM on July 2
I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Horn is brought up on federal charges, of denying these two fellows their civil rights. This case is not over.
Posted by William Hendershot at 5:59 PM on July 2
And not a hair on the heads of those Black Panther racist blacks was harmed despite hundreds of neighbours being angry that black racists should come to their area to make anti-white speeches at such a delicate time for these family people who already had their homes & neighbourhood threatened by the two Colombians. Can you imagine if the situation was reversed? A big well done to these patriotic Americans for organising & standing up for their constitutional rights. Unity is Strength.
Posted by dr dees brainwashing elixir at 6:32 PM on July 2
Reply to Jake Pufrock;
Your post was ridiculous. Your comparison of these two individuals to Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman is absurd. They were not in the country unlawfully. They were committing no crime. They had no criminal record. They were not burglarizing or trespassing. They were not told to stop and ignoring instructions. They were savagely slaughtered. A shameless black jury let them go just because the victims were White and Simpson was black.
Posted by at 8:39 PM on July 2
“Texas really needs to change its laws.”
In Texas, AT NIGHT, it is permissible to use deadly force to stop a burglary in progress. This extends to property in the garage or outside the home. I think it is to convince the bad guys to not even think about coming all the way into the house in the dark. Sounds like a real good plan to me…
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 4:59 AM on July 3
Just for clarification, it was 2 illegal Mexican criminals. For once it wasn’t black criminals. If they had been black, ol’ Joe would be locked up for the rest of his life for commiting murder with a “hate crime enhancement”.
Posted by at 10:29 AM on July 2
Actually, they WERE black, and they were Colombian illegal immigrants (there are many blacks in Colombia; they’re former slaves who tend to live on the coast of the country). The burglars’ mugshots were all over the news and they were unambiguously black.
Why did you think Quanell X was all over this case? Militant black “activists” don’t march for Mexicans. Luckily for Joe, Texans love guns and property owners who shoot thugs.
Posted by Jill at 1:04 PM on July 3
I have a friend who owns a small, one man business. He wasn’t making a lot of money, but he was supporting himself. When his truck was stolen, his business would have collapsed if I hadn’t sold him my old truck on a pay-me-when-you-can basis. There are a lot of people who cannot withstand a ten thousand dollar hit, they simply haven’t the resources to cover that kind of loss. Theft destroys lives. A human has every right to stop, by any means necessary, a criminal who has chosen to live at his expense. The defense of property by deadly force is a human right.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 6:38 PM on July 3
Schoolteacher:
Once upon a time, horse thievery was a capital offense. For good reason — one’s horse was one’s transportation, and one’s livelihood if one was a farmer. An analogous situation to the man you described whose truck was his livelihood.
Posted by Question Diversity at 8:56 PM on July 3
Whether or not adultery is a crime is immaterial since Nicole Brown and O.J. Simpson were divorced.
Jake, glad you agree that O.J is a criminal.
Just so y’all know, here in Mississippi the Castle Doctrine is in effect. We can use deadly force in our homes, yards, cars and businesses, if we are threatened.
Posted by middle-aged magnolia at 12:14 AM on July 5
Reply to Jill at 1:04 PM;
Yes, your right. They were both black. I had thought it odd that self-proclaimed black “activists” were getting all bent out of shape over two Colombians, a people they wouldn’t ordinarily care about. By the way, you JUST KNOW when your dealing with a black joker called Quanell X that you have trouble on your hands.
Posted by at 12:12 AM on July 6
Here’s another idea to deter those types of crimes, MAKE PAWN SHOPS ILLEGAL!! Every where there is a pawn shop in a community the breaking and entry and property theft problem increases (No exceptions)Some of you AR readers probably know this.
Posted by Skip at 7:43 AM on July 6
From what fine law school did Jake earn his degree? Let me see…Harvard? Yale? Georgetown? George Washington University? It is so heartening to me to see someone of Jake’s kind make an inane post on this site and then get shot down (I can’t believe I said that) by other posters who happen to know what’s going on for real. What will all these liberal do-gooders do when their homes stand to be invaded? Whine about it? A firearm speaks much more loudly than a whine.
Posted by BeenHereTooLong at 2:40 PM on July 6
Now that we know the two pers were Colombian Bantus, this underscores what I’ve been saying all alonng: when black criminals are shot and killed by someone of another race, blacks will foam at the mouth and scream “racism”. When it’s blacks shooting blacks, they’ll wring their hands and call for more “gun control”. Why do you think that blacks were so upset about the D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision - because the Court affirmed an individual right to carry a gun for self-defense? Blacks overwhelmingly commit the majority of interracial crimes and murders. Now, they can be shot dead, if thet try to commit crimes!
On a sidebar note, all the furor over the pregnancy pact among those school girls in Gloucester, MA emanates from the fact that these girls are Caucasian. If they were black, it wouldn’t be a big deal, but a normal course of behavior for them.
Posted by Soprano Fan at 4:04 PM on July 6
Jake Prufrock: I am probably the only white poster who will agree with you. Killing someone over a property crime is not a good thing to do.I saw a film clip about a black in Texas who shot and killed two whiteboys for stealing something off of his car, and he was not charged with a crime.Violence is justified only when another seriously violent crime is being committed. Texas really needs to change its laws.
Posted by Peejay in Frisco at 4:01 PM on July 2
I personally don’t care if a person is stealing a stick of gum from me, they should be shsot and killed in my opinion. “Thou shalt not steal” lest thou be shot and killed and rightfully so. Please continue to be alert for future trouble near Mr. Horns home and community, especially after the razzing the community gave the black “activists” who showed up.
Posted by Skip at 8:30 AM on July 7