Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Execution State, Not the Death Sentence State
This year, The New York Times reports, Texas accounted for 62 percent of the country's executions. But contrary to the state's reputation, it is not especially likely to impose death sentences. It is just more likely than other states to carry them out:
According to a 2004 study by three professors of law and statistics at Cornell published in The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Texas prosecutors and juries were no more apt to seek and impose death sentences than those in the rest of the country.
"Texas' reputation as a death-prone state should rest on its many murders and on its willingness to execute death-sentenced inmates," the authors of the study, Theodore Eisenberg, John H. Blume and Martin T. Wells, wrote. "It should not rest on the false belief that Texas has a high rate of sentencing convicted murderers to death."
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 12:04PM|#
"What's the point of having this superb death penalty you're always talking about, if we can't use it?"
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Is this supposed to give me a better impression than before of the Texas criminal justice system?
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Texas' reputation as a death-prone state should rest on its
many murders
I think the state tourism bureau has found its new motto!
|12.26.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Murders are attempted in Texas at just below the national
average; it's just that our killers are much more effective.
I attribute this to better marksmanship and weaker victims.
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 12:43PM|#
More possibilities:
"Texas: come here for the humidity. Stay here for your
funeral."
"Texas: taking state pride way too seriously since whenever the
hell we were admitted into the Union."
"Texas: now with air conditioning!"
Timothy|12.26.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Jennifer: Those are great!
Texas: We hate Mexicans but love their food!
Texas: Our white people live in fear!
Texas: WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 12:51PM|#
"Texas: our big hats are NOT meant to compensate for other shortcomings, and if you say they do we'll kick your ass."
Edward|12.26.07 @ 12:51PM|#
I can think of one candidate from Texas who's gonna die, electorally speaking. But go ahead and send him money anyway.
|12.26.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Texas: You'll get the DNA to exonerate me when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Russell|12.26.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Our nation is great enough to accommodate time zones reckoned in centuries as well as hours. The Texas Time Warp being the largest and deepest,its courts best demonstrate how inquisitional logic can prosper indefinitely in synergy with a strong secular arm.
|12.26.07 @ 1:04PM|#
Texas: If you can't do the time for the crime, we'll execute
your worthless ass - well we might when we get around to it in ten
or twenty years.
ps: The big hats are for deflecting all the bullshit that gets
thrown at us.
|12.26.07 @ 1:04PM|#
"Murders are attempted in Texas at just below the national
average; it's just that our killers are much more effective.
I attribute this to better marksmanship and weaker victims."
...or, perhaps, it may be your lousy emergency rooms.
|12.26.07 @ 1:08PM|#
The thing I love most about Texas is that everything in Texas is shaped like Texas. Texas-shaped belt buckles, grills, earrings, etc. I hope they have a Texas-shaped electric chair.
The Ghost of Texas Future|12.26.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Lamar wins. On principle. I in practice. Mwah-hah-hah!
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 1:19PM|#
I lived in San Antonio for a relatively short period of time. I was in the Air Force and went through both basic training and tech school at Lackland Air Force Base. The town itself I liked. It reminded me (Texans, forgive me if this offends you but I mean it as a compliment) it reminded me of San Francisco with a Texas accent. It was quite beautiful and had the best food I ever put in my mouth. The River Walk helped keep me sane when I was on break during Tech School. I must admit that I have never been anywhere in Texas outside of the greater San Antonio metropolitan area but that part of it at least, I cannot speak a single word against.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 1:23PM|#
There is a recent story out of Texas that HnR really
should have blogged, but hasn't.* Short version of the story:
Two undocumented immigrants from Columbria break into a house and
are making off with loot. Next door neighbors calls 911, says he
will shoot the burglars, is told by the 911 operator not to shoot
the burglars, tells the operator that he is going to shoot the
burglars anyway and proceeds to shoot the burglars to death. Police
show up and decline to arrest. It is not clear whether any criminal
charges will be brought against the killer.
More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/us/23texas.html?em&ex=1198558800&en=8fd40a9a62c46725&ei=5087%0A
Also, the tape of the 911 call is available on the Nets and worth
hearing.
On the one hand, you can kind of see why HnR hasn't found
this blogworthy, what with: (i) the bad light it casts on
undocumented immigrants; and (ii) HnR's Texas
correspondent having taken the position that people won't casually
shoot other people just because guns are easily accessible.
However, these are also exactly the resons that HnR should
have reported this interesting story.* So they can explain to the
gunnuts why what Joe Horn did was okay. So the gunnuts will have a
response when this item comes up in chit-chat.
FOOTNOTE:
* Correct me if I am wrong on this. Also, I don't follow that Chas.
Oliver thing if they still do that.
|12.26.07 @ 1:24PM|#
I can think of one candidate from Texas who's gonna die, electorally speaking. But go ahead and send him money anyway.
k thx bye
|12.26.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Who needs to be told why Joe Horn was justified in doing what he did? He was protecting the property of his neighbors, which is allowed under Texas law. Perhaps you would loosen up on the stupid racial angle if you knew that the neighbors Horn was protecting are Vietnamese.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 1:37PM|#
"So they can explain to the gunnuts why what Joe Horn did was
okay. So the gunnuts will have a response when this item comes up
in chit-chat."
I find it interesting that people who support the second amendment
are often called "gunnuts" while people who support any of the
other amendments in the Bill of Rights are not given a label with
the suffix "nuts". For the record I do not currently own a firearm.
Perhaps I should buy one though as it looks more and more like I
may need one to defend my rights from an increasingly oppressive
government. If I do buy one, I will make sure I buy at least one
via the black-market or other unofficial channel. That way if the
ant-gun crowd successful passes a gun ban I will still have at
least one gun with which I can defend the few rights I will have
left.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 1:40PM|#
He was protecting the property of his neighbors, which is
allowed under Texas law.
Yeah, I shouldn't have cited the Times article. They do
play up the race thing waaay too much. I guess my angle is that
Horn did not have sufficient reason to know they were burglars when
he shot them. You really need to be surer than he was when shooting
fleeing people in the back with a shotgun. The fact that this guy
is not being charged reflects badly on gunnuts and on Texas, even
though they did turn out to be burglars here.
also: I think the relevant Texas law requires that the neighbors
told you to guard the property ahead of time. If so, they may be
able to convice the Souphanousinphones to perjure themselves here.
Still, next time it is going to be a window repairman or somebody
else with permission. Bad law. Bad police work.
|12.26.07 @ 1:43PM|#
"I find it interesting that people who support the second
amendment are often called 'gunnuts' while people who support any
of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are not given a label
with the suffix 'nuts'."
I thought that's what "wingnuts" referred to. BTW: Joe Horn seems
to have lucked out. If the "robbers" were actually, say, the
cousins of the neighbors and were, say, playing a practical joke,
then Horn would be (and should be) screwed.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 1:44PM|#
support the second amendment are often called
"gunnuts"
I support the second amendment. I don't think everybody who
supports the second amendment is a gunnut. Not even every second
amendment supporter who would have us read the word
"well-regulated" out of the amendment is a gunnut. The kind of
people who support Joe Horn are gunnuts though. The kind of people
who are likely to use the 2d amendment, than any of the other BOR
amendments, as a litmus test for a judicial / political candidate
are gunnuts. The people who would deny that they understand the
concept of "gunnuts" are gunnuts.
|12.26.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Joe Horn's case hasn't come before the Grand Jury yet, I believe - although it probably will. He's gonna be in a whole lot of trouble when it does.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 1:44PM|#
"Still, next time it is going to be a window repairman or
somebody else with permission."
Unless you were actually there (please tell us if you were) you do
not know all of the sensory information that this person had before
he made the decision he did. Whatever information he had, it guided
him well enough to make a correct decision. We have no reason to
believe he would have made the same decision if it was a widow
repairman, a cleaning person or someone else with permission.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 1:47PM|#
The fact that this guy is not being charged reflects badly on gunnuts and on Texas, even though they did turn out to be burglars here.
The fact that the guy has not YET been charged, pending a grand
jury hearing, does not reflect badly on anyone. That's how cases
like this should be handled. If it's then found that he committed a
crime he will be charged accordingly. What's wrong with that?
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Unless you were actually there (please tell us if you were)
you do not know all of the sensory information that this person had
before he made the decision he did.
I listened to the 911 call. I would recommend that you do the same.
Really Reason should put the thing on ReasonTV. I
can't believe they are making me do their job for them here!
Plant Immigratuion RIghts Supp|12.26.07 @ 1:51PM|#
"The kind of people who support Joe Horn are gunnuts
though."
So even though I do not own a firearm I am a gunnut.
Interesting.
"The kind of people who are likely to use the 2d amendment, than
any of the other BOR amendments, as a litmus test for a judicial /
political candidate are gunnuts."
The reason some people are more likely to use the 2nd Amendment as
a litmus test than other BOR amendments is because that is one
amendment that is ignored by a higher percentage of judges and
congress-critters than any of the others. Although, I must admit
that the signers of the McCain-Feingold bill did blatantly violate
the 1st. BTW, I am no fan of McCain and that is one reason.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 1:52PM|#
That's how cases like this should be handled.
No, usually in the case of a shooting, there is an arrest and a
bail hearing and timely, sworn witness statements (eg, from the
neighbors). Unless you are Dick Cheney, I suppose . . .
What is more, this guy disobeyed direct orders from the police not
to shoot (lissen to the 911 call). That kind of disobedience
generally results in bail being denied. The idea is that if you
don't follow police instructions, then you won't follow the court's
instructions.
PLant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Amendum to my above post: the 10th Amendment is also ignored by almost all congresscritters and judges.
|12.26.07 @ 1:54PM|#
"Texas: our big hats are NOT meant to compensate for other
shortcomings, and if you say they do we'll kick your
ass."
Yeah, with our size twelve boots. ;-)
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 1:56PM|#
"I listened to the 911 call. I would recommend that you do the
same. Really Reason should put the thing on ReasonTV. I can't
believe they are making me do their job for them here!"
Are 911 calls now via videophone! Wow! Also, a phone conversation
will miss a great deal of audio as well.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Amendum to my above post: the 10th Amendment is also ignored
by almost all congresscritters and judges.
Yup. My Con Law prof (now a high level judge, I believe) heartily
endorsed the Supreme Court's idea that the 10th amendment was a
tautology. I counterargued after class that even the statement "A
Is A" implies that A exists and exists to a meaningful extent. I am
sure that he thought I was a States Rights Nut. I am, and dang
proud of it!
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 1:56PM|#
No, usually in the case of a shooting, there is an arrest and a bail hearing and timely, sworn witness statements (eg, from the neighbors). Unless you are Dick Cheney, I suppose . . .
I said this is how these types of cases SHOULD be handled, not how
they USUALLY are handled. Do you understand the difference? Or, are
you saying that any case involving any shooting, including self
defense, should result in immediate arrests?
|12.26.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Madeline Albright | December 26, 2007, 12:04pm | #
"What's the point of having this superb death penalty you're always
talking about, if we can't use it?"
All right, I know this is threadjack, but I see that someone has
once again completely misunderstood that famous Albright quote, and
it's a pet peeve of mine.
You see that verb in that sentence? "CAN'T?" You see how it isn't
"WON'T?"
When Albright got into that argument with Powell, he was talking
about how it was a bad idea to use the military in Kosovo, and she
wasn't making a point about the purpose of having a military to be
to go to war.
He was explaining to her that the United States Army was incapable
of putting a force together to deploy to Kosovo in less than six
months. Literally, not able to carry out the deployment. Powell was
explaining that ground troops would need to be defended by
helicopters, and the helicopters could only be stationed if they
were defended by Abrams tanks, and it would take at least six
months to get the Abrams and their supporting equipment to the
theater.
People keep using that quote as if it was a paraphrase of "There's
no point in having an army if you won't go to war." It wasn't. It
was a paraphrase of, "We spent trillions of dollars on this army,
and it can't do the job it was supposed to do?"
It's a statement about the physical capabilities of the military,
not a philosophical statement about when to use force. Powell
dishonestly mis-caste the statement to mislead his readers.
All right, then. Carry on.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Or, are you saying that any case involving any shooting,
including self defense, should result in immediate
arrests?
Not neccessarily all. However, ones where a fleeing, unarmed, dead
victim result generally should result in an arrest, even if charges
aren't deemed appropriate in due course. That is especially true in
this case in light of what was said during the 911 call.
|12.26.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Oops,
"When Albright got into that argument with Powell, he WASN'T
talking about how it was a bad idea..."
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 2:11PM|#
. . . not a philosophical statement about when to use
force.
I burned those kids in order to save them. What is the point of
having a flamethrower, etc., etc. Whatevs, joe.
robc|12.26.07 @ 2:12PM|#
joe,
So, instead of Albright being a warmonger, she is an idiot. Good to
know.
|12.26.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Grownups recognize that it is a problem to spend a trillion dollars on something that doesn't work.
|12.26.07 @ 2:13PM|#
"Whatevs, Joe."
Grownups also care about whether the things that say are true or
not.
Hillary Clinton|12.26.07 @ 2:14PM|#
What is the point of being First Lady if you can't tell the President what to do?
|12.26.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Personally, I think there is rather significant difference
between a Secretary of State who thinks that the presence of a big
military is a reason to start a war, and one who does not think
that.
Frankly, anybody who claims to be against war but doesn't think
this is a meaningful difference is full of shit.
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 2:18PM|#
"Grownups recognize that it is a problem to spend a trillion
dollars on something that doesn't work."
Grownups also recognize that just because you spend a trillion
dollars on an effective way to kill people does not mean that you
should kill people. If it would be immoral for IBM or McDonalds to
do something it is also immoral for the United States Government to
do it.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Grownups also care about whether the things that say are
true or not.
Depends on what your definition of "true" is.
|12.26.07 @ 2:20PM|#
I confused. Why did Powell argue that you need tanks to defend a helicopter deployment? Can't you do that with aviation assets? Was he putting his US Army cap on or was he not so subtly trying to influence policy?
The Wine Commonsewer|12.26.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Stopn me if you've heard it before. Nah, screw it.
Texas ain't so tough, they paroled William Suff ten years into a 70
year sentence for beating his baby to death. Good behavior. Then he
came to my town and killed a truckload of women.
Got damn good thing Texas is so tough on criminals.
Oh and since today is Kick Texas Around Day allow
me to add that The Best Thing Out of Texas is I-40.
Thanks, I'm here all week.
robc|12.26.07 @ 2:22PM|#
joe,
Grownups recognize that it is a problem to spend a trillion
dollars on something that doesn't work.
It works just fine. The military deploys slow and then kicks ass.
That is how it does its job.
Little story to prove my point. In the summer of 1986 (after jr
year of high school), I toured the college I would eventually
attend. The Industrial Enginerring Dept gave a demo that was a
slimmed down and non-secret version of a program/project they
developed for the DoD. It enabled them to find minimum deployment
times for military action in different countries. I think the
example they gave us was Korea. They walked thru pieces of it
showing us some of the "problems" such as the army band could get
there in days but the guys with guns took a bit longer. The program
allowed them to put order to things, so that Abrams tanks would
arrive before helicopters or whatever. Anyway, the point is, I knew
that deployment times were slow in 1986, well before Kosovo, and
Albright had access to better info than I had.
|12.26.07 @ 2:29PM|#
PIRS,
Grownups also recognize that just because you spend a trillion
dollars on an effective way to kill people does not mean that you
should kill people
I agree. Pretty much everybody in America agrees. As does Madeleine
Albright, despite the best efforts of certain people to
misrepresent what she said.
de stijl,
Powell was against getting involved in the Balkans from the
beginning, so it's a safe bet that he was being dishonest. We
didn't need six months and Abrams tanks in Panama, which was
carried out on his watch. But he'd lost the argument about the
wisdom of the policy, so he tried to invent bureaucratic
roadblocks. That's my read, anyway.
robc,
I don't disagree, but it wasn't Albright calling for the Abrams.
Powell set out to convince her that they were needed, so he could
show that the missions couldn't be executed.
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Al Gore, the standard bearer of the Democrat
Party in the 2000 election did not invent the
internet.Skepticism about his wild claims
contributed to his narrow defeat in the State of
Florida.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Wait, what does a shooting in Texas have to do with corn syrup? Were the two Columbians high on HFCS or something?
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Not neccessarily all. However, ones where a fleeing, unarmed, dead victim result generally should result in an arrest, even if charges aren't deemed appropriate in due course. That is especially true in this case in light of what was said during the 911 call.
Again, you're assuming things here. Horn said he didn't know if
they were armed or not. He said that they had at least a crowbar,
which could be used as a weapon. He said that they had approached
him on his front lawn "I had no choice, man".
Recap: Were they unarmed? Maybe, but he did see them with a
crowbar, so possibly NO. Were they fleeing? A person comes at you
with a crowbar, you pull a shotgun - at the same moment the
attacker reassesses the situation and figures your shotgun might
hurt more and turns away while you pull the trigger - I would
answer NO.
Of course, I'm assuming a lot as well in the scenario above. So
again, do we arrest him with the possibility that he did nothing
wrong?
"It's possible that he was legally defending himself in his own
yard, but let's arrest him anyway and let the courts sort it
out"
Is that how you think it should be handled?
robc|12.26.07 @ 2:34PM|#
joe,
Panama and The Balkans arent really the same. One was about
kidnapping one guy. The other was about, well, Im still not sure.
Protecting a country or sorta weakening another or something.
Stupid nation building, I think. Powell's method sounds great for
the way we should fight wars on those very rare occassions we do.
Take your time, load up with everything you got and crush the enemy
mercilessly. A 6 month deployment and then roll over Serbia in
short order would have worked just fine.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Please allow me to resume my earlier conversation.
Dave W. wrote:
"Yup. My Con Law prof (now a high level judge, I believe) heartily
endorsed the Supreme Court's idea that the 10th amendment was a
tautology. I counterargued after class that even the statement "A
Is A" implies that A exists and exists to a meaningful extent. I am
sure that he thought I was a States Rights Nut. I am, and dang
proud of it!"
I am very glad that you defend states rights. Now, if you do defend
states rights, by logical extension you should also defend the
right of Texas to not prohibit firearms ownership and to create its
own laws surrounding their use even if the Federal government does
not approve of these laws (unless a bullet crosses state lines
which it did not in this case)
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 2:36PM|#
PIRS,
The River Walk helped keep me sane when I was on break during
Tech School.
The River Walk reminded me of Gatlinburg with bigh giant troughs
instead of roads.
|12.26.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Powell was against getting involved in the Balkans from the
beginning...
There is some precedent here.
George Washington|12.26.07 @ 2:38PM|#
There is some precedent here.
FF, you should check out my farewell address too.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Why did Powell argue that you need tanks to defend a
helicopter deployment? Can't you do that with aviation assets? Was
he putting his US Army cap on or was he not so subtly trying to
influence policy?
I think choppers are under Army control, not Air Force. IANAMG but
I think the Army probably has strict rules about deployment, and
the rule probably says "NO CHOPPERS WITHOUT TANKS" or something
like that. If that's the rule, then I'm not surprised he said "no
can do ma'am".
The military sort of has a bureacratic mindset, if you didn't know
that already.
Cara Lutetia|12.26.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter,
Check out Big Bend National Park sometime.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Guy Montag, when were you there? I was there in 2000. It might have changed.
|12.26.07 @ 2:46PM|#
robc,
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you about the military
doctrine.
Powell, and the anonymous poster above, misrepresented Albright's
statement, to make it look like she was making a statement about
when the United States should use force, when she was saying
nothing of the sort.
That's my only point here. Powell was probably right about how the
military, with the equipment, organization, and doctrine it had at
the time, could operate. Albright was expressing frustration that,
for all the money and effort spent on building it up, it was still
so slow.
A lot of people agreed with her, which is why the Stryker was
developed, for example.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Now, if you do defend states rights, by logical extension
you should also defend the right of Texas to not prohibit firearms
ownership and to create its own laws surrounding their use even if
the Federal government does not approve of these laws (unless a
bullet crosses state lines which it did not in this
case)
Generally speaking, I want laws of defense of property to be made
at the state level just like the Texas law is. OTOH, if I were a
journalist living in Texas, I certainly would have pointed out the
idiocy of the Horn case by now.
A person comes at you with a crowbar, you pull a
shotgun
I think it takes a gunnut to believe that the two men with the
crowbar (if they really had one) were approaching the standing in
his yard with the shotgun. I also think it would take a gunnut to
forgive the shooter (and the cop!)for lying about something like
that.
PLant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Cara, I just looked it up. It looks fascinating. I will have to take a trip there. Thanks for the tip.
robc|12.26.07 @ 2:49PM|#
joe,
Im not disagreeing with you about the misrepresentation of the
statement. Im just saying that the "correct" interpretation makes
her an idiot. Thats my only point here.
|12.26.07 @ 2:50PM|#
As for the Joe Horn case, you don't get to claim self-defense or defense of another when YOU grab a gun and go out of your safe, secure house to confront THEM.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 2:53PM|#
As for the Joe Horn case, you don't get to claim
self-defense or defense of another when YOU grab a gun and go out
of your safe, secure house to confront THEM
He doesn't need to claim self-defense, in Texas you can shoot in
defense of property as well. I would think all he has to do is
present plausible evidence that he thought they were stealing, and
he's good to go. Especially seeing as they were, you know,
stealing.
|12.26.07 @ 2:53PM|#
robc,
Why is she an idiot to think the military should be able to deploy
faster for emergencies?
A lot of people thought that - so many that they developed the
Stryker platform and the Stryker Brigade, and expanded the Special
Forces.
We had an army meant to sit in Western Europe and fight off a Red
Army assault. A big, slow, cumbersome army.
She was right - in the post-Cold War world, our army needs to be
quicker.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 2:54PM|#
PIRS,
It was close to 2000, maybe a year or so either side and yes it
reminded me of that Sevier County Tennessee town.
E,
I think choppers are under Army control, not Air Force. IANAMG
but I think the Army probably has strict rules about deployment,
and the rule probably says "NO CHOPPERS WITHOUT TANKS" or something
like that. If that's the rule, then I'm not surprised he said "no
can do ma'am".
The military sort of has a bureacratic mindset, if you didn't know
that already.
Depends on the helicopter, but the Air Force helicopters are mostly
search and rescue. The attack, utility and heavy lift ones are
mostly Army with some in the Marines and Navy.
Not sure of your 'bureacratic mindset' includes little things like,
you know, securing the airfield where the aircraft park to make
sure they don't get mortared from the surrounding dominant terrain,
or that folks can't just walk up to them and toss grenades inside.
That really falls into basic force protection and you do want the
proper mix of people and weapons for that.
|12.26.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Episiarch,
No, in Texas you can defend YOUR property rather than retreat. This
wasn't his property, nor even his current location. The Castle
Doctrine is about not letting people drive you off your own
property. You can't shoot a guy if you see him pick somebody's
pocket, even in Texas. So that's one problem.
Second, he didn't defend, he attacked. He went after them.
|12.26.07 @ 2:57PM|#
A person comes at you with a crowbar, you pull a
shotgun
Just like a Columbian to bring a crowbar to a gunfight.
SIV|12.26.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Why the Joe Horn threadjack?
I'll bite. The 911 tape indicated the operator/dispatcher told him
not to go outside for his own safety. He was under no obligation to
follow any instruction/order from this person.
One or both of the perpetrators was reportedly shot from a distance
of less than 7 feet. Considering age and physical condition of all
parties involved this suggests the perps approached Mr Horn
initially. If I was his neighbor I would thank him.
Guy PIRS,
The River Walk reminded me of Gatlinburg with bigh giant troughs
instead of roads.
I was there last month and the Gatlinburg comparison was my first
and lasting impression.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 2:58PM|#
My understanding of the Texas law is that it allows defense of
property. At least according to the Cop Talk board, it allowed
defense of property at night at first and was recently expanded to
allow defense of property in the day. Whatever the law said, we are
talking about specific (and recent) statutes here, and not the
commonlaw.
A couple interesting issues are raised. One is whether it is a good
idea to allow deadly force to protect property at all. Another is
how far this prerogative to use deadly force extends both in
geography and time. If I see a guy with a stolen watch and I know
that the true owner lives in the same Texas city as me, then can I
shoot the guy dead to get the watch back.
Sadly, I don't think we will get to these issues above the fold.
Mr. Sullum is under the misimpression that just because guns are
easily accessible does not mean that ppl will slide into using them
too casually. I am pretty sure the Horn case is in the
I-Can't-see-you zone as far as hims is concerned.
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 2:59PM|#
I hope Joe Horn is acquitted, and if I ever have to move to Texas I want to buy the house next door to his.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 3:00PM|#
I think it takes a gunnut to believe that the two men with the crowbar (if they really had one) were approaching the standing in his yard with the shotgun. I also think it would take a gunnut to forgive the shooter (and the cop!)for lying about something like that.
1. I'm not a "gunnut". I don't own a gun, nor do I plan on buying
one in the near future.
2. You don't know the facts of the case, and neither do I.
3. I don't forgive the shooter or the cops for anything.
4. I also don't jump to conclusions regarding guilt or innocence in
this case.
5. You do.
6. Regarding 4 - that's the grand jury's duty to sort this out and
(probably) charge Mr. Horn with something.
And, joe, I don't disagree with that at all. He should have stayed
in the safety of his house. However, was it a crime for him to go
outside of his house into his yard? no. With a shotgun? no. Do we
know exactly what transpired in the yard afterwards? no. Regarding
DW's comment - should the guy be arrested? no (at least not
yet).
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Don't get pissy, Guy. First of all, do you deny that the military is very bureacratic? Secondly, my comment referred to the fact that rules in the military are supposed to be followed (for instance, for the reasons you cited) and Powell couldn't break them just to get stuff someplace faster.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Thanks Cara! I really want to go!
Of all of the functions of the Federal Government the national
parks are one of three functions I consider to be benevolent. They
preserve natural beauty, they do not have the inherent ability to
point guns at people and no one is forced to go there. I wish I
could earmark where my federal tax dollars went. I would send it
there, to NASA and the Library of Congress.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Joe Horn? In my book, if he thought the thieves were
armed and he blew them away that is self defense enough for me. I
wish TN and VA would change their laws to that standard instead of
my having to inform my attackers that they are "scaring me to
death" and aske them to leave me alone.
Even if they are breaking into my vehicle on my property in front
of me I must let them be unless they threaten my life. The threat
of a bloody nose is not enough to shoot them.
|12.26.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Guy Montag,
Given the military capabilities of the Serbs, the air power
available to the coalition, and the capabilities of even plain old
American infantry, I have to say that Powell's insistence that
Abrams tanks, and only Abrams tanks, could provide adequate
security for the bases looks a lot like either bureaucratic
by-the-bookism, or a deliberate attempt by a uniformed military
commander to mislead the civilian leadership in order to win a
policy fight.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 3:02PM|#
E,
I am not the one getting pissy and yes, they can be quite
bureacratic, especially in the office building where I work.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Nigel Watt, I have nothing at all against Texas. I liked what I saw of Texas. I liked the people I met there.
robc|12.26.07 @ 3:03PM|#
joe,
I cant think of a situation where we need to be able to fight a war
in under 6 months. Hell, it will take that long to get congress to
pass a declaration of war, unless we have a Pearl Harbor type
event. Even then, it took us forever to get up and running in
Europe.
In most "emergencies", marines and special forces are what is
needed. If your goal is to crush an enemy army, patience is a
virtue.
She was an idiot for thinking we had the capability. Even the
Stryker needs outside support when it is going up against heavily
armored units. We didnt spend trillions to be able to respond fast,
we spent trillions to guarantee we can defeat any military willing
to meet us in the field of battle.
thoreau|12.26.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Jennifer-
I don't know enough about the facts of the case and the Texas laws
to know whether he violated any laws. Nor do I know enough about
the facts to judge whether there should or should not be a law
against what he did.
But I do know enough to say that he's an idiot with a gun, and I
wouldn't want to live next door to an idiot with a gun.
Not every act of stupidity should be illegal, but that doesn't mean
I want to live next door to the people who do those acts of
stupidity.
|12.26.07 @ 3:05PM|#
jimmydageek,
I will allow how it's tough case, but if you pick a fight with a
stranger - you throw the first punch - and you end up killing him
in "self-defense," you carry at least some of the
responsibility.
Nobody had to die here. People should not go looking for lethal
confrontations.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:06PM|#
I hope Joe Horn is acquitted, and if I ever have to move to
Texas I want to buy the house next door to his.
You must be really careful with your keys!
|12.26.07 @ 3:06PM|#
And spare me the justifications for why these two deserved to
die.
We've got judges and juries to make that decision.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Nor do I know enough about the facts to judge whether there
should or should not be a law against what he did.
Let me help, T.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 3:10PM|#
But I do know enough to say that he's an idiot with a gun,
and I wouldn't want to live next door to an idiot with a
gun.
I like the idea of living next door to someone neighborly enough to
keep an eye on my house for me when I'm not there. And returning
from vacation to find the chalk outlines where a dead thief once
lay beats the hell out of returning to find my house emptied and my
life's possessions gone.
|12.26.07 @ 3:10PM|#
robc,
I cant think of a situation where we need to be able to fight a
war in under 6 months.
Kosovo. If we were going to stop the ethnic cleansing, we couldn't
wait half a year.
We didnt spend trillions to be able to respond fast, we spent
trillions to guarantee we can defeat any military willing to meet
us in the field of battle.
Defeating main-force militaries willing to meet us on the field of
battle is not the extent of the actions our military may be called
on to perform. There needs to be something in between Operation
Overlord and a helicopter full of SEALs.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:10PM|#
"And spare me the justifications for why these two deserved to
die.
"We've got judges and juries to make that decision."
OK Joe, suppose you were picked to be on his jury. Knowing what you
know now (I know facts would come out in the trial we do not have
now) but knowing what you know now how would you vote and why?
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Nobody had to die here.
True. The theives could've gone out looking for honest work
instead. Too bad. If reincarnation is real, maybe the lesson they
learned at the end of this life will carry over into their next
one.
|12.26.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Jennifer,
I think the point is that a guy this dumb and irresponsible can't
be counted on to only create chalk outlines of "evildoers."
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:12PM|#
. . . where a dead thief once lay . . .
should statutory rapists get the death penalty too?
|12.26.07 @ 3:13PM|#
PIRS,
What jury? What trial?
I would not have sentenced the two burglars to death. Probably a
multi-decade prison term. Burglary at night is some bad business,
but it's not a capital offense by itself.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:13PM|#
"True. The theives could've gone out looking for honest work
instead. Too bad. If reincarnation is real, maybe the lesson they
learned at the end of this life will carry over into their next
one."
Great answer Jennifer! They were the first ones to initiate force
against another person.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:14PM|#
joe:
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor
to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor,
defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County
prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the
gunman) in an ownership role." (Link here)
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 3:15PM|#
I think the point is that a guy this dumb and irresponsible
can't be counted on to only create chalk outlines of
"evildoers."
I find nothing dumb or irresponsible about protecting your
neighbor's property from a thief when your neighbor's not around to
do it himself. I find it admirable.
|12.26.07 @ 3:15PM|#
There are many in this world who deserve life, Jennifer Baggins, and many who deserve death. Will you give it to them?
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 3:16PM|#
I would not have sentenced the two burglars to death.
Probably a multi-decade prison term. Burglary at night is some bad
business, but it's not a capital offense by itself.
Neither is assault, but while I would never vote for the death
penalty for a man who's been arrested and put on trial for assault,
neither will I criticize the neighbor who shoots him dead while the
assault is actually being committed.
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Joe, OK, so you would have sentenced these two burglars to jail. Now, what would happen to them if they tried to escape? Force would have been used against them to put them back in prison. The more force they used to escape the more force would be used against them. If they resist enough, they die. These two burglars were trying to escape. The morality of an action is not dependent upon having a tin star.
|12.26.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Jennifer,
RTFA, for God's sake.
The guy was told that there were police on their way, they are
going to be looking for armed men, and he shouldn't go outside with
a gun. So he goes outside with a gun.
Sure, that's a real Einstein right there. No way someone like that
could ever be a threat.
And hey, evildoers got killed.
|12.26.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Assault can quite possibly end in death.
Leaving a place you just burgled cannot.
"Defense" requires that someone could actually be harmed.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 3:19PM|#
I will allow how it's tough case, but if you pick a fight with a stranger - you throw the first punch - and you end up killing him in "self-defense," you carry at least some of the responsibility.
Nobody had to die here. People should not go looking for lethal confrontations.
For the most part, I don't disagree. But what do you consider
"throwing the first punch"? Mr. Horn stepping outside of his home
to defend his neighbor's property? I know, he didn't have to, but
it might have been perfectly legal for him to do so. As to whether
or not legality makes it "right" can be disputed. However, it's a
whole 'nother story if he just went out there and started
shooting.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:20PM|#
neither will I criticize the neighbor who shoots him dead
while the assault is actually being committed
doesn't that strongly of depend on the degree or severity of the
assault?
Mr. Sullum: I hope you are reading this. See, people really do come
to have casual attitudes about shooting others. I have not been
making that up!
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:20PM|#
joe, the guy claims--and can be heard on the recording saying as
much--that they came into his yard. If they approached me in the
same way, you bet your ass I'd shoot them.
Yes, he may be lying. But you've got a living 70-year-old man
looking out for his neighbor's property on one hand, and two dead
thieves who can't tell you if he was lying or not on the other
hand.
And he is being put before a grand jury to determine if he acted
within the law; that's why you were asked how you would go if you
were on that jury. So what's your answer?
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 3:21PM|#
The guy was told that there were police on their way, they
are going to be looking for armed men, and he shouldn't go outside
with a gun. So he goes outside with a gun.
Kudos to him for not being fool enough to obey when he hears "Sit
back and let Big Daddy Government take care of everything. By the
way, the Supreme Court has ruled that cops are not obligated to
protect people or prevent crimes from happening; all they have to
do is make a half-assed attempt to catch the perps later. Hope your
neighbor's homeowners' insurance premiums don't go up too high
after he files a claim for his property that was stolen."
|12.26.07 @ 3:23PM|#
PIRS,
If they tried to escape, they would not be immediately fired
upon.
If somebody had tackled these guys - something akin to the force
used on an escapee - we wouldn't be having this conversation. If a
passerby had pointed a gun at them and said "Freeze," we wouldn't
be having this conversation. If they had been tackled, it turned
into a brawl, and one of them had hit his head on the curb and
died, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it had turned
into a brawl, one of the burglars pulled a knife, and somebody shot
him, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If a corrections officer saw a prisoner clipping a fence and shot
him to death, that C.O. would be charged with homicide. (Well, no,
his buddies would set something up so he could claim defense, but
you get my point.)
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:24PM|#
"Assault can quite possibly end in death. Leaving a place you
just burgled cannot. "Defense" requires that someone could actually
be harmed."
Joe, assuming that this property was justly acquired; the owner had
to spend a portion of his life in order to acquire it. He had to
work at some kind of productive activity. If a burglar steels his
property he steals a portion of that person's life. This is
defense.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Leaving a place you just burgled cannot.
"Defense" requires that someone could actually be
harmed.
First of all, the property owner is being harmed. Secondly, the law
allows for shooting people who are commiting even simple burglary.
You may not like that, but that is the law. The only reason this
guy could get in trouble is that it wasn't his property.
Had it been, he could have shot them at any time, and without even
being threatened, because they were stealing.
Again, you may not like that, but that's the law there.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Now, what would happen to them if they tried to
escape?
I think it is pretty clear that the police arriving at the scene
could not have shot the escaping men. That is considered a matter
of constitutional law (Garner case, IIRC).
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Yes, he may be lying. But you've got a living 70-year-old
man looking out for his neighbor's property on one hand, and two
dead thieves who can't tell you if he was lying or not on the other
hand.
when people shoot the witnesses, I take that as a signal to look at
their story with enhanced, rather than diminished, skepticism.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.26.07 @ 3:26PM|#
And he is being put before a grand jury to determine if he
acted within the law
Epi, It's trite, but I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by
six.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Dave, would you approve of this shooting if the perps were HFCS producers?
|12.26.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Not everyone in Texas agrees with state sponsored killing. However, one of them is troubled by the unrelated and unreasonable attacks posted here. He figures that since the attackers must think their are no idiots in their states, they must be the idiots where they live.
|12.26.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Episiarch,
If I was on that grand jury, I'd try to see if the government made
its case that the guy was not in fear for his life or otherwise
threatened when he shot the burglars. If the government could not
do that, I wouldn't vote to indict.
If they could - if the evidence was strong that he was not being
attacked or approached, but went after the burglars because he has
a Jennifer-esque opinion about the relative value of human life vs.
property and decided to take it on himself to make the world a
better place - I'd vote to indict.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Even that's not clear, DW. You keep assuming things. Stop doing so and other issues will fall into place.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Epi, It's trite, but I'd rather be tried by twelve than
carried by six.
Of course, and I agree. I was merely explaining to joe that he will
in fact have to go before a grand jury for his actions.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:29PM|#
If they could - if the evidence was strong that he was not
being attacked or approached, but went after the burglars because
he has a Jennifer-esque opinion about the relative value of human
life vs. property and decided to take it on himself to make the
world a better place - I'd vote to indict.
Even if the law--as I explained above--allows for shooting people
who are only committing burglary?
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:30PM|#
the law allows for shooting people who are commiting even
simple burglary.
Do you think they should extend the law to trespassers? That is a
breah of property and security, too.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 3:30PM|#
The fact that the case will be going to a grand jury is something that DW keeps missing here. He wants immediate arrests, guilty or not.
robc|12.26.07 @ 3:31PM|#
joe,
Kosovo. If we were going to stop the ethnic cleansing, we
couldn't wait half a year.
It isnt our job to prevent ethnic cleansing. I still cant think of
a situation we need to respond in less than 6 months.
|12.26.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Kudos to him for not being fool enough to obey when he hears
"Sit back and let Big Daddy Government take care of
everything.
Two people are dead, Ms. Tuff Guy Of The Internet. That should
enter into your thinking some where. Yeah, kudos, two more
evildoers for you to snicker at.
By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that cops are not
obligated to protect people or prevent crimes from happening; all
they have to do is make a half-assed attempt to catch the perps
later. Which has nothing to do with this case. The police were
on their way, to the point where the dispatcher was worried that
Horn would either get in the way of the arrest or get shot.
Hope your neighbor's homeowners' insurance premiums don't go up
too high after he files a claim for his property that was
stolen. I'm not sure how to argue with someone who openly
admits that she values stuff more than human life.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:33PM|#
"If they tried to escape, they would not be immediately fired
upon."
Firing is by its very nature immediate. One cannot file paperwork
through a bureaucracy between the time a bullet leaves a chamber
and enters a person's body. Police can and do fire upon people they
believe to be armed - including escapees from prison. Crowbars can
be deadly, pipes can be deadly. Burglars are often armed. I think
he was justified. The world has two fewer burglars thanks to
him.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Do you think they should extend the law to trespassers? That
is a breah of property and security, too.
Maybe Coke and Pepsi employees, too, right Dave?
|12.26.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Episiarch, PIRS,
The law doesn't allow to end other human beings' lives over
material goods. The "property defense" castle doctrine is about
allowing people not to retreat when they are in their own home when
someone breaks into it. It's not really a "property defense" law,
but a recognition that such a circumstance - the invasion of an
occupied dwelling - is likely to end in the harm (actual harm, not
stuff) of innocent people.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:40PM|#
"I'm not sure how to argue with someone who openly admits that
she values stuff more than human life."
I value INOCENT human life more than stuff. But the life of tax
collectors and other thieves is another matter
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:41PM|#
The fact that the case will be going to a grand jury is
something that DW keeps missing here. He wants immediate arrests,
guilty or not.
Well, let's make clear how I feel:
1. BIGGEST PROBLEM: Texas law requires not just that a burglary is
being committed, but that the shooter knows beyond reasonable doubt
that a burglary is being committed. If the Texas law doesn't
require that kind/level of intent, then it really should. It is
clear to me that Joe Horn didn't have that kind or level of intent.
Therefore, he should be sentenced to death for murder and the
penalty should be carried out within 6 months.
2. NEXT BIGGEST PROBLEM: Texas seems to have more than its share of
racist gunnuts. This means that Horn, the policeman who witnessed
the shootings and the neighbors probably lie. That really sucks. It
means that the true facts will never be known and justice will
never be done. For my own self, I solved that problem by leaving
Texas.
3. SMALLEST PROBLEM: Texas really shouldn't allow deadly force in
defense of mere property in any circumstances for the reasons joe
says.
|12.26.07 @ 3:41PM|#
This thread really does support the point, made above, about the
low value put on human life.
Hey, if I hadn't killed that guy, I wouldn't have a teevee! I might
miss Matlock!
Isn't it great when evidoers get gunned down on your street?
Yee-haw!
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:41PM|#
joe, I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one. I just looked up some castle doctrine laws and they say you can shoot when somebody else is in the commission of a "forcible felony", and then list such felonies, and include burglary and robbery.
ed|12.26.07 @ 3:41PM|#
My only concern is that some yahoo C&W star in a ridiculous hat will write "The Ballad Of Joe Horn", whose rousing melody will eventually and forever sell pickup trucks during NFL games.
robc|12.26.07 @ 3:44PM|#
joe,
The "property defense" castle doctrine is about allowing people
not to retreat when they are in their own home when someone breaks
into it.
That is not (completely) true. I hate when this comes up, its like
otherwise smart people forget we have 50 states with 50 different
laws.
For example, KY's law, which I know best, does allow me to use
deadly force for solely the protection of property. Yes, it does
allow it in the case you mention, but it also allows me to shoot an
arsonist trying to burn down my barn, for example. That has nothing
to do with self defense (and, in fact, was just added to the KY law
in the last few years, originally you could only use deadly force
on an arsonist who was burning down your dwelling, not any building
you own).
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Hey, if I hadn't killed that guy, I wouldn't have a teevee!
I might miss Matlock!
joe loses the argument, and so he resorts to "I am more morally
upright than you...DON'T YOU SEE HOW MUCH I VALUE HUMAN
LIFE?!?"
joe|12.26.07 @ 3:46PM|#
If you value human life, I recommend you not sacrifice it by committing a burglary. Once you cross that threshold, you take your chances.
|12.26.07 @ 3:46PM|#
PIRS,
Firing is by its very nature immediate.
You would do well as one of those SWAT Team guys Radley is always
on about.
Among more civilized people, you sometimes find actions between
seeing a bad guy and killing him, such as yelling "Stop!," holding
him at gunpoint, rendering him harmless, or getting the other C.O.s
to help you grab the guy.
I don't think it's coincidence that the people claiming "defense"
keep ending up talking about how good it is that these two were
killed.
It's not too much different from those who started out talking
about "defending" our country from Saddam's WMDs, and didn't miss a
beat when they learned there was nothing to defend us from.
It was never about defense, it was about the universal
wonderfulness of watching "good guys" kill "evildoers," and the
warm feeling some people get from that.
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Joe, I cannot speak for Episiarch, but for me, this is more about morality than it is the law. I would rather people act morally and violate the law than follow the law and act morally. According to the law the agencies within the Federal Government can do things that other groups of human beings cannot do. An agency within the Federal Government can set up a Ponzi scheme and force people to "invest" in it. If Bank of America were to do this it would be called illegal.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 3:47PM|#
PIRS,
Um, one point you might want to make in your discussion is that
there was no judge or jury there to advise the law abiding citizen
with a spot decision on defending the property of his neighbor and
his own life from an approaching thief could result in some
out-of-State Leftists demanding he become an example for how
strongly Manhattanites feel about the real crimes committed by
"whitie".
BTW, let it be on record that I am against the death penalty in
prison. Capping a threat on the lawn is a whole different
issue.
thoreau|12.26.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Jennifer,
Like others have said, I don't want to live next door to a guy who
runs outside with a gun when he knows that the cops are on their
way and they're looking for armed men.
Also, even if the judgement call that he made was indeed correct
(we'll leave aside the ethical and legal issues that underlie such
an assessment), I don't want to live next door to somebody who
decides to take matters into his own hands when the cops are on the
way and his life isn't in immediate danger. Again, I'll leave aside
the ethical issues, and grant that the cops are not guaranteed to
get it right. Still, they'll have the advantage of numbers when
they confront these guys, and they might be able to stop the
burglars with nonlethal means.
The guy who chooses to go outside and open fire when he knows that
help is on the way is not the sort of guy I want to live next
to.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 3:48PM|#
DW,
My point is that nobody here actually knows the facts of the case.
We don't know if Horn went outside of his house with the sole
intention of shooting the burglars. Which law applies or doesn't
apply is not the point. The point is that you are assigning guilt
and playing the race card without knowing the full facts of the
case. Again, we don't know all the facts...get it?
|12.26.07 @ 3:49PM|#
"This thread really does support the point, made above,
about the low value put on human life."
I guess the question is why do you value Joe Horn's life so much
less than the thieves he shot? You're talking about locking him up
for murder, right?
|12.26.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Episiarch,
joe, I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one. I just looked
up some castle doctrine laws and they say you can shoot when
somebody else is in the commission of a "forcible felony", and then
list such felonies, and include burglary and robbery.
This doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Castle doctrine laws
allow you to defend yourself, without the need to retreat, if
someone is committing a "forcible felony," as you put it, against
you or your property.
I'm not sure what the disconnect is.
|12.26.07 @ 3:50PM|#
I'm with Joe on this one.
The truth is that the loss of human life in this case could have,
and should have, been avoided.
And please, its Colombian (native of Colombia) NOT Columbian
(related to Christopher Columbus or student at Columbia U, etc).
Thanks.
|12.26.07 @ 3:52PM|#
PIRS,
It's about morality for me, too.
Human life - even that of "evildoers" - outweighs mere
things.
It is only allowable to take a human life if you have no other
choice. Horn had plenty of other choices.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 3:53PM|#
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during
the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor
or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily
injury.
Dave comments:
1. I think they amended this recently to get rid of the "nighttime"
limitations.
2. You can shoot someone to prevent "criminal mischief" under
9.42(2)(A)?!?!?!?!
3. If this (bad) law were applied justly, I still don't think that
section 9.42(2) should be applied, and I don't think Horn could
make a case under section 9.42(3).
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Joe Horn did yell "Move and your dead" before shooting the perps. Presumably they didn't heed his instructions.He should have handed them the phone, as Dave W indicates they would have been legally bound to obey the 911 dispatcher.
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 3:53PM|#
"Among more civilized people, you sometimes find actions between
seeing a bad guy and killing him, such as yelling "Stop!," holding
him at gunpoint, rendering him harmless, or getting the other C.O.s
to help you grab the guy."
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If it is a choice between my life and
the life of a tax collector or other burglar I will take the life
of the burglar. Again, if you were actually there, please tell us.
If not, you do not have all of the sensory information that this
person had.
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Two people are dead, Ms. Tuff Guy Of The Internet. That
should enter into your thinking some where.
In an alternate universe, those two are still alive and the
burglary rates in alterna-Texas are even higher than in this one.
In this universe, there's at least some Texans who were
spared having a gun-toting Grinch steal their Christmas. That
should enter into your thinking somewhere.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 3:55PM|#
The truth is that the loss of human life in this case could
have, and should have, been avoided.
Yea, by doing as Jennifer said, get a job instead of breaking into
someone's house. Those jerks did not ge shot for stealing stuff,
they got shot for violating the sanctity(sp?) of someone's
home.
Oh, and please you 'open borders' folk, don't even go into
speculation that they were 'undocumented, peaceful aliens' who had
to come to USAia for a better life and George Bush got them killed
for trying to get goods to trade so they can eat. Along with the
'Texas is just northern Mexico' crowd, just save it.
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 3:57PM|#
I hope Joe Horn actually said "Move and you're dead" otherwise he should be indicted for using the incorrect possessive homonym "your" in place of the correct contraction of "you are".
|12.26.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Lamar,
I value Joe Horn's life very highly, and think it was incredibly
irresponsible for him to risk it unnecessarily, and over mere
things.
As for "locking him up for murder," I think that would go a bit
far. Something like manslaughter and a sentence on the lower end of
the scale would probably be more just, if the facts are as I
understand them.
|12.26.07 @ 3:58PM|#
I am new to this board but I have read many HnRs articles and
posts. I recall many people being against the death penalty and
yet, it seems many of these same people are OK with blowing away
some burglars who posed little or no immediate threat to anyone's
life.
I dont understand. Perhaps its because one killing is done by the
State and the other is done by the individual?
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Oh, and please you 'open borders' folk, don't even go into speculation that they were 'undocumented, peaceful aliens' who had to come to USAia for a better life and George Bush got them killed for trying to get goods to trade so they can eat. Along with the 'Texas is just northern Mexico' crowd, just save it.
Nobody was, Guy, but way to go on bringing up the scary immigrants
thing here. I mean, Horn thought they were black, so I don't see
how immigration has anything (other than a mere blip) to do with
this. You know, there are also black people and white people who
commit crimes.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 4:01PM|#
How many here think that the burglars dropped the loot before they were shot? (I do.)
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 4:01PM|#
I dont understand. Perhaps its because one killing is done
by the State and the other is done by the individual?
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I view it as having two
choices: shoot the thieves, or stand back helplessly and watch them
steal your or your neighbor's property on the theory that you
mustn't hurt the poor thieving dears unless they specifically said
they plan to commit acts of physical violence.
I go with option one.
|12.26.07 @ 4:02PM|#
PIRS,
If it is a choice between my life and the life of a tax
collector or other burglar I will take the life of the
burglar.
Sure, but that's not the example you gave. You brought up a
prisoner in the act of escaping, and the argument is about burglars
fleeing with stuff.
If your life is in danger, of course deadly force in
allowable.
Jennifer, we don't live in the might-makes-right, vigilante world
you fantasize about, and people like you benefit the most from
that. We are a civilized society, and as a rule, take human life
more seriously than you do.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:02PM|#
rana,
I am new to this board but I have read many HnRs articles and
posts. I recall many people being against the death penalty and
yet, it seems many of these same people are OK with blowing away
some burglars who posed little or no immediate threat to anyone's
life.
I dont understand. Perhaps its because one killing is done by the
State and the other is done by the individual?
For some of us it is the difference between what is a threat and
what is not. Me: once they are locked up they had better not be a
threat to anybody any more and they don't need to be shot, well,
unless they are bothering their neighbor in prison, then shoot them
to stop them form doing that. On the street, if one is behaving as
a threat then the people around that person have a
responsibility to cap their ass and the cops have the
responsibility to take notes and file a report.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:03PM|#
jimmydageek,
I was heading them off at the pass, nit saying anybody had already
mentioned it as I did not see anybody bring it up yet.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Those jerks did not ge shot for stealing stuff, they got
shot for violating the sanctity(sp?) of someone's home.
Yeah. Show'em how its done fireman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJC1unnuwds
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 4:04PM|#
""What's the point of having this superb shotgun you're always talking about, if we can't use it?""
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 4:04PM|#
WARNING: PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION BELOW:
"PIRS, It's about morality for me, too. Human life - even that of
"evildoers" - outweighs mere things. It is only allowable to take a
human life if you have no other choice. Horn had plenty of other
choices."
Hmm, I almost made a mistake that would have killed the thread. I
almost mentioned the name an historic figure with a last name that
begins with the letter "H". I will not do that. But I have a point
to make in this. How far would you go with this? Would you say that
property is more valuable than the life of say - - Pol Pot?
Philosophically speaking, what is it about Human life that you
consider valuable?
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Among more civilized people, you sometimes find actions
between seeing a bad guy and killing him, such as yelling "Stop!,"
holding him at gunpoint, rendering him harmless, or getting the
other C.O.s to help you grab the guy.
joe, have you ever been in a life-or-death situation? Have you ever
fired a gun? Because life-and-death situations are scary and insane
and fast enough, but then on top of it, you want people to do what
you refer to as "civilized", even though that could put them at
more risk. Aiming guns is hard enough without adrenaline rushes,
moving targets, and yelling the things you want them to yell.
|12.26.07 @ 4:05PM|#
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I view it as having
two choices: shoot the thieves, or stand back helplessly and watch
them steal your or your neighbor's property on the theory that you
mustn't hurt the poor thieving dears unless they specifically said
they plan to commit acts of physical violence.
He knew the police were on their way.
Look at this, people - this logic justified the killing of people
over property, without the shooter being in danger at all.
Jennifer, you are a sociopath.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Jennifer, you are a sociopath.
HaHaHa...I was beginning to think that as well :D
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 4:06PM|#
as having two choices: shoot the thieves, or stand back
helplessly and watch them steal your or your neighbor's
property
I can't believe that people don't think they dropped the loot
before attempting to flee. Its that gunnuttiness.
|12.26.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Three semi-sequitors:
1) According to the Dalai Lama, "If someone has a gun and is trying
to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own
gun." (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001)
2) Madeline Albright is most likely Middle
Class Worker from the Entitlements
thread. The BOLD tags give it away.
3)Lamar: Texas: You'll get the DNA to exonerate me when you pry it
from my cold, dead warm, sticky fingers.
There, fixed it for ya' ;-)
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 4:09PM|#
"Sure, but that's not the example you gave. You brought up a
prisoner in the act of escaping, and the argument is about burglars
fleeing with stuff. If your life is in danger, of course deadly
force in allowable."
So a burglar walks off with my property and I walk up top him and
politely ask for it back. He refuses. I ask him more forcefully. He
still refuses. What do I do then? Keep asking?
|12.26.07 @ 4:09PM|#
PIRS,
I would not kill a helpless Hitler or Pol Pot.
Episiarch,
joe, have you ever been in a life-or-death situation? Have you
ever fired a gun? Yes, and yes. Though not at the same
time.
I can certainly understand the "terrified, lost my head" defense.
We're human, and we make mistakes, and we can panic in a bad
situation. (Not to Joe Horn: stop putting yourself in deadly
situations when you can avoid it).
But that's a world away from those people arguing that killing
people when you or others are not in danger is good and right.
Minion of URKOBOLD|12.26.07 @ 4:09PM|#
DAVEwDaveWdaveWDavew.
jerk jerk jerk.
neener neener.
YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT. TAUNTING AND THE EVENTUAL
VACHE-LAUNCHING ARE PERFECT DETERRENT/ DEFENSE OPTIONS.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Jennifer,
I heart you!
Plus, I keep the Benelli pump chambered when it is "in service". No
need in making all that racket chambering a shell and losing
valuable time. The Saiga, while cool looking, is more for field
use.
|12.26.07 @ 4:11PM|#
PIRS,
If you want to hold him there at gunpoint, good for you!
If you had already called the police and knew they would be there
shortly, as Horn did, that makes it even easier.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 4:12PM|#
I can't believe that people don't think they dropped the loot before attempting to flee. Its that gunnuttiness.
What's the opposite of "gunnuttiness"? Is that "retardedness"? Here
you think you know for a fact that they dropped the loot. Any
evidence? Or is it just an assumption?
|12.26.07 @ 4:12PM|#
There you go, Jennifer.
You should be careful when you go hunting for monsters, lest you
become a monster yourself.
Guy Montag thinks your moral code is just terrific.
Tuff Gai of teh Internets|12.26.07 @ 4:12PM|#
*strikes karate ufc stance*
KEEEEYYYYYYYYY-AAAAAAAHHHHH!
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 4:12PM|#
"jimmydageek | December 26, 2007, 4:06pm | #
Jennifer, you are a sociopath.
HaHaHa...I was beginning to think that as well :D"
When people start throwing around insults I take it as a sign they
know they are losing the argument.
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Jennifer, we don't live in the might-makes-right, vigilante
world you fantasize about, and people like you benefit the most
from that.
No: I don't steal other people's property, nor even walk on their
property unless they're invited. And "people like me" do NOT
benefit by believing the lie that if anything bad happens, the
police will take care of you so all you need to do is call 911,
wait and hope to God the cops get there before the bad guys
do.
Jennifer, you are a sociopath.
Nope. A sociopath is someone with no conscience or sense of
empathy. My sense of empathy is very strong, at least where Joe
Horn and his neighbor are concerned. If you want to see sociopaths,
dig up the bodies of the two burglars who didn't give a shit about
inflicting the trauma of theft and a home invasion upon innocent
people.
Minion of URKOBOLD|12.26.07 @ 4:14PM|#
WELL PIRS IS A SILLY, PRUNE-FACED WIPER OF OTHER PEOPLE'S
BOTTOMS.
NEENER. NEENER.
I WIN! I WIN!
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 4:15PM|#
You should be careful when you go hunting for monsters, lest
you become a monster yourself. Guy Montag thinks your moral code is
just terrific.
And Bin Laden loves your moral code as it pertains to teenage
sexuality. So what? I know better than to think that makes you
analogous to Bin Laden. But apparently you do not.
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Property, for most of us, is a product of time and labor from a finite lifespan. The thief is stealing a portion of your life.
|12.26.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Up until now I couldn't quite understand why so many people view
Libertarians as anarchic-gun tottin'-whackjobs. Thanks Jennifer and
Guy for clearing that up.
Thank goodness not everyone thinks like you.
|12.26.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Episiarch,
After the Rodney King beating, I heard a lot of people saying
things like "Don't judge the cops. You haven't been in that
situation. Scared people lose their heads sometimes..." and the
like. And they were right - when someone is in such a situation,
you can't insist on a level of decision-making that ignores human
nature.
But that is a world away from Darryl Gates seeing the tape and
exclaiming, "We should use this as a training film!"
Sympathy and understanding and mercy for Horn is one thing, but
holding him out as a model for how people are supposed to behave is
quite another.
|12.26.07 @ 4:18PM|#
The Saiga, while cool looking fucking
terrifying to liberals and crackhead burglars, is more for field
use.
Guy, have you been here?
I have a s-20, I'm biased...
French Pirate, Marine, Journal|12.26.07 @ 4:18PM|#
IT IS TIME FOR ALL TO READ THE AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT OF IKE
TURNER'S CHIEF ROADIE'S FRIEND'S COUSIN'S TEACHER'S SON'S MILKMAN
AND THE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF BLACK FLAG'S "TV PARTY"
BEFORE YOU ALL EMBARRASS YOURSELVES ANY FURTHER.
RANA - YOU ARE INCORRECT. EVERYBODY THINKS LIKE THEM. SINCE YOU DO
NOT, CLEARLY YOU ARE NOT THINKING.
MADELINE OBVIOUSLY HAS A FORWARD BENDING LABOR SUPPLY CURVE.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Joe, I did not ask if you would personally Kill Pol Pot. You might be a vegetarian for all I know. I asked if you believed that his life was more valuable than property. My main question was: Philosophically speaking, what is it about Human life that you consider valuable?
|12.26.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Damn! Outta popcorn. Gotta go an make some more and see how this shooting match turns out. ;-)
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 4:20PM|#
But that's a world away from those people arguing that
killing people when you or others are not in danger is good and
right.
I believe that you have a right to kill to protect your property,
and I would not punish someone for doing so. The law in Texas
agrees with me.
However, I personally would probably not shoot someone who was not
threatening me, especially if they were fleeing.
Remember, we still don't know if these guys came at Horn, or if he
perceived them to do so.
Minion of URKOBOLD|12.26.07 @ 4:20PM|#
"what is it about Human life that you consider valuable?"
THE GOLD FILLINGS IN THEIR TEETH.
AND THEIR TAINTS. MUST HARVEST TAINTS.
TAINTS CURE EVERYTHING.
TAINTS ARE THE ENZYTE OF THE NEW DAY!
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Here you think you know for a fact that they dropped the
loot. Any evidence? Or is it just an assumption?
How do you know that it was the shotgun blasts that killed them and
not congentital heart defects?
In the non-gunnut world, if a crazy guy with a shotgun comes at you
and fires a warning blast, it is overwhelmingly likely that the
suspects will drop the bag of loot and run. That is going to be
their best chance at survival -- probably better chance even than
surrendering to Horn.
I mean, if Horn was so concerned about the property, only, then
dropping the bag of loot would make him put his gun down. If you
drop the bag and he is still fixing to fire, then you know he is
concerned about more than just recovery of property. And that would
mean just one thing: RRRRRUUUUUNNNNN!!!!
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 4:21PM|#
"If you want to hold him there at gunpoint, good for you!"
And if I see he has a crowbar or pipe? Hmm, I think I am just going
to politely ask him to stop when he hits me over the head with the
pipe.
|12.26.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Osama bin Laden has never complimented my opinions on sex,
Jennifer, not would he.
You, on the other hand, actually have been applauded by Guy
Montag.
Call it a heads up, Jennifer. Guy Montag thinks you are just right
about the use of deadly force. Not "somebody on the internet made a
smartass remark assuming that he would."
Your moral code actually drew cheers from Guy Montage,
Jennifer.
Think about that.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Actually, I would try to capture bin Laden and would accept his surrender if offered. However, if he makes one false move I am hitting the trigger faster than punching off an unstable slingload on a UH-1H.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 4:22PM|#
When people start throwing around insults I take it as a sign they know they are losing the argument.
PIRS, I think I'm on your side and that of Jennifer's as well. So,
if I'm losing the argument, well, what does that say about you two?
However, her attitude towards the life of these two individuals
does lean towards the sociopath side.
|12.26.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Gosh, Minion, I never knew Taints were so versatile. I should get one of my own!
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Remember, we still don't know if these guys came at Horn, or
if he perceived them to do so.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/
|12.26.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Episiarch,
I believe that you have a right to kill to protect your
property, and I would not punish someone for doing so. The law in
Texas agrees with me.
The Texas law only allows you to use to deadly force to protect
property in limited circumstances, and they are all circumstances,
such as burglary at night, when there is a significant chance of
people getting hurt.
PIRS,
If you see his pipe, you hold him at gunpoint. Duh.
Personally, I look for people deliberately playing dumb as evidence
that they're losing the argument.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 4:26PM|#
AND THEIR TAINTS. MUST HARVEST TAINTS.
Minion, I have to wonder whether you have ever seen the Dickesode episode
of ATHF.
|12.26.07 @ 4:28PM|#
OK, shot in the back is not cool, whether or not they had stolen property in their hands. If they were shot in the back, Mr. Horn was wrong. Who doesn't agree?
|12.26.07 @ 4:28PM|#
From Dave W.'s link:
HOUSTON - An autopsy showed two burglary suspects were shot in
the back allegedly by a Pasadena neighbor who witnessed their
crime, KPRC Local 2 reported Friday.
Buy, hey...evidoers. Right, Jennifer?
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Dangerman,
Yes and mine is a S-12 with a 19" threaded barrel. Did not get the
collapsable stock and 9 round magazines I wanted from Santa
:(
Cara Lutetia,
Were the thieves armed?
According to at least one report, yes, with a crowbar.
PIRS,
And if I see he has a crowbar or pipe? Hmm, I think I am just
going to politely ask him to stop when he hits me over the head
with the pipe.
Seems some people on this thread think if he slows down it is the
same thing.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 4:28PM|#
How do you know that it was the shotgun blasts that killed them and not congentital heart defects?
DW, I DON'T KNOW!!! See, I don't assume anything. You, on the other
hand, THINK YOU DO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. You have judged
Mr. Horn guilty without knowing all the facts.
Episiarch|12.26.07 @ 4:28PM|#
The Texas law only allows you to use to deadly force to
protect property in limited circumstances, and they are all
circumstances, such as burglary at night, when there is a
significant chance of people getting hurt.
No, it allows it during "forcible felonies", and includes burglary
and robbery. Also, the night restriction was recently
removed.
If this guy had done this in defense of his own property they
couldn't touch him, according to Texas law.
Shane|12.26.07 @ 4:28PM|#
You know, i'm trying to think of that passage from Hogan's Voyage from Yesteryear, the part where the Chironians justify everyone owning a gun and shooting trouble makers wild west style, i think it makes a good point, but i can't think of it right now. damn.
|12.26.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Right, who doesn't agree?
I want Guy Montag and Jennifer to answer.
The arguments they have been making would render this detail
irrelevant to the morality of Horn's actions. Let's see if they
stand by them.
Minion of URKOBOLD|12.26.07 @ 4:29PM|#
EPISIARCH: THAT IS PLEASING.
RAZER: TAINTS ARE BEST WHEN KORN SYRUP FREE. THOSE SLATHERED IN
KORN SYRUP TEND TO GO OFF WHEN BUMPED GENTLY (IN STEVO'S BUNK, OF
COURSE).
ANSWER TO KORN SYRUP BOY - SAME AS WALTER GIVES TO DONNY IN "BIG
LEBOWSKI"
|12.26.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Urkobold,
No. Everyone does not think like them. And yes, I am
thinking.
The fact that I can tell the difference between immediate threat
while others cant, proves it.
I will go out on a limb here and say that out of everyone posting
here, I live in the most dangerous city. Just these past four days
have given us 97 murders. Just between 6pm Dec 24th and 12pm Dec
25th, there were 9 murders within a 4 mile radius from where I
live.
I also own a gun and know how to use it. My car/home has been
broken into. family members have been kidnapped.
And BELIEVE ME, there have been times I wish I could have gone
RAMBO on their asses (and should my life be in danger I will not
hesitate). But yet, if I can avoid putting myself in a situation
where human life will be lost, I will do it.
|12.26.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Episiarch,
It's the 'on his own property' bit that matters here.
If someone invades your home while you are there, that's an
incredibly dangerous act, and someone is likely to get killed.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Dangerman,
OK, shot in the back is not cool, whether or not they had
stolen property in their hands. If they were shot in the back, Mr.
Horn was wrong. Who doesn't agree?
Should have shot them in the leg to get them to turn around first
or something?
Minion of URKOBOLD|12.26.07 @ 4:33PM|#
HA! GOTCHA, RANA.
EVERYBODY DOES THINK LIKE THEM
YOU ONLY THINK THAT YOU'RE THINKING!!! THAT YOU'RE THINKING THAT
YOU'RE THINKING IS THE BEAUTY OF IT ALL!!!!!
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR YOU (AND YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND
LOVED ONES) IS TO PLEASE, PLEASE STAY
SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 4:34PM|#
You have judged Mr. Horn guilty without knowing all the
facts.
No, I am merely arguing that things looked suspicious enough that
he should have been arrested.
I am also saying that I strongly suspect that Horn cannot establish
a defense under Texas Penal code 9.42(3)(A) or (B). If I were on
the grand jury, I would almost certainly vote to indict just based
on the circumstantial evidence here (unless something really
freaking unexpected was put in evidence). If I were on the jury, I
would require a lot more info before voting either way. If I were a
gunnut I would argue strenuously that Mr. Horn did nothing
wrong.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Cara Lutetia,
Did they wield it like a weapon?
Not sure, but if he was holding it in his hand I count
that as wielding like a weapon.
|12.26.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 4:14pm | #
Jennifer, we don't live in the might-makes-right, vigilante
world you fantasize about, and people like you benefit the most
from that.
No: I don't steal other people's property, nor even walk on their
property unless they're invited.
You don't understand; if we lived in that world, it wouldn't be
just thieves and thugs getting shot. The thieves and thug would
rule the earth, and it would be the weak and innocent who suffered
the most. No, that is not the intent of people who support
vigilantism, but that what it creates. That's why societies outlaw
freelance "justice" as they become more civilized.
Cara Lutetia|12.26.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Guy Montag,
Not sure, but if he was holding it in his hand I count that as
wielding like a weapon.
Because of the situation or for some other reason?
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.26.07 @ 4:38PM|#
"If you see his pipe, you hold him at gunpoint. Duh."
Y'know, despite what video games may teach us, fights are not
always so clean, neat and complication-free. Again, you were not
there, you did not see what he saw. You did not perceive all he
perceived. He may not have believed he would have survived an
attempt to "hold him at gunpoint."
|12.26.07 @ 4:38PM|#
The laws that allow lethal force exist to deter and prevent harm to property and life, not to offer summary execution at the hands of citizens to captured or fleeing criminals. Once the criminals are fleeing, the use of force has served its purpose.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 4:40PM|#
No, I am merely arguing that things looked suspicious enough that he should have been arrested.
Here's that thinking again - "looked suspicious enough" - that I
don't agree with. That's why there's the need for evidence and
witnesses. Without the above, there's no justification for
arrests.
Cara Lutetia|12.26.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Plant Immigration Rights Supporter,
Well, none of us were there. We have to develop our opinions based
on the facts as they are reported.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.26.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Cara, on that we can agree. I am sure that more facts will come out in the case when or if Horn is forced to go to trial.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 4:46PM|#
Cara Lutetia,
Because of the situation or for some other reason?
Because in the situation as described it would be difficult for me
to view it as anything other than a weapon. If he were done using
it to break in and had it sticking out of his back pocket, then I
might think otherwise.
However, he was still stealing stuff while tresspassing, so having
a weapon is just a moot point for me.
Dangerman,
The laws that allow lethal force exist to deter and prevent
harm to property and life, not to offer summary execution at the
hands of citizens to captured or fleeing criminals. Once the
criminals are fleeing, the use of force has served its
purpose.
Not if the people fleeing are still moving in Texas. However, you
would be right on the money in VA or TN.
|12.26.07 @ 4:50PM|#
Guy, mine was a moral point, not a strictly The-Law-In-Texas point. I don't know shit about the law in Texas, except that it stands 6'2" and wears boots two sizes too small, just to keep a properly ornery attitude.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.26.07 @ 5:04PM|#
If you want to see sociopaths, dig up the bodies of the two
burglars who didn't give a shit about inflicting the trauma of
theft and a home invasion upon innocent people.
That is such a great visual. :-)
Pass the shovels....
|12.26.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Rod: "Wow Dad, you really buried him deep!"
Ned: "Not so deep that the Lord can't find him!"
Jennifer|12.26.07 @ 5:22PM|#
The arguments they have been making would render this detail
irrelevant to the morality of Horn's actions. Let's see if they
stand by them.
I still do, unless even more information is forthcoming. It was at
night, right? And therefore dark. So: how far away were these
thieves? Close enough where Horn could be expected to make them
out? Were they just beginning to turn around, or had they already
turned and run several feet away before they were shot? And had
they dropped their ill-gotten gains, or were they still trying to
make off with the fruits of someone else's labor?
|12.26.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Two things
you can't hold people at gun point who won't be held at
gunpoint
and I also heart Jennifer
Dr T you are wrong on this one, come around to Jen and I.
|12.26.07 @ 5:46PM|#
See, that was my second guess. What else would a former Cabinet Secretary be doing in her spare time besides misquoting herself on a libertarian blog?
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Here's that thinking again - "looked suspicious enough" -
that I don't agree with.
well, to trot out the legalese, the (Constitutionally mandated)
standard for arrest is "probable cause." Two guy shot in the back
should pretty much automatically be deemed to meet that. If there
is a defense that can be sorted out later -- like after the suspect
has been questioned to see if he could even pick his neighbors out
of a line-up, to see whether he was willing to say why he shot the
guys without the aid of an attorney, to see whether his description
of events matched the independent recollection of the policeman who
witnessed the shootings.
I mean, it is not Horn's fault that the police are crooked down
there. At least the dispatcher was good.
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 6:01PM|#
See, that was my second guess. What else would a former
Cabinet Secretary be doing in her spare time besides
misquotingparaphrasing herself on a
libertarian blog?
fixed
GinSlinger|12.26.07 @ 6:02PM|#
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during
the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor
or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily
injury.
Okay, so that's what Dave dug up. (preface what I'm about to say by
IANAL)
It's only "theft" and "criminal mischief" that appears to be
modified by "during the nighttime."
So, that doesn't matter.
"or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;" (emphasis added)
This would seem to allow Horn to shoot them, even in the
back.
Finally: "he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means" (emphasis added)
Who here has ever had anything stolen from them? How many of you
have had it returned? So far, the authorities have batted .000 in
their five trips to the bat on my behalf.
That said, unless Dave W. is correct in assuming that the
thieves "dropped the loot" (which, based on my days in Loss
Prevention, I would have to say, no, they didn't), it looks like a
legal shoot.
Still, doesn't make it moral.
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 6:05PM|#
The Horn shooting was witnessed by a police officer who had just
arrived on the scene .
He didn't intervene as he was in plainclothes and feared he might
be mistaken for the getaway driver. He didn't arrest Horn
either
thoreau|12.26.07 @ 6:09PM|#
kwais-
you can't hold people at gun point who won't be held at
gunpoint
Exactly. He pretty much put himself into a situation where he'd
either have to shoot them or watch while they run away. And he did
this with the full knowledge that the cops would be there any
minute and they'd be looking for people with weapons.
Do you really think it was a smart call on his part?
Timothy|12.26.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Do you think they should extend the law to trespassers? That
is a breah of property and security, too.
In Texas you can shoot tresspassers. And IIRC, it is legal to shoot
somebody in defense of somebody else's property I read an
article in the Express-News a few months ago about a guy who shot a
robber at a convenience store. Anyway, Texas has a fairly broad
version of the Castle Doctrine, which has pros and cons.
Texas also has a totally shitty justice system, but that doesn't
have any pros.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 6:17PM|#
Who here has ever had anything stolen from them? How many of
you have had it returned? So far, the authorities have batted .000
in their five trips to the bat on my behalf.
How many times have you been on the phone with the dispatcher
while the property is actually being stolen? Uh huh. That
is why your batting average is so low and your experience
not applicable here.
That said, unless Dave W. is correct in assuming that the
thieves "dropped the loot" (which, based on my days in Loss
Prevention, I would have to say, no, they didn't), it looks like a
legal shoot.
During your experience in Loss Prevention, how many times did you
fire a warning blast from a shotgun? Uh huh. That is why your
experience not applicable here.
C'mon The Gin Slinger -- I always thought you were one of
the smarter ones from Deewatz's place.
Timothy|12.26.07 @ 6:17PM|#
Hah, missed GinSlinger's post, as usual he's more on top of things than I am.
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 6:20PM|#
GinSlinger|12.26.07 @ 6:25PM|#
I was going on purely personal property, but since The crazy
"lawyer" wants to bring this, "How many times have you been on
the phone with the dispatcher while the property is actually being
stolen?" up: Three that I can remember, including one where
myself and one employee had been assaulted in a strong-arm robbery.
No recovery, even with descriptions and license plate
numbers.
"During your experience in Loss Prevention, how many times did
you fire a warning blast from a shotgun?
Never carried a firearm at work. Have witnessed a police officer
fire on a fleeing suspect based on an armed robbery call--guy did
not drop the merchandise or stop running.
Gin Slinger -- I always thought you were one of the smarter
ones from Deewatz's place.
Why thanks Dave W.--I always thought you were crazy, and likely a
liar.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 6:32PM|#
Do you wish the law in yr jurisdiction would have let you shoot the shoplifters, The Gin Slinger?
GinSlinger|12.26.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Um, Dave, no one here is talking about Class C Misdemeanors, are they?
|12.26.07 @ 6:34PM|#
I know I'm late to this, but Jesus Christ, Dave W. It upsets you that some dude shot some burglars? God bless Joe Horn for doing Darwin's work.
jimmydageek|12.26.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Gin Slinger -- I always thought you were one of the smarter ones from Deewatz's place.
Why thanks Dave W.--I always thought you were crazy, and likely a liar.
Game over. GS wins.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 6:39PM|#
Um, Dave, no one here is talking about Class C Misdemeanors,
are they?
Texas Penal Code section 9.42 (quoted above)would appear to extend
that far, yes. Do you wish the law in your jurisdiction would have
let you shoot shoplifters, The Gin Slinger?
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 6:41PM|#
GS wins.
I think I know where the crazy thing comes from, but I don't know
if I get the "liar" thing. What is that about, Jimmy?
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 6:47PM|#
PASADENA - Picketing in front of a Pasadena home - like an
incident held in front of Joe Horn's home earlier this month - was
banned Tuesday.
The City Council voted 6-0 vote to give final approval to an
ordinance that prohibits the picketing in front of a residential
dwelling. The move comes on the heels of a contentious Dec. 2
protest in front of Horn's home.
GinSlinger|12.26.07 @ 6:52PM|#
No Dave, read it again and tell me where it says simple "theft."
It's my state Dave, I know the statutes. Since a retail
establishment is well lighted, it cannot fall under the nighttime
clause. Oh, and you can drop the stuff about "recent changes" to
the code. A quick scan of the last four years shows no bill
affecting 9.anything.
"appears" to extend that far? What kind of lawyer are you
again?
|12.26.07 @ 6:55PM|#
I guess the takeaway here is that the guy who decided to run out
of his house with a shotgun after two guys who broke into an empty
house when he knew the police were on their way is the type of guy
to shoot two people in the back.
You want to bet? I'm going to kill them. They're getting away.
|12.26.07 @ 6:58PM|#
What if he'd seen the burglars three days later on the
street?
With that much time past, he could probably get up real close
behind them.
Darwin's work, huh? Good one.
GinSlinger|12.26.07 @ 7:00PM|#
joe, there is a lot of truth behind you outrage, but not because what Horn did was illegal, but because he overstepped what appears to be the intent of the law. I'm not saying I agree with you 100%, but I see where you're coming from. Dave W. might call me a "gunnut," but I still think this is a bad (but legal) shoot. Not a lot unlike my opinion of a lot of the SWAT stories. . .
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 7:19PM|#
No Dave, read it again and tell me where it says simple
"theft." It's my state Dave, I know the statutes. Since a retail
establishment is well lighted, it cannot fall under the nighttime
clause.
Look, I am not trying to represent that I have done detailed
research here. Anyway, my question to you was whether you wish the
law in your jurisdiction had allowed you to shoot
shoplifters.
First, you tried to dodge the question by saying that no one would
ever want that to be the law. Faced with section 9.42, you are now
trying to say that shoplifting from an open store cannot be
considered as "theft during the nighttime." Maybe you are correct,
maybe you are wrong, but I think these little forays into
collateral matters are just your way of avoiding answering a
question you seem to find difficult, which is:
Do you let wish the laws of your jurisdiction had let you shoot
shoplifters?
Why is the question difficult? Would it have been easier if I had
asked: how valuable does a stolen item have to be before deadly
force is justified? Feel free to answer that one, if the previous
question is too tough.
btw, before any of you other sleuths points it out, section 9.43 is
probably more applicable to the Horn case than 9.42. Further brief
review seems to indicate that 9.42 applies to use of deadly force
to protect one's own property. I haven't analyzed teh Horn case
under 9.43, but here is the statute:
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another
to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person
if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be,
the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using
force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse,
parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
|12.26.07 @ 7:28PM|#
GinSlinger,
I take back everything I said about the law. Texas could have
legalize lynching again for all I know about Texas law.
I've been describing how the law operates in a sane, civilized
society. I have no idea what the law is in Texas. Never been
there.
|12.26.07 @ 7:35PM|#
All of y'all have a lot of confidence in the police whey you say
that "he knew the cops would be there any minute"
I disagree, just because the dispatcher said so, doesn't mean they
would be there in any kind of timely manner.
Also, when the police were to show up what were they gonna do? Me
thinks that it is the same thing as the 70 year old man.
Some of you from NY or Massachusetts where 40 people can witness a
rape and murder and do nothing about it.
I prefer the place where the citizen recognizes that he has the
same rights and duties as a police officer.
Many of you are quick to convict. Despite abundant evidence of govt
being all to eager to convict on any actions not taken by
government officials.
thoreau|12.26.07 @ 7:39PM|#
I prefer the place where the citizen recognizes that he has
the same rights and duties as a police officer.
kwais, that is a very good point. However, wouldn't you also agree
that the cops, having the advantage of numbers (and perhaps more
tools at their disposal) have a better chance at apprehending the
suspects alive rather than shooting them?
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Even after reviewing 9.43, I guess I still think 9.42(3) (as
incorporated by reference in 9.43) sinks Horn. Mostly because I
think the 911 call makes it clear that Horn's belief that the
property could not be recovered was not a reasonable belief. I
understand The Gin Slinger's argument that in many
situations you would not be warranted in believing that the police
would arrive in time. However, the 911 call shows that this
situation is different, and I don't think Horn's 9.42(3) belief is
reasonable here.
I must admit that since we are balancing life against property
here, I am using a rather rigorous intrpretation of "cannot be
recovered" and "substantial risk" as those words appear in
9.42(3).
Whatever the ultimate merits on these key phrases in 9.42(3), there
is way more than enough to arrest and indict here. The police
reluctance to indict makes me wonder how much cash they put in the
sack when they wer moving it to be nearer the corpse.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.26.07 @ 7:40PM|#
How many times have you been on the phone with the
dispatcher while the property is actually being stolen? Uh
huh.
Happens all the time in this fine county I call home. I personally
know four people that have been in exactly that situation. One
chick I know gave a play-by-play to the dispatcher while the cops
sat at the donut shop. Twenty five minutes later they showed up.
This in a town that is less than 5 miles long, end-to-end, and only
a half mile wide.
Dave W.|12.26.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Happens all the time in this fine county I call home. I
personally know four people that have been in exactly that
situation. One chick I know gave a play-by-play to the dispatcher
while the cops sat at the donut shop. Twenty five minutes later
they showed up. This in a town that is less than 5 miles long,
end-to-end, and only a half mile wide.
Yeah, after the Gin Slinger responded, I realized that I needed to
phrase that argument that more defensively here at gunnut central.
What I meant to say is that when you listen to the 911 call (and
not just read the transcript), you can see that Horn was not
warranted in maintaining the (understandable, default) belief that
burglar's always get away.
If the 911 call had been different, I would think Horn is
likely-innocent (legally, not morally), rather than likely-guilty.
For the reasons put forth by the 'Slinger and the
'sewer.
Cara Lutetia|12.26.07 @ 8:04PM|#
kwais,
FWIW, I seriously doubt that the bystander effect has any greater
concentration in NY or Mass as opposed to Texas.
Guy Montag|12.26.07 @ 11:06PM|#
Actually, MA posted a link and narrative on December 26, 2007 at
6:20pm showing that a police officer was waching the break-in and
"assault" while standing by and doing nothing the whole time.
So, we have a case here when a private citizen did exactly what he
shold have done and a police force that did not do jack that they
should have done, but did exactly as expected.
So, niw, all of you "call the cops" folk just shut the hell up. The
cops were there watching everything happen while a regular citizen
took care of busness.
Dave W.|12.27.07 @ 5:01AM|#
Actually, MA posted a link and narrative on December 26,
2007 at 6:20pm showing that a police officer was waching the
break-in and "assault" while standing by and doing nothing the
whole time.
1. He was not the only policeman nearby, supposedly. From what I
recall (and it has been a few weeks since this story was fresh),
there was a massive police response and quick.
2. They never did find that getaway car. Too busy trying to help
citizen Horn out of a jam.
3. I think that the NYT overplayed the race thing. On the other
hand, if the burglars were white and legal I think more people on
this thread would be looking at this situation more realistically
(maybe not Guy though).
4. I said upthd that this should not be a federal issue. Actually,
shooting people in the back is a Constitutional issue and should
be. While the Constitution, as properly interpreted, does not take
all powers from the state and the people, I think it does take due
process and excessive punishment issues off the table. I also think
it is the proper tool for dealing with racist cops with high
faluitin' ideas about extrajudicial justice.
2.
Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 5:36AM|#
Dave W.,
Have you been writing crazy crap like that the whole time I have
been ignoring you?
Anybody with a lick of sense could read any of my comments on this
thread and tell that I really do not care if they are illegal
immigrant burglars, legal immigrant burgalars, tourist visa
burgalrs, German burgalars, Christian burgalars, athiest burgalars,
Islamic burgalars, minority burgalars or majority burgalars.
Only someone like you could inflate this to a Constitutional issue
because of the angle of the shot rather than for the police sitting
around watching homes getting broken into without doing anything
about it.
Been banned again lately for your usual antics?
Dave W.|12.27.07 @ 6:00AM|#
. . . I really do not care if they are . . .
Which is why I said "(maybe not Guy though)."
Frankly, I don't think you would have cared if they had been
shoplifters or innocent bystanders. I think if you had your way the
cops would behave like Blackwater. I mean, there's gunnuts and then
there's you & Jennifer.
Dave W.|12.27.07 @ 6:23AM|#
Only someone like you could inflate this to a Constitutional
issue . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
Majority by: White
Joined by: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
Dissent by: O'Connor
Joined by: Burger, Rehnquist
I doubt Garner would go the same way today.
Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 9:49AM|#
ed,
Dave W. is attempting to mess with Texas by getting a bunch of
revenuers in there over a perfectly justified shooting.
I picked the wrong day to accidentally read him and bother to
comment. That set of days would be any that our solar system is
located in a spiral arm of any galaxy.
Somehow, the race of
tresspassing burgalars makes all the difference in the world to
him, so if the race was different he thinks everybody would agree
with him.
Then he says it is not the race, it is the crime and tosses out a
few that deserve shooting over and one, the innocent bystanders,
that obviously do not but he yet again assigns that belief to
someone who obviously does not believe that (me) in yet another
bizarro-world argument he is having with his keyboard.
So, now, I will go on the record as being against innocent
bystanders being shot. I swear, by all that is Holy, that I am
truly greatful that the shooter used a shotgun, rather than a deer
rifle and people three blocks away were not harmed in any manner
nor was their property molested.
Shooting shoplifters inside the store, or out front, is probably a
bad move as you might destroy too much of your stock or hit paying
customers. Best to let them get into the back alley.
|12.27.07 @ 10:32AM|#
So lemme get this straight:
Texas has fewer attempted murders per capita than the median
state.
Texas is no more likely to impose a death sentence than the rest of
the country.
Yet Texas is to be vilified because it actually carries out the
death sentences imposed by its juries.
I would have thought that doing what the jury has decided is rather
more in keeping with the rule of law than subverting the jury
process with endless delay and faux appeals.
I'm a little unclear on how a libertarian can both be in favor of
jury nullification (as most are when it comes to drug offenses),
and in favor of nullifying juries (as so many are when it comes to
sentencing). I guess juries are only good when they do what you
want. This is what is known as "results-oriented" jurisprudence,
which is rightly condemned by principled jurists.
Mostly because I think the 911 call makes it clear that Horn's
belief that the property could not be recovered was not a
reasonable belief.
Oh, I dunno. I think its perfectly reasonable to believe that
property will never be recovered even though a 911 dispatcher is
telling you the cops will be there any minute now, promise.
Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Oh, I dunno. I think its perfectly reasonable to believe
that property will never be recovered even though a 911 dispatcher
is telling you the cops will be there any minute now,
promise.
Just from personal experience, I have never had a single item, that
was stolen from me in a break-in, recovered and returned by
anybody.
The only times I have ever had anything returned or recovered was
when I did it myself or others found my lost property (a check
book) and sent it back to me. Police were never the way any of my
property was ever recovered.
For icing, the police of Enterprise, AL came to investigate a
break-in and robbery of my apartment while I was attending Flight
School at Ft. Rucker. They were asked to leave in short order when
they suggested, endlessly, that some friend of mine came by and
"borrowed" my stuff. Turned out a young maintenance guy was
stealing stuff from various apartments in the complex, for
weeks.
Dave W.|12.27.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Oh, I dunno. I think its perfectly reasonable to believe
that property will never be recovered even though a 911 dispatcher
is telling you the cops will be there any minute now,
promise.
And if section 9.42 said that you could use deadly force if you
reasonably believed that recovery was somewhat unlikely, then that
would be a good defense. That is not what the 9.42(3) says,
though.
Dave W.|12.27.07 @ 3:43PM|#
So, now, I will go on the record as being against innocent
bystanders being shot.
Unless the shooter is Dick Cheney or a Blackwater d00d or someone
else that you happen to like for whatever reason.
|12.27.07 @ 5:46PM|#
Why do we as a country continue to take Texas so seriously??? I just don't get it!! Lets give it back to the Mexicans, (we will probably have to throw in a set of dishes to make it worth it).
|12.28.07 @ 7:58AM|#
MNG,
""And I thought dittoheads were bad (actually, they are, but
not that bad).
MNG, for the record I don't think you are as bad as suicide bombers
who take out elected heads of state, or who take out random women
and children to get their points across.
Despite when I may vehemently disagree with you on some of your
more socialist tendencies.
I say this as someone who from time to time when I am back home I
wholly enjoy some Rush (when he is not talking about Israel, or
abortion, or some other stuff).
(But for the record, I do believe for the most part that lefties
have more in common with Islamists than ditto heads, as far as
thinking it is ok to use force to impose your morals on other
people)
(Sorry I haven't read the comments since MNG's comment, because my
internet has been down.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245