Jump to content

Pasadena Homeowner Kills Men Burglarizing Neighbor's House


cottonmather0

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 363
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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")

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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.

I haven't paid attention to this thread in a couple of days and it appears Red and I are the scumbag-loving leftist voting bloc of HAIF.

Looks like I've arrived!

shot in the back. It just boggles my mind, the mental gymnastics some people are still doing to defend that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't paid attention to this thread in a couple of days and it appears Red and I are the scumbag-loving leftist voting bloc of HAIF.

Looks like I've arrived!

shot in the back. It just boggles my mind, the mental gymnastics some people are still doing to defend that.

You forgot me ... I am hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There's no decent study that I know of. But I think that it's also short-sighted to frame the gun control issue entirely about crime prevention. The crime issue is secondary to the ability to shoot our politicians if and when they screw us over. There are also people out there concerned about hunting and sport shooting, but that's a tertiary issue on my list.

I'd be worried about the whole issue of false convictions if the death penalty was much more common than it already is.

False convictions are a big problem with or without the death penalty. There might be something to be said, though, for using the death penalty with greater frequency, if only to really impress upon the jury the seriousness of "innocent until proven guilty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been more studies on guns and crime than you can count. There have also been plenty of studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty. They always come to the same conclusions to varying degrees. That is, violent people have higher crime rates. In states that love guns and the death penalty, the crime rate tends to be higher. The South, including Texas, believes in violence. Therefore, southern states tend to have higher violent crime rates. Even the law abiding citizens believe in violence, as evidenced by this thread. Because violence begets more violence, Texas will remain violent for some time to come.As for the deterrent effect of the death penalty, there is none...period. The simple fact is that criminals do not believe they are going to be caught. Therefore, punishment is no deterrent to them, no matter how gruesome that punishment may be. Death penalty lovers try and try and try to make an argument for its usefulness, but if the criminal does not believe he will be caught, all arguments fail, as the criminal does not believe the penalty will apply to his crime.As sure as I write this, there will be someone who ignores the obvious and claim that the death penalty or armed citizens deters crime. And, they will still be wrong, as they misunderstand the criminal mind. Criminals are not actuaries and economists. They do not think rationally or long term. They are drug abusers and chronically unemployed. Armed homeowners only increase the possibility of armed burglars, if it does anything at all. Since everyone, including burglars, knows the likelihood of armed homeowners is already high, all it really does is make most burglars look for empty homes.

shot in the back. It just boggles my mind, the mental gymnastics some people are still doing to defend that.
I've actually gotten quite a kick out of this. It reminds me of the mental gymnastics that I used to see as a prosecutor from murderers accused of shooting their victims in the back. As parrothead said earlier, we used to call them cowards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

False convictions are a big problem with or without the death penalty

Yes, but you can't resurrect dead inmates who had been falsely convicted and then executed. That is one of the reason that the death penalty was outlawed in Canada in the 1970s (there was a specific case where an inmate was scheduled to be executed, and proven innocent many years later.). I think that if you're going to have capital punishment, it should only be used in cases of extreme certainty, not "much more commonly"... although I am sure you're going to argue that there are plenty of cases of absolute certainty where the death penalty was not used, or something along those lines.

There are also people out there concerned about hunting and sport shooting, but that's a tertiary issue on my list.

The hunting issue is null as far as I am concerned. Even in gun-hating places like Canada, you're allowed to have a gun for sporting or hunting purposes (as long as it's properly licensed). I know people will try to argue that requiring a license in order to carry a hunting rifle would be unconstitutional though. I used to go skeet shooting with a teacher from my high school, and it wasn't a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As sure as I write this, there will be someone who ignores the obvious and claim that the death penalty or armed citizens deters crime. And, they will still be wrong, as they misunderstand the criminal mind. Criminals are not actuaries and economists. They do not think rationally or long term. They are drug abusers and chronically unemployed. Armed homeowners only increase the possibility of armed burglars, if it does anything at all. Since everyone, including burglars, knows the likelihood of armed homeowners is already high, all it really does is make most burglars look for empty homes.

Well, there may be a counterargument yet. You say that criminals are not (present tense) actuaries and economists, and attribute that to criminals not thinking rationally or in the long term. But what if the laws were to change so as to completely disarm people and make them entirely reliant upon ineffective government entities for their safety and welfare, what then? Would actuaries and economists not make the most effective criminals (and to the extent that there are a number that currently work for the IRS, don't they, already? :closedeyes: ) if the risk were made sufficiently low and the opportunity for gain sufficiently high? That's a scary thought, right there, the implications being that harsh punishments are meted out not to quash stupid criminals, but to discourage the smart ones from joining in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final judgement on this guy is far from in and while I am a gun owner I doubt I would go as far as this guy did. A lot of folks here have also pointed out that use of deadly force in protecting property, either your own or anothers is allowed in the state of Texas. It's true the law is on the books but as the cop who taught my conceled handgun class told us. If you shoot someone to protect property he better have been holding a gun on you, because even though the law is there very few if any body gets off in a shooting claiming they were "protecting property"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...