Latest News Not Good News for Joe Horn: Pasadena Police Report Crooks Shot in Back
Well, I'll be the first to admit it, there is always a hazard associated with a law like the castle doctrine and the this may turn out to be one of those cases in which a man allowed himself to get too agitated and crossed the boundaries between a righteous killing and and a panic killing.
The Pasadena Police have now revealed that the two men shot by Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, were shot in the back, not the front as first reported. They also report that they had an undercover policeman on the scene a few seconds before the shootings occurred. A witness who saw the entire shooting. Here is the Houston Chronicle's report:
No one supports the rights of American citizens to protect themselves and their property, or even their neighbor's property more than I, but if the suspects were actually leaving the scene, whether or not Joe Horn felt threatened by their presence becomes somewhat less relevant. It is difficult to justify shooting a man in the back. Even the police face severe difficulties if they make the decision to shoot a fleeing criminal in the back.
Certainly the failure even to fire a warning shot after his challenge for them to stop, bespeaks of a little too much adrenaline pumping and a little too much zeal in pulling the trigger. I am specifically addressing the legal aspects of this case, not the moral implications.
I really don't have too much of a problem with the idea of shooting criminals caught in the act of committing a crime against property. Especially I don't have a problem in a case in which the criminals were observed smashing windows and glass bricks to gain entry to their target house. These guys were not just some starving people looking for a little food, they were apparently part of a criminal gang who have been specifically targeting the homes of legal aliens.
They were illegals who had no business being in America, no business being in Houston, and sure as hell had no business being in that neighborhood, so I say, "Tough luck, bad timing guys. You probably got what you deserved."
However, in the eyes of the law, we have just entered an area in which the lines have now become fuzzy. There was a policeman on the scene, who witnessed the entire shooting and chose not to arrest Joe Horn. That at least to some degree indicates that he believed the shooting were within the bounds of his understanding of the law. That's the good news.
The bad news is that the law, in general, takes a dim view of shooting someone in the back as it indicates they were not a "direct and immediate threat," and especially when the shooting occurs in broad daylight.
So I find myself in a bit of a quandry with this shooting. I do not believe that any good will come from punishing Joe Horn, as he will have to live with what he has done for the rest of his life. I sympathize with his emotions and motives. I sympathize with his feelings of outrage and utter frustration at witnessing a crime being committed right in front of his eyes and feeling powerless to prevent it.
I also sympathize with the frustration he must have felt to have been on the phone talking to the operator about the crime and not seeing or hearing any response by the police and knowing that on average, the police rarely arrive in time to catch crooks like these in the act. The Chronical reports that:
As I stated in my very first post on this, every citizen in America has the right to make a "citizen's arrest" if they are witnessing a crime in progress and are properly situated physically and emotionally to intervene. That right has been upheld numerous times in our justice system. I also just as clearly stated that any such decision made by a citizen would have to stand the test of our legal system.
You may intervene, but you must be willing to face the consequences of your actions. I am certain that Mr. Horn understands this as he readily surrendered to the police and he has already expressed his regrets for what he did, though I'm sure he acted in what he felt was a justified manner. It will now be up to the legal system to determine if Joe Horn's actions were justified, reasonable, and legal.
My sympathies lie with Joe Horn, mainly because I believe we have travelled too far down the road of our justice system being more concerned with the rights of the criminal than they are with the rights of the victime of crimes. I fear that any decision other than a "No Bill" from the grand jury will be one more step down that road, one more moment's hesitation in a homeowner's decision to fire to protect his family and his property when the law is clearly on his side.
I do not like the fact that these two criminals were shot in the back, and Joe Horn may have to pay a high price for his actions, but the facts remain that:
You thrive off of racial discord. You make your career out of stirring up racial discord. You offer your fellow African Americans no solutions, only hatred and bitterness. It is unfortunate that people like you are given as much press as you receive.
God Bless Joe Horn. I don't know what his fate will be, but my sympathies remain with him even if my rational mind knows that his actions were overly zealous and narrowly justifiable if at all.
I guess we will have to wait to see what the grand jury determines.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!
The Pasadena Police have now revealed that the two men shot by Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, were shot in the back, not the front as first reported. They also report that they had an undercover policeman on the scene a few seconds before the shootings occurred. A witness who saw the entire shooting. Here is the Houston Chronicle's report:
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:05AMI really hate to hear this, but it maybe that this shooting while not a case of premeditation, could easily wind up being a case of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. This only makes the tragedy worse.
Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in the back
Both men were hit by shotgun blasts after entering Joe Horn's front yard
By CINDY HORSWELL and ROBERT STANTON
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
The two burglary suspects killed by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn were shot in the back after they ventured into his front yard, police disclosed Friday.
In another twist, investigators revealed that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings after he pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun.
The men, who had just burglarized Horn's neighbor's house, faced him from seven to 10 feet away when they ignored his order to "not move"or they would be dead, police said.
The controversial shootings have outraged minority activists but also brought an outpouring of support for Horn.
"We now have a summary documenting what we think happened," said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett. "We will turn it over to the district attorney in a couple of weeks after we do an extensive review for quality control."
No one supports the rights of American citizens to protect themselves and their property, or even their neighbor's property more than I, but if the suspects were actually leaving the scene, whether or not Joe Horn felt threatened by their presence becomes somewhat less relevant. It is difficult to justify shooting a man in the back. Even the police face severe difficulties if they make the decision to shoot a fleeing criminal in the back.
Certainly the failure even to fire a warning shot after his challenge for them to stop, bespeaks of a little too much adrenaline pumping and a little too much zeal in pulling the trigger. I am specifically addressing the legal aspects of this case, not the moral implications.
I really don't have too much of a problem with the idea of shooting criminals caught in the act of committing a crime against property. Especially I don't have a problem in a case in which the criminals were observed smashing windows and glass bricks to gain entry to their target house. These guys were not just some starving people looking for a little food, they were apparently part of a criminal gang who have been specifically targeting the homes of legal aliens.
They were illegals who had no business being in America, no business being in Houston, and sure as hell had no business being in that neighborhood, so I say, "Tough luck, bad timing guys. You probably got what you deserved."
However, in the eyes of the law, we have just entered an area in which the lines have now become fuzzy. There was a policeman on the scene, who witnessed the entire shooting and chose not to arrest Joe Horn. That at least to some degree indicates that he believed the shooting were within the bounds of his understanding of the law. That's the good news.
The bad news is that the law, in general, takes a dim view of shooting someone in the back as it indicates they were not a "direct and immediate threat," and especially when the shooting occurs in broad daylight.
So I find myself in a bit of a quandry with this shooting. I do not believe that any good will come from punishing Joe Horn, as he will have to live with what he has done for the rest of his life. I sympathize with his emotions and motives. I sympathize with his feelings of outrage and utter frustration at witnessing a crime being committed right in front of his eyes and feeling powerless to prevent it.
I also sympathize with the frustration he must have felt to have been on the phone talking to the operator about the crime and not seeing or hearing any response by the police and knowing that on average, the police rarely arrive in time to catch crooks like these in the act. The Chronical reports that:
Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present.That all being said, I also do not support unwarranted killings. I do not believe that such actions promote the rights of citizens who do use their firearms our laws inform us we may.
"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."
As I stated in my very first post on this, every citizen in America has the right to make a "citizen's arrest" if they are witnessing a crime in progress and are properly situated physically and emotionally to intervene. That right has been upheld numerous times in our justice system. I also just as clearly stated that any such decision made by a citizen would have to stand the test of our legal system.
You may intervene, but you must be willing to face the consequences of your actions. I am certain that Mr. Horn understands this as he readily surrendered to the police and he has already expressed his regrets for what he did, though I'm sure he acted in what he felt was a justified manner. It will now be up to the legal system to determine if Joe Horn's actions were justified, reasonable, and legal.
My sympathies lie with Joe Horn, mainly because I believe we have travelled too far down the road of our justice system being more concerned with the rights of the criminal than they are with the rights of the victime of crimes. I fear that any decision other than a "No Bill" from the grand jury will be one more step down that road, one more moment's hesitation in a homeowner's decision to fire to protect his family and his property when the law is clearly on his side.
I do not like the fact that these two criminals were shot in the back, and Joe Horn may have to pay a high price for his actions, but the facts remain that:
- If these two criminals had not entered this country illegally...
- If these two criminals not not been intentionally targeting the most vulnerable of our new citizens...
- If these two men had not been engaged in a crime...
- If these two men had not been in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.
None of this would have happened.
While I do not agree with shooting two men in the back, I also do not believe that we are being properly served by our government, either local or national. I do not believe that the state or federal authorities should have any jurisdiction or say so in this case and I do not back down from my accusations against Black Racist Quanell X. He is an agitator who was expelled from the Nation of Islam for his violent racist proclamations and his organization, the self named "New Black Panthers" has been disavowed and denounced by the founders of the original Black Panthers.
He has brought race into a case which revolves completely around criminal behavior and is now calling for outside interference. As the Houston Chronicle reports:
Civil rights activist Quanell X said he would step up the call for a murder indictment against Horn, and questioned whether the Pasadena police should investigate the case.Actually Quanell, it is you who stinks. You and your whole opportunistic, lying, race-baiting organization "stink." It is the social vampires like you, those who live off of the fear and anger of others, primarily by stirring up those sentiments who are the scum that gums up the gears of our society.
Quanell X said the shooting should be handled instead by the Texas Rangers and the FBI.
"I don't trust the Pasadena Police Department," he said. "Why are they just now releasing the fact that an undercover officer witnessed the whole thing? This case stinks."
You thrive off of racial discord. You make your career out of stirring up racial discord. You offer your fellow African Americans no solutions, only hatred and bitterness. It is unfortunate that people like you are given as much press as you receive.
God Bless Joe Horn. I don't know what his fate will be, but my sympathies remain with him even if my rational mind knows that his actions were overly zealous and narrowly justifiable if at all.
I guess we will have to wait to see what the grand jury determines.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!
What do you think?
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
posted by Will Malven at 9:52 PM
11 Comments:
Wow dude. It seems like you actually think that Quanell X's opinions, albeit racist are worse than Joe Horn's actions (cold blooded murder).
But what should I expect from a dude who doesn't respect MLK because he was a socialist.
Wow "dude" you're right...about Quanell X's opinions, not just racist but inflammatory and dangerous, just as his having his little group of storm-troopers march around downtown Houston with loaded shotguns and semi-auto AK 47 clones.
You're wrong about "cold blooded murder," is was anything but "cold blooded" and it was not "murder."
As for MLK, he wasn't a socialist, Microbrain, he was a communist and he actively worked against American interests during a time of war.
But what should I expect from a Liberal idiot?
Anytime you shoot someone in the back, you are at the very least a pussy. Even in the Old West. To me, telling the 911 operator "I'm gonna kill them" and then blowing three holes in the two assailants, is premeditated murder, if not completely cold blooded.
Quanell X is a race baiter, but he hasn't, at least to my knowledge, committed murder. Words and opinions may be harmful to some, but I can pretty much guarantee not as harmful as taking their lives. The 'storm trooper' reference you made is HILARIOUS since they were following the laws on the books. What happened to the second amendment? Does that only apply if you are conservative and write a silly internet blog?
Your obsession with MLK's political ideals instead of his actions in overcoming the evils of racism is another example of this. Seriously, try judging people on actions, not words or political philosophy. Otherwise it makes you look as bad as the liberal Bush haters you so despise.
It's not the law, but the intent that makes them "storm troopers." Had their intent simply been self defense I would not be calling the that, but their intent was to intimidate and frighten. Just imagine the press coverage had it been men in white sheets doing the same. The MSM would still be talking about it. Just look at how the press treated the so called militia movements of the 80's and 90's. I bet you were in lock-step agreement with the MSM on how "dangerous it is for armed men to be playing army."
As to premeditated, that's for the courts to decide. Taken in context, I doubt the phrase would ever amount to premeditation. No murder. Manslaughter maybe, but no murder.
Quanell X no, no murder just dealing crack and incitement to violence, but no murder, but he's still got plenty of time to do that. One could take his challenge for Joe Horn to come out of his house and meet him with his shotgun as a direct threat.
If you had bothered to read the article on which you posted you would see that I did not excuse his actions, not even when there was some question as to whether or not the men were shot in the chest.
I have always said that he was within his rights to attempt a citizen's arrest, but that he (as do all citizens doing so) would have to justify his actions in court. I am especially doubtful of the necessity of the third shot he fired. Given that, the cop on the scene and who witnessed the actions didn't feel it warranted an arrest.
Having said that, I still don't much care about the two criminals he killed (aside from the loss of life). Their deaths are their own fault for committing the crimes. They aren't there, they are still alive. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Of course you probably feel like they were perfectly innocent men who just accidently broke into the neighbors house and then accidently stole the $2000.00. They just need compassion. It's not their fault that they were criminals. Am I right?
MLK was a communist, traitor to the nation, worked for the defeat of America in the Vietnam War, and praised the land reforms in North Vietnam.
You libs are so predictable and sooooooo stupid. You keep trying the same things over and over again even when they have been proven to be failures. The Democrat Party tells you to jump and jump you do.
never voted for a Democratic candidate in my life, hombre (well, except Ron Kirk for Senator in 00)
the fact that you still refuse to respect MLK for the greatness he brought to the nation and instead slander him due to a handful of quotations tells me all I need to know about you.
Not the same as saying you aren't a Liberal idiot, just tells me you are an extremist Liberal idiot. Probably one of those misfits from OEN; Tinhat wearers extrordinaire.
The fact that you love MLK but don't respect George Washington Carver of Booker T. Washington, men of real accomplishment tells me all I need to know.
who said I didn't respect Carver or Washington? In fact, I'd add DuBois, Medger Evers, Malcolm X, and a handful of others to your list.
What was your opinion of the civil rights battles in the 60's? Were there any honorable black men or should we just give respect to those who contributed greatly to society without reaping the benefits (like Carver experienced)
...and if I have only voted for one national race democrat since my first election in 1996 (actually voted for Dole for some reason that time) I am an extremist? That makes a lot of sense when other than Ralph Nader, Ron Kirk and Dole, I voted libertarian or constitutional party in national elections
...and if I have only voted for one national race democrat since my first election in 1996 (actually voted for Dole for some reason that time) I am an extremist? That makes a lot of sense when other than Ralph Nader, Ron Kirk and Dole, I voted libertarian or constitutional party in national elections
Malcolm X...you've got to be kidding. A man of pure hatred.
Medgar Evers, a heroic figure and a victim of hatred which went unpunished for far too long.
If you believe that I would excuse anything the Klan did, you are sadly mistaken. I condemn hatred wherever it occurs and against whomever it is directed.
WEB DuBois...ahn...I don't know kind of a mixed bag. What about James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner? Civil rights was not just an African American movement, it was also very much a white republican movement...just as was the freeing of slaves in the Civil War. The people doing the killing were Democrats, not Republicans.
That you would vote for Ralph Nadir (sp. intentional) tells me all I need to know about your wisdom and gullibility. As for Kirk, I can only say thank God that John Cornyn beat him.
I suppose you now support Ron Paul. Apparently you have no underlying principles guiding your voting...Ralphy and Bob Dole and Ron Kirk? I guess that makes you a rudderless ship.
This just in...Ralph Nader is/was the exact opposite of either Libertarian or Constitutional Partys. He's about as hardcore a socialist as one can be.
Damn boy, you don't know what you believe in. To be sure consistency isn't it.
Now why don't you attempt to focus your miniscule ADHD brain back on topic. I know it's difficult when your brain is over whelmed, but if you really try, maybe you'll be able to focus on what I write, not on your own little black vs. white agenda.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home