Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cottonmather0

Pasadena Homeowner Kills Men Burglarizing Neighbors' House

Recommended Posts

Now the neighborhood is pursuing a court order to ban protests...

Pasadena city officials are researching how to ask a judge to block any more protests in the neighborhood.

[...]

KPRC's legal analyst, Brian Wice, said neighbors might succeed in getting a judge to restrict the time, place, and manner for any future demonstrations.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/14785213...ou&psp=news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is probably the only thing he does that is positive. I've talked to a number of people in his "Community" that THEY think he's a joke. He refused to get involved with disputes that he would have an impact on. They seem to think to a man that unless it guarantees cameras and news time, he really won't do it.

LOL, you're right about that. He and Sheila Jackson-Lee are Houston's biggest camera whores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know for a fact that Quanell has spoken against black on black crime repeatedly, often getting the perps to turn themselves in. The media just chooses to not give those stories as much coverage, if any at all as opposed to the Joe Horn case. This is sensational, water cooler talk, message board flaming news, to the media, a black guy killing another black guy is just "a normal day in da hood", a fender bender in the crime world, not newsworthy enough for that 5PM newscast Emmy! :wacko:

But would he speak out against racism if it was a black person doing something racist against a white person? If you are against racism, like I am, then you have to be against all forms of racism, no matter the colors involved. Saying it's wrong for a white person to be a racist and but being OK w/ a black person being a racist just makes you, yourself, a racist. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But would he speak out against racism if it was a black person doing something racist against a white person? If you are against racism, like I am, then you have to be against all forms of racism, no matter the colors involved. Saying it's wrong for a white person to be a racist and but being OK w/ a black person being a racist just makes you, yourself, a racist. Just my opinion.

You seem to be confusing "speaking out" with racism. He is speaking out against perceived inequities. No one can say that there were not inequities against Blacks historically, and many believe there still are today. Likewise, he speaks out against Black on Black crime, a problem that does not garner the attention it deserves. He does not speak out on Black on White crime because there is no shortage of resources expended to deal with it...at least in my experience. Numerous studies show the overwhelming disparity in punishment meted out for crimes against White victims, as opposed to other races. If there were little attention paid to this issue, the argument could be made that he should speak out on it.

In fact, in this instance, no Blacks were involved at all. He spoke out on behalf of Hispanics, a group not historically well received by Blacks. In this case, at least, it can be argued that Quannel X did exactly as you state he should. He spoke out against ALL forms of racism, not just racism against Blacks.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, in this instance, no Blacks were involved at all. He spoke out on behalf of Hispanics, a group not historically well received by Blacks. In this case, at least, it can be argued that Quannel X did exactly as you state he should. He spoke out against ALL forms of racism, not just racism against Blacks.

1.) If these guys had more traditional hispanic features - lighter skin and straighter hair, for example - Quannel wouldn't be giving two flips about them. In fact, the news report on channel 11 featured the fiancee of one of the dead guys and she was an black lady with an American accent named Stephanie Storey (Link). Quannel was standing next to this woman the whole time she was on camera and as far as he is concerned, this is just more fodder for his white-on-black race hustle. If her name were Stephanie Lopez and this truly weren't about any black people, Qunnel would still be holed up somewhere charging his bullhorn and waiting another camera to jump in front of. Puh-leaze.

2.) The next time Quannel unconditionally speaks out against black on white crime it will be a first. I invite you to please prove me wrong with a link to some proof otherwise, but I suspect the best you will be able to do will be his rationalizing and making excuses for some poor black man who had a hard life and was "forced" into committing some crime against a white guy. In fact, I would go so far to predict that any comment you find will be preceded with "I'm not making excuses, but..." and then he'll jump right into an excuse for the black guy murdering or robbing or assaulting or doing whatever to the white guy. Which, come to think of it, is exactly what he's been saying about these two thugs breaking into the house in the first place.

EDIT: Fixed the first part of part 2.

Edited by cottonmather0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2.) The first time Quannel unconditionally speaks out against black on white crime it will be a first. I invite you to please prove me wrong ...

I can say with absolute certainty that no one will be able to prove that the first time anything happens isn't a "first".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, in this instance, no Blacks were involved at all. He spoke out on behalf of Hispanics, a group not historically well received by Blacks. In this case, at least, it can be argued that Quannel X did exactly as you state he should. He spoke out against ALL forms of racism, not just racism against Blacks.

I guess you never saw the pictures of the two men. I'll let the forum be the judge of their ethnicity. Remember to look at their face and not their last name.

14620965_240X180.jpg

Quannell was there for one reason - their faces, not their names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you never saw the pictures of the two men. I'll let the forum be the judge of their ethnicity. Remember to look at their face and not their last name.

14620965_240X180.jpg

Quannell was there for one reason - their faces, not their names.

Hispanics, as I understand it are not a race, but an ethnicity. That said, there is really only one (1) race ... human.

Nevertheless, you can have black, white, Indian, and a myriad of other races that make up Hispanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should I not depend on my taxing entity to provide security and protection? Oh, right: Because someone could otherwise be making a profit. All the post-war sci-fi writers are being proven right, and it's downright creepy. Cops? Your neighborhood patrol will be sub-sub-contracted out of Blackwater, and your monthly security fee will be conveniently rolled into your mortgage. That, or if you live in the city, hope you have a gun happy neighbor who happens to like you?

(only a tiny bit of) hyperbole aside, my point is, every time someone makes the statement "you have to stop depending on the govt" this will be the result. Welcome to the bright future of corporatized government: The government will take you at your word, keep on taxing you, yet, you will get to pay for every formerly public service out of your pocket. And p.s. inflation is only 2.8%.

Be careful what you ask for.

Because look at what has occured with depending on the govt. to solve problems. It has been a total disaster. Citizens live in constant fear and refuse to get involved when they see something going on because they worry the govt. will file charges against them for breaking the law. Yes, there have been cases when people have broken into homes and sued the homeowners for attempted murder when they fought back.

As for the subcontracting of services; that is just as...if not worse...than having the govt. do things for you. BTW, the govt. already hires private contractors on the mainland to do jobs for them. Blackwater deployed urban soldiers that pointed weapons at American citizens in NOLA after the hurricane in 05. So, the taxing entity has been so (insert whatever you want here...ie..lazy stupid slow overwhelmed etc) that it is itself subcontracting this work out.

If a group of homeowners want to hire someone who will do patrols for them that is fine with me. However, if these people are thugs that break common sense laws and do things like beat up women or tazer kids then a private citizen should not fear getting involved to put a stop to it by fighting back if the situation requires it. In other words no one should be above or below the law....just level the playing field.

This is off topic but in the case of the Omaha mall shootings.....if the citizens had been armed with legal concealed handguns the body count would not have gotten as high as it did. Someone would have fought back and wounded or killed the gunman instead of waiting hiding behind clothes racks for the cops to arrive as he kept shooting. Clearly, even mall security was not up to the task that only those immediately there at the time would have been able to do had they been armed.

People kind of think of the colonial days or the times of the old west as uncivilized and rough but they did not have home invasions, rapes, murders, etc....at the rate we have these days even factoring in population growth. The difference between them and us is that they handled their own problems while we refuse to handle ours.

Edited by LarryDallas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a certain point, but I got the biggest giggle about the omaha mall shooting was when a mall spokesman (through a reporter) concluded that if Mall security was armed then there would be a likelyhood that there would be a shootout that would make of a higher casualty rate even higher!

This statement stunned me to the point I had to replay it several times to make sure I heard it right.

Anyway, Quanel needs to move to Liberia if he wants to do some challenging work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha. The idea of shoot-outs with armed mall security in Omaha sounds like a set-up for an episode of South Park.

It sounds horrific. What is this world coming to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People kind of think of the colonial days or the times of the old west as uncivilized and rough but they did not have home invasions, rapes, murders, etc....at the rate we have these days even factoring in population growth.

Brilliant. Probably a new world record in revisionist history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two burglary suspects shot by a Pasadena homeowner last month were illegal immigrants from Colombia, and one man had been deported nearly 10 years ago, authorities said Thursday.

Authorities also said they are investigating whether Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48, were part of a crime ring linked to burglaries and the use of fake immigration documents.

The two — killed by a Pasadena man Nov. 14 after he said they were trying to steal his neighbor's property — were in the country illegally, according to Leticia Zamarripa, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Joe Horn, 61, shot Ortiz and Torres, who went by the alias Miguel Antonio DeJesus. Horn called police after hearing breaking glass. He ignored an operator's warning to not go outside with his gun.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5359290.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to be confusing "speaking out" with racism. He is speaking out against perceived inequities. No one can say that there were not inequities against Blacks historically, and many believe there still are today. Likewise, he speaks out against Black on Black crime, a problem that does not garner the attention it deserves. He does not speak out on Black on White crime because there is no shortage of resources expended to deal with it...at least in my experience. Numerous studies show the overwhelming disparity in punishment meted out for crimes against White victims, as opposed to other races. If there were little attention paid to this issue, the argument could be made that he should speak out on it.In fact, in this instance, no Blacks were involved at all. He spoke out on behalf of Hispanics, a group not historically well received by Blacks. In this case, at least, it can be argued that Quannel X did exactly as you state he should. He spoke out against ALL forms of racism, not just racism against Blacks.
Perhaps someone should ask Mr.X if he knew the dead criminals were actually Hispanic. I kinda doubt he would have spoken out if he had known they were. It is my belief he simply went by the pictures he saw on TV. At least we have established that this wasn't white on black crime. It started out as hispanic on white crime, and ended with white killing hispanic criminals.Meme, I truly wish you would quit dancing around direct questions, someone asked you to prove them wrong in regards to Quannel speaking out on behalf of white people, and you come up with some cacamamie B.S. about "I can say with absolute certainty that no one will be able to prove that the first time anything happens isn't a "first"." Just admit that you can't find anywhere that Quannel has ever done this, and move on.
People kind of think of the colonial days or the times of the old west as uncivilized and rough but they did not have home invasions, rapes, murders, etc....at the rate we have these days even factoring in population growth.
Larry, I have to disagree with you here, I would wager the rates of these crimes were actually WORSE than they are now, especially if you want to compare it using "per capita" results. Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meme, I truly wish you would quit dancing around direct questions, someone asked you to prove them wrong in regards to Quannel speaking out on behalf of white people, and you come up with some cacamamie B.S. about "I can say with absolute certainty that no one will be able to prove that the first time anything happens isn't a "first"." Just admit that you can't find anywhere that Quannel has ever done this, and move on. You madam, are weak.

Huh? No one asked me about Quannel X. I have no knowledge about him or opinion of him. I was just struck by the tautology in that sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? No one asked me about Quannel X. I have no knowledge about him or opinion of him. I was just struck by the tautology in that sentence.

LOL! My mistake, It looked like you were trying to defend Mr. Holierthanthou. I will retract my "weak" comment, and offer an apology. I now see where you were pointing out the redundancy.

If you have a minute, I can tell you all about Mr.X in about one paragraph. ;)

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have a minute, I can tell you all about Mr.X in about one paragraph. ;)

Why not? Oh, I just found out his name isn't "Quannel", but "Quanell".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My original post yesterday was poorly written and said, "The first time... will be the first time." It was confusing and I fixed it ("The next time..."). That's what Meme was responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears that Mr. Horn's statement that, "I had no choice. They came right at me." may not have been entirely correct.

Homeowner Shot Burglars In Back

Just saw that. I've already had one heated discussion with someone who actually pulled the 'but they saw his face and would have come back for retribution' argument.

Shot in the back. Gotta protect that property!

I've stayed out of this discussion, but I had a bad feeling before, and I've got a real problem with Mr. Trigger Happy now. And his apologists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just saw that. I've already had one heated discussion with someone who actually pulled the 'but they saw his face and would have come back for retribution' argument.

Shot in the back. Gotta protect that property!

I've stayed out of this discussion, but I had a bad feeling before, and I've got a real problem with Mr. Trigger Happy now. And his apologists.

Well this is actually pretty interesting because by Texas law, if someone steals property of yours, even of low value, and tries to run, you can shoot them, even in the back. I'm not saying that what Horn did was necessarily legal, but it is interesting that the only thing that makes it illegal was that the burglars had burgled someone else's property.

Seems like a pretty fine line in the grand scheme that it wasn't actually his property being stolen, and that if it had been, the incident would've been a footnote on one or two local news shows and nobody would even know his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this is actually pretty interesting because by Texas law, if someone steals property of yours, even of low value, and tries to run, you can shoot them, even in the back. I'm not saying that what Horn did was necessarily legal, but it is interesting that the only thing that makes it illegal was that the burglars had burgled someone else's property.

Seems like a pretty fine line in the grand scheme that it wasn't actually his property being stolen, and that if it had been, the incident would've been a footnote on one or two local news shows and nobody would even know his name.

Everything about this just smells wrong, you know? He just decided to waste a couple of guys across the yard, pure and simple. Shot in the back. They weren't stealing from him, and his life wasn't in danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything about this just smells wrong, you know? He just decided to waste a couple of guys across the yard, pure and simple. Shot in the back. They weren't stealing from him, and his life wasn't in danger.

I wonder what sort of music Joe Horn listens to? He doesn't strike me as a gangsta rap fan, but you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder what sort of music Joe Horn listens to? He doesn't strike me as a gangsta rap fan, but you never know.

I'd be willing to bet he doesn't listen to music at all.

But he could have it going on, you never know.

Yo, yo Pasadena, puh--leeze-oh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, shot in the back, but the Chron story this morning has more details:

Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present.

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.

Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

and

Horn's attorney, Charles T. Lambright, said his client fired in self-defense because he feared for his life.

"One of them (suspects) moved and Joe thought he was coming towards him," Lambright said. "They were in such close proximity (to Horn) that they could be on top of him in half a second."

The fact that a police officer witnessed the shooting but did not arrest Horn is further evidence that he acted in self-defense, he said.

"You've got a trained police officer sitting there watching this, and he doesn't arrest Horn," Lambright said. "If the (plainclothes) officer thought it was not a righteous shooting, maybe the Pasadena Police Department would have arrested Mr. Horn for murder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That lawyer needs to stick to handling divorces. He is terrible at Criminal Law. It is not uncommon for police not to arrest when complex legal issues are in play, and there is little risk the suspect (Horn) will flee. The decision not to arrest was almost certainly made by the District Attorney's office, which would have been in phone contact with Pasadena PD, and probably wanted more information before making a decision. In virtually all criminal cases, the police officer calls the DA, gives a synopsis of the facts in the case, and asks the DA if they are willing to accept charges. If the DA says yes, the suspect is arrested. If they say no, the suspect is released. However, releasing a suspect does not mean they will never be charged, merely that more evidence must be collected to evaluate the case, as is being done here.

As for claims of self defense, I have seen a lot of these over the years. I do not ever recall a claim of self defense being considered acceptable when the person is shot in the back while running away. Even if one could use mental gymnastics to justify shooting one in the back, the second burglar never got close, and was shot in the back in the neighbor's yard. The only jeopardy that Horn appears to have felt was that he may not get to dispense his brand of vigilante justice, as the unarmed burglars were running away. He had to shoot quick or forfeit his right to be a hero to the freerepublic.com crowd.

I am still unsure what the DA will do with the case. However, shots in the back do not bode well for Horn. The claims that they were armed and coming at him were untrue. If I were DA, I would fear the torrent of vigilante shootings that may occur if we say shooting strangers in a neighbor's yard is OK. Meter readers, workmen, friends and relatives would all be in jeopardy if the neighbor does not recognize them, and he gets trigger happy. Shooting burglars breaking into your OWN house is one thing. Shooting people in another's yard is altogether different, and fraught with potential for killing innocent victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course Quannel X doesn't condone their actions. What bugs me about Quannel X is that if the colors were reversed (white victims, black shooter) he wouldn't give a crap... and yet he claims to be someone who stands up against racism. I don't like racism in any way ... black on white... white on black... yellow on black... brown on yellow... etc. etc. <_<

No. If it was reversed, Quannel X would find a way to get those black shooters to turn themselves in. This is a good way for him to get more publicity for his 'good' deed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meter readers, workmen, friends and relatives would all be in jeopardy if the neighbor does not recognize them, and he gets trigger happy.

Really? Meter readers and contractors who break windows and climb inside the house? The horror!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything about this just smells wrong, you know? He just decided to waste a couple of guys across the yard, pure and simple. Shot in the back. They weren't stealing from him, and his life wasn't in danger.

Yeah, it stinks if you ignore the fact that for the first 60+ years of Joe Horn's life he didn't shoot anyone (that we know of), and when he finally does, it's only because he feels he has no choice - and the people shot turn out to be scumbags.

Meter readers, workmen, friends and relatives would all be in jeopardy if the neighbor does not recognize them, and he gets trigger happy.

14620965_240X180.jpg

Hey, if anyone comes in out of my neighbor's backyard, looks like one of these two thugs (you can obviously tell they're not with the Postal Service, Water Company, Cable Company, etc etc...) with a crowbar that he used to break a window and a bag of loot - I think I'd be inclined to shoot as well.

Stop taking up for these scumbags already.

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it stinks if you ignore the fact that for the first 60+ years of Joe Horn's life he didn't shoot anyone (that we know of), and when he finally does, it's only because he feels he has no choice - and the people shot turn out to be scumbags.

14620965_240X180.jpg

Hey, if anyone comes in out of my neighbor's backyard, looks like one of these two thugs (you can obviously tell they're not with the Postal Service, Water Company, Cable Company, etc etc...) with a crowbar that he used to break a window and a bag of loot - I think I'd be inclined to shoot as well.

Stop taking up for these scumbags already.

Who, the burglars...or, the murderer?

Hey, Jeebus, mather and other wannabe vigilantes...

If you think plugging a couple of dirtbags in the back after seeing them in your neighbor's yard....then having to see your doctor after the stress of the event overwhelms you...and dealing with the ensuing month long criminal investigation, hiring a lawyer to look out for your interests when the case inevitably goes to the DA and Grand Jury, seeing your name dragged through the mud as people across the city call you a vigilante, ducking the daily barrage of news reporters, having to temporarily move from your house to avoid the protests of those who do not think $2,000 is worth killing people over, and possibly rehiring that same lawyer to defend you against murder charges if the District Attorney has a different interpretation of the law than you do...all of this for your neighbor's $2,000...not even your own money....if all of that sounds worth it, knock yourself out. And, hey, for the right price, I'll do a helluva lot better job defending you than some old civil lawyer from Pasadena.

My neighbors and I keep laughing that we haven't seen anything in each other's houses worth going through hell ourselves over, but maybe you guys would enjoy the publicity and the lawyer bill. I know I'd enjoy the fee and the publicity I'd get for representing you, though I gotta admit, it'd suck to be you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think Joe Horn will survive much longer after this tragic incident? Not that he will take his own life, but with the stress and all that could lead to health problems. It has been known to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone think Joe Horn will survive much longer after this tragic incident? Not that he will take his own life, but with the stress and all that could lead to health problems. It has been known to happen.

How old is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How old is he?

He is in his early 60's, I believe.

Red, I take exception to being called a "wannabe vigilante." I don't WANT to shoot anyone, nor do I WANT for any neighbors of mine to shoot anyone. That said, I think the hypothetical crisis you paint of wild west neighbors on patrol is rather overwrought and hyperbolic. If Joe Horn gets off, or gets a relatively light punishment, I don't think we'll see more shootings, I think we'll see LESS robberies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red, I take exception to being called a "wannabe vigilante." I don't WANT to shoot anyone, nor do I WANT for any neighbors of mine to shoot anyone. That said, I think the hypothetical crisis you paint of wild west neighbors on patrol is rather overwrought and hyperbolic. If Joe Horn gets off, or gets a relatively light punishment, I don't think we'll see more shootings, I think we'll see LESS robberies.

This is 100% how I feel and what I think about the whole ordeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is in his early 60's, I believe.

Red, I take exception to being called a "wannabe vigilante." I don't WANT to shoot anyone, nor do I WANT for any neighbors of mine to shoot anyone. That said, I think the hypothetical crisis you paint of wild west neighbors on patrol is rather overwrought and hyperbolic. If Joe Horn gets off, or gets a relatively light punishment, I don't think we'll see more shootings, I think we'll see LESS robberies.

Texas has one of the harshest judicial system for criminals. In fact, the next time you ask where all the money is going, just read the TX budget.

Anyhow, I don't think we've seen any drop in crime and we're paying through the nose for it.

So much for that theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Joe Horn gets off, or gets a relatively light punishment, I don't think we'll see more shootings, I think we'll see LESS robberies.

Or we'll see more armed robberies. Never bring a center punch to a shotgun fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or we'll see more armed robberies. Never bring a center punch to a shotgun fight.

Yeah, these tuff drug and crime laws here in Texas, not to mention even tuffer judges and sentencing has surely reduced crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there truly less crime in Texas than other places due to the more lenient gun laws ? Anybody have any stats to compare crime in Texas to say Canada?

Canada and Texas have roughly the same population, and Canada and Texas both have roughly 3 cities with populations over 1 million, but drastically different gun control laws, so maybe it would be an interesting comparison.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Texas had a reported incident rate of 545.1 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 13th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,410.4 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 10th highest. Also in the year 2000 Texas had 5.9 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 17th highest rate for Murder. Texas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www41.statcan.ca/2007/2693/grafx/ht...693_000_1_e.htm

The Canadian government statistics (2005) show 942 violent crimes per 100,000 people in Canada, almost twice the number in Texas. But the murder rate in Canada is 2 victims per 100,000 people compared to 6 victims per 100,000 in Texas.

Why would Canada's violent crime rate be twice that of Texas while Canada's murder rate is 1/3 of the murder rate in Texas?

By the way, here's the FBI site with crime stats. The numbers match up with what you said, but I trust fbi.gov more than disastercetner.com

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also add to the fact that there are more people crammed in a smaller area, relatively speaking.

Criminals like a warmer climate, there is no snow that they can track them through and getaways are much trickier up north.

Plus most of them are stoned anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www41.statcan.ca/2007/2693/grafx/ht...693_000_1_e.htm

The Canadian government statistics (2005) show 942 violent crimes per 100,000 people in Canada, almost twice the number in Texas. But the murder rate in Canada is 2 victims per 100,000 people compared to 6 victims per 100,000 in Texas.

Why would Canada's violent crime rate be twice that of Texas while Canada's murder rate is 1/3 of the murder rate in Texas?

By the way, here's the FBI site with crime stats. The numbers match up with what you said, but I trust fbi.gov more than disastercetner.com

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html

The US violent crime index only includes Aggravated Assault. The Canadian index includes ALL assault. The US definition of Aggravated Assault only includes felony assault. The Canadian definition includes misdemeanor as well as felony assaults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US violent crime index only includes Aggravated Assault. The Canadian index includes ALL assault. The US definition of Aggravated Assault only includes felony assault. The Canadian definition includes misdemeanor as well as felony assaults.

Damn those canadians.

(note the lower "c")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this how we "do things in Texas"?

2 men shot in back according to autopsy

I don't feel real sorry for the men, or that twit of a girlfriend who seems to love on-air theatrics about what a wonderful person her fiance was (yeah, right)...but shooting someone in the back? Isn't that what most Texans call cowardly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there truly less crime in Texas than other places due to the more lenient gun laws ? Anybody have any stats to compare crime in Texas to say Canada?

Canada and Texas have roughly the same population, and Canada and Texas both have roughly 3 cities with populations over 1 million, but drastically different gun control laws, so maybe it would be an interesting comparison.

Not particularly, unless we're going to run multivariate regressions with a hell of a lot of other variables accounted for. Population count isn't the only one, in fact its probably the least reliable indicator. Population density, educational attainment, ethnic composition, household income, local economic conditions, components of population change, climate, and of course--the big obfuscator: culture--all these extraneous factors have to be factored out before meaningful trends could be derived with respect to gun control laws.

And macbro, that Texas has a relatively high crime rate and has a criminal justice system is insufficient evidence to conclude that our criminal justice system needs to be reworked. You've got no control subject in this experiment; it would be no more or less correct to conclude from your premise that were it not for our current system, crime would be considerably higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And macbro, that Texas has a relatively high crime rate and has a criminal justice system is insufficient evidence to conclude that our criminal justice system needs to be reworked. You've got no control subject in this experiment; it would be no more or less correct to conclude from your premise that were it not for our current system, crime would be considerably higher.

Or that the wine we've been drinking from these failed politicos is just not working. Crime is certainly no less with the death penalty threat. Our criminal justice system is eating up a whole lot of dollars and we're stuck paying the bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or that the wine we've been drinking from these failed politicos is just not working. Crime is certainly no less with the death penalty threat. Our criminal justice system is eating up a whole lot of dollars and we're stuck paying the bills.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you on the death penalty thing. The cost of sentencing someone to death is ridiculously high, and the kinds of people that'd likely get such punishment probably aren't thinking about it as they commit the crime. But if its more expensive to put someone on death row and eventually kill them than it is just to give them a life sentence, which to me seems pretty much like the same thing, with the goal that such people never again interact in normal society, then I'd just as soon suggest that we make the process of the death penalty much more common and also streamline it to bring costs back into line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Population density, educational attainment, ethnic composition, household income, local economic conditions, components of population change, climate, and of course--the big obfuscator: culture--all these extraneous factors have to be factored out before meaningful trends could be derived with respect to gun control laws.
Has anybody ever done such a study? Do Texans base their opinions on gun control based on such a study, or do they just blindly state that crime is lower in Texas because people carry guns? I've heard many people say that it's a good thing that people are allowed to carry guns here in Texas because it keeps the crime rate down (basically criminals are afraid to mess with people for fear they might be carrying a gun). Does anybody believe that to be true or false? Or are people just into guns here because of the (false?) sense of security that carrying a gun gives.
suggest that we make the process of the death penalty much more common and also streamline it to bring costs back into line.
I'd be worried about the whole issue of false convictions if the death penalty was much more common than it already is. Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...