Pasadena Homeowner Kills Men Burglarizing Neighbor's House

[memebag]

If you are stealing my and your neighbor's stuff, and then come walking on my front lawn with a crowbar and a bag of loot, then you ARE a danger. You see how that works ?

Nope. Joe Horn was inside his own house. They didn't come in after him, he went outside with a gun. Joe Horn claims they came in the front yard with him, but only after he said one of them "almost run down the street"

He also said "I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this" and "I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot" before he ever left his house. He wasn't shooting them because they were a danger to him, he was shooting them because they were a danger to his neighbor's property.

Oddly, he also said "the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it". Does anyone know what laws he's referring to here?

[millennica]

Although not a Texan (I was raised in liberal Massachusetts and now live in California) and my political leanings are left of center, I agree with memebag, ssulivan, parrothead, redscare, and others who don't support vigilantes serving as judge, jury, and executioner. Why this man thought it was justifiable to shoot people who were not threatening him, not stealing his property but his neighbors is beyond my comprehension, but I realize that I don't live in Texas, so just may not get it. My house has burglarized in the past. Thankfully my neighbors did not take it upon themselves to shoot the burglars.

And criticizing Gen Xers--an entire generation-- or any other group is ridiculous, prejudicial and can only be based on stereotypical ideas about various groups. To my way of thinking, maligning an entire group whether it be gays, African Americans, Latinos, women, or Gen Xers impedes discussion rather than facilitating it.

[TJones]

Nope. Joe Horn was inside his own house. They didn't come in after him, he went outside with a gun. Joe Horn claims they came in the front yard with him, but only after he said one of them "almost run down the street"

He also said "I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this" and "I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot" before he ever left his house. He wasn't shooting them because they were a danger to him, he was shooting them because they were a danger to his neighbor's property.

Oddly, he also said "the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it". Does anyone know what laws he's referring to here?

Ok, so you are the type that's gonna wait for the big bad wolves to try to blow your house down before you decide to take action ? Why be reactive, when you can be proactive ? It is AMAZING to me that you can sit there and defend the P.O.S. criminals, cry me a river meme, cry me a friggin' river. I will take 1,000,000 neighbors like Joe Horn over 1 neighbor like the dead criminals. I wonder how many times Joe Horn has been arrested for drugs or arrested for burglary as compared to the dead criminals. Meme, do you know what Joe Horn's rap sheet looks like compared to your criminals you like so much ?

[cottonmather0]

See this is why I said in the OP that I was so conflicted. I think explicitly going outside with the stated intention of "killing" the burglars is definitely murder. It's going to take some good lawyering for him to get off, but I think he will, in the end, I think that's ultimately the just outcome.

For what it's worth, his reference to Sept 1st is the date that the new "Castle Doctrine" went into effect, but I think he was almost certainly misunderstanding it.

The Link

[RedScare]

And criticizing Gen Xers--an entire generation-- or any other group is ridiculous, prejudicial and can only be based on stereotypical ideas about various groups. To my way of thinking, maligning an entire group whether it be gays, African Americans, Latinos, women, or Gen Xers impedes discussion rather than facilitating it.

It may have more to do with ignorance, and the tendency to glamorize one's youth than stereotyping. Even the slightest amount of research would show that the 60s and 70s were witness to some of the worst crime rates in US history. From 1960 to 1980, property crime rates TRIPLED. Violent crime grew at an even greater rate, continuing to increase until 1991. Both violent and non-violent crime decreased drastically, until approximately 2002, where it stagnated, or slightly increased.

The growth of 24 hour news and the internet probably has more to do with the perception that crime is worse today than in the past, because the statistics simply do not bear it out.

[KatieDidIt]

I think its funny to bash the Gen-X generation, we are the generation going green, finding alternative fuels, recycling, planting trees. Basically trying to save a planet, not destroy it. I think if anything Gen-X is very passive. As a generation we don't seem to be blood thirsty corporate types, that our parents were, that drink and smoke and divorce their spouses and stash millions away. Sure we're a little lazy and we'll inherit those millions, but it seems the generation as a whole wants to save the planet so they have a place to spend those millions.

Gangs and thugs and criminal behavior have nothing to do with Gen-X. Heck pimping rides didn't even become "cool" untill recently. Most of us are too old now to pull that look off without looking ridiculous.

[TJones]

Here is how the law reads.

[memebag]

Ok, so you are the type that's gonna wait for the big bad wolves to try to blow your house down before you decide to take action ? Why be reactive, when you can be proactive ?

Indeed, why not just kill everyone? I'm sure they've all done something. Why bother with due process, a Constitution, or any sort of law? Let's just kill. Kill kill kill!

It is AMAZING to me that you can sit there and defend the P.O.S. criminals, cry me a river meme, cry me a friggin' river.

That sort of amazes me, too, since I never defended criminals.

I will take 1,000,000 neighbors like Joe Horn over 1 neighbor like the dead criminals. I wonder how many times Joe Horn has been arrested for drugs or arrested for burglary as compared to the dead criminals. Meme, do you know what Joe Horn's rap sheet looks like compared to your criminals you like so much ?

What does that have to do with the issue? If Joe Horn was a saint, does that make it OK?

It seems like whenever gays want to get married or kids don't want to pray in school, this is a Christian nation. But whenever folks could love their neighbor, turn the other cheek, shalt not kill, etc., then this is the wild west.

[suzerain]

TEXAS PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SECTION 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSONS PROPERTY

[TheNiche]

Indeed, why not just kill everyone? I'm sure they've all done something. Why bother with due process, a Constitution, or any sort of law? Let's just kill. Kill kill kill!

Because the person attempting to kill everyone would be subject to reprisal. It's a pretty good disincentive for murder.

[memebag]

Because the person attempting to kill everyone would be subject to reprisal. It's a pretty good disincentive for murder.

That sounds reactive to me. Be proactive!

[TheNiche]

The social contract that we agree to live requires us to allow the government to enforce the laws, not us personally.

What social contract? I didn't sign anything. I've never sworn an oath to that effect.

I hereby renounce any such explicit or implied agreement.

[TheNiche]

That sounds reactive to me. Be proactive!

I have no idea what you mean by that.

[memebag]

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I mean if we're going to be proactive, as TJones advocates, and kill people without trials, laws, and all that froo-frah, then why bother worrying about reprisal? Reprisal is reactive, not proactive. It happens after the fact. If the person killing everyone kills everyone who might try to kill him first, that's proactive, baby! I don't mean kill some people, I mean kill everyone. Kill them all! Kill kill kill!

[TheNiche]

I mean if we're going to be proactive, as TJones advocates, and kill people without trials, laws, and all that froo-frah, then why bother worrying about reprisal? Reprisal is reactive, not proactive. It happens after the fact. If the person killing everyone kills everyone who might try to kill him first, that's proactive, baby! I don't mean kill some people, I mean kill everyone. Kill them all! Kill kill kill!

Hmmm... ok. I'm still not sure how you're connecting a limited set of circumstances under which TJones might take someone's life to that some individual might ought to figure out a way to kill everybody all at once without killing themselves in the process or bringing reprisal upon themselves. It just doesn't make sense.

When you put it the way you have, seems like reactive is the way to go.

[suzerain]

What social contract? I didn't sign anything. I've never sworn an oath to that effect.

I hereby renounce any such explicit or implied agreement.

Really? You know the constitution you live under? You know the laws that govern society? Those comprise the social contract. It is what keeps me from going to my neighbor's house and appropriating items of his that I covet. If you truly wish to renounce all such explicit or implied agreement then I wish you a found farwell as you make your way to Somalia where there is no government to compel you to do anything you do not want to do, while also not enforcing any of your contracts or offering any protection of any kind.

Live Free or Die

[memebag]

Hmmm... ok. I'm still not sure how you're connecting a limited set of circumstances under which TJones might take someone's life to that some individual might ought to figure out a way to kill everybody all at once without killing themselves in the process or bringing reprisal upon themselves. It just doesn't make sense.

Try reading TJones post again, then see if it makes more sense. After I described how Joe Horn went went outside to shoot the 2 men because they were a threat to his neighbor's property, TJones said:

Ok, so you are the type that's gonna wait for the big bad wolves to try to blow your house down before you decide to take action ? Why be reactive, when you can be proactive ?

It sounds to me like TJones is saying we shouldn't just use deadly force to defend our lives after they are threatened (reactive), but should instead use it to stop anyone who might possibly eventually threaten our lives sometime in the future (proactive). I suspect everyone might be harboring malice in their hearts, so why not just be proactive and kill them all?

[Parrothead]

Hmmm... ok. I'm still not sure how you're connecting a limited set of circumstances under which TJones might take someone's life to that some individual might ought to figure out a way to kill everybody all at once without killing themselves in the process or bringing reprisal upon themselves. It just doesn't make sense.

When you put it the way you have, seems like reactive is the way to go.

Niche, I think you're looking a little too deeply here, or taking it too literally, I'm not sure which one.

[MidtownCoog]

No matter how you look at it one thing is certain. If you do bad things it's going to eventually catch up with you.

If they were not out stealing chances are they would still be alive.

[TheNiche]

Really? You know the constitution you live under? You know the laws that govern society? Those comprise the social contract. It is what keeps me from going to my neighbor's house and appropriating items of his that I covet. If you truly wish to renounce all such explicit or implied agreement then I wish you a found farwell as you make your way to Somalia where there is no government to compel you to do anything you do not want to do, while also not enforcing any of your contracts or offering any protection of any kind.

You can't pin it on me. I never signed it.

Hell, one of my ancestors even voted against it at the constitutional convention of South Carolina in 1788. One of the other of the eleven delegates from his county voted for it against the wishes of his antifederalist constituents. That man and his family were run out of town by vigilantes. My ancestor didn't pack up and head into the western frontier in protest, though.

I'd like to think that he understood as I do: that while I may not recognize the right of the government to place a particular burden on me--only to suggest it--I do recognize that it has the ability to inconvenience me if I choose not to accept that burden, just as I have the ability to escape it by removing myself from the entity's jurisdiction; the best that I can do is to live my life to the fullest in the knowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect world, only a perfect adaptation of it that can be brought about by the discriminating selection of which laws (suggestions) to follow and which to disregard in the knowledge that there may be consequences, and in all other matters that I pursue my own unique set of outcomes such that I am maximally satisfied.

Should the government place such a burden upon me as that I cannot ever be satisfied with my life, then I'd gladly pay homage to my ancestry and take up a new flag.

Live Free or Die

Indeed. I hope you recognize what this phrase means, beyond its application as propaganda.

[suzerain]

You can't pin it on me. I never signed it.

Hell, one of my ancestors even voted against it at the constitutional convention of South Carolina in 1788. One of the other of the eleven delegates from his county voted for it against the wishes of his antifederalist constituents. That man and his family were run out of town by vigilantes. My ancestor didn't pack up and head into the western frontier in protest, though.

I'd like to think that he understood as I do: that while I may not recognize the right of the government to place a particular burden on me--only to suggest it--I do recognize that it has the ability to inconvenience me if I choose not to accept that burden, just as I have the ability to escape it by removing myself from the entity's jurisdiction; the best that I can do is to live my life to the fullest in the knowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect world, only a perfect adaptation of it that can be brought about by the discriminating selection of which laws to follow and which to disregard in the knowledge that there may be consequences, and in all other matters that I pursue my own unique set of outcomes such that I am maximally satisfied.

Should the government place such a burden upon me as that I cannot ever be satisfied with my life, then I'd gladly pay homage to my ancestry and take up a new flag.

Indeed. I hope you recognize what this phrase means, beyond its application as propaganda.

Completely. I understand its meaning. It is a shame it is so easily forgotten under the much more popular "The constitution is not a suicide pact." bleh.

I am a big fan of the antifederalists. As I said, I am quite the libertarian. I agree that you have the right to chose which laws to obey and which to ignore, but, as you have said, one must accept the consequences. I know that if someone ever did something to hurt my child they would have to deal with me directly, but in acting independent of the government, I accept that I will face punishment for my actions.

See, we basically agree with each other and all is well with the world

[RedScare]

Somebody take away Niche's 3 cornered hat and flute.

[cottonmather0]

I think I am leaning towards Coog's position. These guys would not have gotten shot had they not been breaking into the house.

All these hypotheticals about "forgetting my key" and all are great, but the simple fact is that's NOT what these guys were doing and any reasonable person knows this. Hopefully, if it even gets to that point, any jury that looks into this case will consist of reasonable people.

Joe Horn isn't a wanton murderer and he doesn't deserve to be treated like one.

[memebag]

I think I am leaning towards Coog's position. These guys would not have gotten shot had they not been breaking into the house.

Are we sure Joe didn't hallucinate that part?

All these hypotheticals about "forgetting my key" and all are great, but the simple fact is that's NOT what these guys were doing and any reasonable person knows this. Hopefully, if it even gets to that point, any jury that looks into this case will consist of reasonable people.

The problem is, a jury is supposed to look into it before a sentence is passed. We don't know what these people were doing, we only know what Joe Horn thought they were doing.

[ssullivan]

... but I realize that I don't live in Texas, so just may not get it.

I've lived in Texas my entire life, as have my parents, and I just don't get it either.

[TJones]

Try reading TJones post again, then see if it makes more sense. After I described how Joe Horn went went outside to shoot the 2 men because they were a threat to his neighbor's property, TJones said:

It sounds to me like TJones is saying we shouldn't just use deadly force to defend our lives after they are threatened (reactive), but should instead use it to stop anyone who might possibly eventually threaten our lives sometime in the future (proactive). I suspect everyone might be harboring malice in their hearts, so why not just be proactive and kill them all?

Going out and trying to kill all the suspected badguys, BEFORE they have been caught in the act, would be pre-meditated. The difference of what Joe did, was that he actually SAW the two thieves in the act of commiting a crime and were now heading towards his house after the officer asked him, "Where are they now ?" Joe couldn't see them, but knew they were on the move, so he went outside to see where to. SURPRISE, the thieves are now in Joe's frontyard, brandishing a crowbar, and holding the evidence of their crime in the other and they are now only 15 feet away from him, in Joe's frontyard and Joe tells them in no uncertain terms, "Move, and you're dead !" They obviously decided to move, and were shot in the chest, according to the witness.

I will admit, that if I see theives coming out of my neighbor's house, with a bag of loot and a crowbar, and are now coming towards my house to do who knows what. I am not gonna ask them what their intentions are at that point. I am sure I will be able to discern that for myself, then I will tell them, "Move, and you're dead !" That meme, is being proactive. I will not wait for them to break my windows out before I would draw down on them, and if you wait until that happens, YOU might be the one winding up dead by the hands of the robbers, or perhaps just tied up and raped and then robbed. But I am sure that wouldn't be so bad to you, after all, nobody got killed, right ?

Meme, how is it that you know that the theives had no intentions of robbing Mr.Horn's house also ?

The whole fact of the matter is that NONE of this would have happened if 2 scumbags wouldn't have been breaking into houses and stealing people's stuff.

[ssullivan]

I think I am leaning towards Coog's position. These guys would not have gotten shot had they not been breaking into the house.

True, and I agree with that. I'm not defending their actions. These guys were probably the scum of society. But I am saying that they have a right to a trial by jury, as opposed to trial by crazy next door neighbor with a riffle. Two wrongs don't make a right, and Joe Horn became just as much of a lawbreaker when he walked out the door with that gun and started firing it.

Joe Horn isn't a wanton murderer and he doesn't deserve to be treated like one.

I'm not so sure about that. Self defense doesn't involve going from a place of safety (inside the house behind a locked door) to a place of potential danger (confronting the perps in the yard/street), while telling a 911 dispatcher "I'm gonna go shoot them!" It sounds a lot more like murder to me than self defense, which is what Horn's attorney is claiming it was. When you listen to the entire tape of the call, it really sounds like he was very anxious to go out there and kill him some criminals. Even before he said he was going outside, he said to the dispatcher "I've got a shotgun. Want me to go stop them?" This guy was definitely somewhat of a loose cannon.

[memebag]

Going out and trying to kill all the suspected badguys, BEFORE they have been caught in the act, would be pre-meditated. The difference of what Joe did, was that he actually SAW the two thieves in the act of commiting a crime and were now heading towards his house after the officer asked him, "Where are they now ?"

What tape are you listening to? Here's the transcript I've seen:

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

There's nothing in there that says they were headed to Joe Horn's house.

Joe couldn't see them, but knew they were on the move, so he went outside to see where to. SURPRISE, the thieves are now in Joe's frontyard, brandishing a crowbar, and holding the evidence of their crime in the other and they are now only 15 feet away from him, in Joe's frontyard and Joe tells them in no uncertain terms, "Move, and you're dead !"

Again, where are you getting that? He said "Boom! You're dead!", after going outside with a shotgun. There's no telling where they would have gone if Joe Horn hadn't gone outside.

They obviously decided to move, and were shot in the chest, according to the witness.

What witness?

Meme, how is it that you know that the theives had no intentions of robbing Mr.Horn's house also ?

Huh? I have no idea what their actions were. What are you talking about?

The whole fact of the matter is that NONE of this would have happened if 2 scumbags wouldn't have been breaking into houses and stealing people's stuff.

And? None of this would have happened if lots of things hadn't happened. None of that makes Joe Horn's actions right.

[musicman]

TJ i'm not Mr Rogers but you can be my neighbor.

[MidtownCoog]

Methinks memebag would argue with the wind.

And speaking of wind, it appears that Quanell X is on the case. And when he's on the case it could only mean one thang.

Lord, have mercy. Leave it to Quanell X to stick up for dead criminals.