2 burglars shot dead in Pasadena (jobs, house, crime)

[MrSykes]

Originally Posted by lipbalm

If its my neighbors property, not worth the trouble. If my family's life in danger, shoot first and ask questions later.

You got it!

[Petertherock]

Anyone know if the guy was charged with anything yet?

[Rick4Life]

Originally Posted by Petertherock

Anyone know if the guy was charged with anything yet?

Neighbor not yet charged in shootings of two suspected burglars


By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
Comments (4) Recommend
HOUSTON — A man who told police he planned to kill two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house shot them only when they came on his property and he felt threatened, his attorney said Monday.

Tom Lambright, who represents Joe Horn of Pasadena, said his client was just going to take a look around when he went outside after hearing glass break at his neighbor's house. He had seen Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, crawling into and then out of a window.

Horn went outside, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, to see where the burglars were heading when he came face-to-face with them in Horn's front yard, Lambright said. ....<snip>....

[MOD CUT]

Neighbor not yet charged in shootings of two suspected burglars | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (broken link)

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by MrSykes

Doesn't have to be. It's not like I'm putting Mr. Horn on trial for being a bigot. I'm just bringing up the possibility that his bigotry probably made it much easier for him to make the (ill-advised) decision he made.

Problem is, there is no evidence to suggest he is a bigot. You introduced this possibility with nothing to back it up other than, I suppose, the fact the burglers were black and Mr. Horn white.

Race is by nature specific (or, perhaps more ccurately, "specifically" constructed by people). So its social implications are likewise going to be specific.

You spoke of it in terms of your awareness of its function (race) in social interactions among different groups of people (as if none of the rest of us are so aware and/or may disagree with your own application) In this instance, it seems only your own vision is justification for accusing Mr. Horn of being a bigot.

Nope. But, to be sure, the question here is not whether the burgulars deserved to die for their actions. It is whether Mr. Horn was justified in killing them. And looking at the facts, he wasn't. Again I ask, why exacerbate a threat just for the sake of neutralizing it?

We don't know all the facts yet. You or I either one. The only thing we know for sure is that there are different opinions on this board as to whether or not deadly force was justified in this instance. Or, whether or not Texas law (which seems to permit it) is good law. I think it is. The question of whether the men "deserved to die" contains too many ethical "ifs". For instance, did they actually turn on Mr. Horn when he ordered them to stop? I do know one thing though, THEY are the ones who put themselves in a situation where deadly force is perhaps justified under the law. So I guess it is they who decided the possibility of death was worth committing the crime.

It is also reasonable to suggest that two white boys (or girls for that matter)in the same situation just might have been spared death by Mr. Horn. Needless speculation, you say? Call it what you wish. I stand by my conclusions.

Thank you. I shall. I call it pointless speculation and playing of the race card.

I see the object of the analogy was obviously lost on you. You're mounting a tangential argument that has nothing to do with the argument I was trying to present. The analogy was posited to demonstrate that, regardless of whether or not race was a factor in a) the commission of the crime and b) the shooter's decision to kill (the analogy granting the equal viability of both possibilities), the shooting in these circumstances was not justified.

You ARE correct in one way, I did indeed misread it (I was in a hurry at the time). In any event, my own original example was used to make the point that, based on evidence available, it is JUST as logical to suggest that the two burglers broke into the home because the home owner was white as it was to suggest originally (as you did) that race may have been a factor in the shooting and that Mr. Horn was a bigot. In other words, such needless speculations can be spun all day long, but they amount to nothing except playing on race if there is nothing to suggest it otherwise. In any event though, to address the point you made above, once again, race aside, we do not know yet whether the shooting was justified under Texas law. It may come down to whether or not Mr. Horn had permission to protect his neighbors home (the third party justification) or whether or not when he acted to merely get them to stop, they turned on him and he felt himself in danger of serious bodily injury (the deadly force in defence of person). In your hypothetical of the cross burning? There is the clause which permits the use of deadly force to prevent criminal mischief in the nighttime. You say both cases would have been unjustified. The question is, unjustified by your own ethical and moral values? In which case, depending on the circumstances, I might agree. OR, unjustified under Texas law? It can be two different critters.

Quick to call the old double-standard play I see. Nevermind the fact that the Tillery case was more a deadly fray over money and crack than a hate crime. But whatever. I'm sure there's another board for that. I tell you, some of the arguments people use to "prove" whatever this pervasive racial double-standard against whites may be hold about as much weight as a man who complains of being raped by a woman.

Not quick to call it, but I sure will when appropriate. Which in turn is almost always in response to someone elses' playing the race card to begin with. It is obvious you don't believe one exists and that is fine too. In any event, I am well aware that none of the parties (in either the Byrd OR Tillery case) were sterling citizens. The point was that while almost everyone has heard of the former, the latter went relatively unreported and commented on. And of course, there is the Wichita Massacre, an obvious "hate crime" not charged as such. But anyway, you can believe in its existence or not, as you please.

Not obsessed. Just aware. The fact that I live in a society where some people are likely to harbor negative judgements about me because of my race won't stop me from being who I have to be and doing what I have to do. People can be "out to get me" all they want. As long as they stay away from my family and my property.

Perhaps, if some people indeed harbor negative feelings against you, then it is NOT because OF your race, but your OBCESSION with race.

Because, unfortunately, race can never be totally out of the question. You can theoretically abstract it from the situation all you want, but you can in no way negate its reality.

I have never tried to negate the existence or reality of race nor its factor in certain crimes or interactions. Unfortunately, there are those amongst us for whom race will always be an obcession, a paranoia, and for many, a ticket to wealth and power (the good reverends, of whom there is no need to name).

Eschewing the implications of criminal motive in any case simply flies in the face of pure reason. Hate crimes are motivated by specific psychosocial factors that warrant specific treatment. Killing a man for what he owns is one thing, but killing a man because of who he happens to be speaks to a special criminal mindset that goes straight to the heart of the very destructive ways racial enmity and oppression have manifested themselves in this country. But this is clearly another topic.

In this particular instance, it only flies in the face of reason if one doesn't buy into unreasonable premises.

But let's back up and be clear here. "Hate crimes" are not (at this point in time at least) a seperate class of crime, but merely a term used to describe other crimes in which hate of another group is said/proven to be a part of the motive, in which case the punishment for the crime itself can be enhanced.

Now then, back to your thesis. Most crimes are motived by some specific psychosocial factor, not just "hate crimes". So why do the latter warrant some special treatment? Apparently, to your way of thinking, it is because (once we cut thru the fog), of a connection to larger issues of perceived racial injustice and "oppression" and how they have "manifested in this country."

Yeah, well, whatever...but I hope you would see there is no end to the potential abuse which could stem from such logic. But anyway, once again, my own position is that the only important thing in the punishment phase is whether or not what the individual actually did falls under the specifications for that particular crime. If a person kills another because he hates their race, then the important thing to me is whether or not s/he is appropriately punished for the act of murder itself, according to the degree and specs in the penal code. They deserve no more or no less punishment than if a similar (in legal terms) crime is committed and the killer just didn't like the victim's looks in general. Or just felt like killing someone. Or whatever.

A slippery slope into absurdity indeed, which was my point to begin with. An interracial rape should no more be considered a hate crime (motivated by race) than an intersexual rape (motivated by gender). Failing any evidence at the scene of a rape to suggest that a hate crime indeed has taken place, the wise investigator would do good to simply treat the situation for what it is....a rape.

Yes, my intention was absurdity. Which in turn was in response to what I felt was the original absurdity. That is, the rationale for "hate crimes" to begin with. My point was that once the criminals perception of his victim's race become a factor to be considered in punishment, then there is no logical reason it should stop there. I used rape as an example, since it has been pretty well established is not a sex crime per se, but one of hate and a need to degrade and humiliate. Soooo, following from that, perhaps we should expand hate crime definitions? After all, in spite of what you said about rape being a "sex crime and not a hate crime", I would hope we have already established that there is no SEPERATE listing for "hate crimes" in the penal code either. Rather, it is an attachment, applied in some instances, to crimes which falls under OTHER catagories (i.e. murder is an Offence Against the Person").

So again, maybe we should take a closer look at rapes and, if in the opinion of an expert in psychology concerning the hypothetical instance in question, that "hate" (either from racial or gender motives") is proven a factor, then let's up the penalty! But yes, I am being facitious. Rape is rape and should be punished accordingly, like all crimes, on what actually HAPPENED and NOT how the rapist regarded his victim.


Now then, time to get out of here and move to other things (like my job!). Besides, we are getting very lengthy here and should probably let others decide which of us made the better case. I have a feeling we might be one of those the moderator was talking about!

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by da jammer

Folks, if you would like to have in depth conversations that are off topic please take it to DM. This thread is swerving all over the map. Back to the original topic or we'll have to close it down.

I am sure I might be one of the guilty parties! I'll watch it closer!

[kpoeppel]

It seems like the fundamental question is: to what extent are ordinary citizens allowed to enforce the law? All the other things, like race, age, location of the incident, the dispatcher's instructions, etc, etc are just red herrings.

In an ideal world, there would be professional law enforcement available at all times and all places. Unfortunately, that is impossible. So it seems reasonable that ordinary citizens should be allowed to enforce the law to some extent. To what extent? Where should the line be drawn? I really don't know. There are some situations (hostage situations, bank robberies, etc.) where ordinary citizens might make things worse by trying to be heroes. In other situations (rape, muggings, attempted kidnappings, etc.), ordinary citizens might be the only help available.

Thus I think these incidents have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Given the specifics of the incident in Pasadena, I personally don't think the shooter is guilty. Ultimately it will be up to a judge/jury to decide. I'm glad I'm not the judge.

[KimK]

Yes, Kpoeppel, that is what I believe the question always comes back to. I was thinking more about this to your point about rapes, muggings attempted kidnappings, etc. I think there is some validity to the point that there are some circumstances outside of one's home and one's property that an armed citizenry might help. My points in previous posts were that the average citizen is not trained and these types of incidents are a case in point. I spent a good portion of my life driving around all day and looking for crime when not being dispatched to crimes or neighbor problems. Police get very good at recognizing that things are happening that are irregular or out of the ordinary. For example, I caught a bank robber by noticing at 5:00 p.m. a male was exiting the bank and there was no bank personnel locking the door behind him. That was it for me. That does not happen at closing time in a bank. He was a bank robber and he had over 150,000.00 in cash in his little briefcase and a BB gun which he used to herd the folks into the vault. Another time, I was patrolling in a very upscale area with lots of heavy foliage and no sidewalks. A woman was walking along the road without a purse. I knew she had just been raped. Hello, she had just been raped. Now, maybe I am giving myself way too much credit here, but if you all think about these things, would you recognize crimes are being committed? I think sometimes people think there is a lot of fanfare that goes along with an armed robbery. Have you seen those pictures at 7-11 where the robbers are standing there with guns pointed at the clerk and people are still coming in and buying cigarettes. I believe most people have witnessed crime and never knew it. So, to that I would have to ask, how much has the average citizen carrying a gun actually impacted our crime statistics? If that impact has been nil, or close to it, I see no point in an armed citizenry.

Also, to those who say Mr. Horn should not feel bad about having taken two lives-every police officer I have known who has shot and killed a suspect felt bad regardless of how heinous the suspect(s) may have been. In fact, one shooting is usually all it takes for that officer to medically retire. Frankly, I do not want a police force that feels nothing when taking any life.

Have some of you even seen a dead body? I am not talking about someone dressed up laying in a casket. And, by the way, most of you wouldn't even touch someone laying in a casket to straighten a collar or button a button. I am talking about their heads blown apart to the point where it looks like a cracked egg. He should not feel bad. Just the blow back from those two "thugs" would have been on his clothing and person if he were within about ten feet of them.

I would never try doing brain surgery without training or doing somebody's taxes without training or waiting on tables with training. Why is it many believe you can do my job without training?

[kpoeppel]

Kim,

I think we are basically in agreement. I wasn't trying to "choose sides" or refute any specific argument or post. I was just trying to distill the problem down to it's essence...the fundamental question at hand.

Ideally law enforcement should be done by professionals, I agree with you there. How much should ordinary citizens be allowed to enforce the law? I really don't know. Many different people will have different opinions. It seems that you have an well-informed position on the issue as a police officer.

[TexasReb]

As always, you post some articulate and thought-provoking comments, Kim K, but at the same time, some of the things you say concern me greatly. To start, I believe you are being much more disdainful of the armed citizen than those of us who believe in the right to carry (after proper licensing) are of the abilities and job requirements of police officers.

Further -- and I may be wrong -- I detect a definite unspoken thought that you believe the right to carry a firearm is something that should be a special priviledge and right of law enforcement officers only, and you resent a bit that it isn't recognized by many of us to in fact be so.

Anyway, let me just remark on a few things here:

Originally Posted by KimK

My points in previous posts were that the average citizen is not trained and these types of incidents are a case in point. I spent a good portion of my life driving around all day and looking for crime when not being dispatched to crimes or neighbor problems. Police get very good at recognizing that things are happening that are irregular or out of the ordinary. For example, I caught a bank robber by noticing at 5:00 p.m. a male was exiting the bank and there was no bank personnel locking the door behind him. That was it for me. That does not happen at closing time in a bank. He was a bank robber and he had over 150,000.00 in cash in his little briefcase and a BB gun which he used to herd the folks into the vault. Another time, I was patrolling in a very upscale area with lots of heavy foliage and no sidewalks. A woman was walking along the road without a purse. I knew she had just been raped. Hello, she had just been raped. Now, maybe I am giving myself way too much credit here, but if you all think about these things, would you recognize crimes are being committed? I think sometimes people think there is a lot of fanfare that goes along with an armed robbery. Have you seen those pictures at 7-11 where the robbers are standing there with guns pointed at the clerk and people are still coming in and buying cigarettes. I believe most people have witnessed crime and never knew it.

This is likely true in many instances. On the other hand, as I am sure you know, criminals generally commit crimes and the vast majority occur when the police are not around. But the main thing is, in instances where the average citizen is justified in using deadly force, and in fact do so, there is usually not a lot of subtlety involved nor that takes a great deal of special training to recognize.

So, to that I would have to ask, how much has the average citizen carrying a gun actually impacted our crime statistics?

I don't have the figures available at the moment, but they are easily accessible. In places where concealed handgun legislation has been passed, the crime rate has dropped. In a study undertaken by John Lott, in interviewing convicted violent felons, it was found that most of them said that, the largest single factor in their deciding not to commit a crime against a person was the belief the latter might be armed Further, in another study, " Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, it showed that the "error rate" of accidental shootings by armed civilians was much lower than that of the police! The reason could quite possibly be because, as alluded to earlier, in many cases where deadly force is justified, the armed citizen is more often in a situation which leaves less room for ambiguity or confusion (i.e. direct assault, robbery, breaking and entering, etc).

If that impact has been nil, or close to it, I see no point in an armed citizenry.

This is truly frightening. Before saying too much though, I would ask for a clarification:

When you say you see "no point in an armed citizenry" (let's for arguments sake say your qualification on the crime rate is true, even though the stats say different), do you mean as in the right to carry a concealed weapon? Or the right to own a gun, period?

As to the first instance, are you maintaining the means to defend oneself, loved ones, and property should be dependent on some "utilitarian" consideration of how the overall crime rate may be impacted by private gun ownership?

As to the second? Pun intended. Does your statement mean you could favor repeal of the Second Amendment?

Exactly what you meant was not clear.

I would never try doing brain surgery without training or doing somebody's taxes without training or waiting on tables with training. Why is it many believe you can do my job without training?

I don't personally know of anyone who owns a gun (which means most people I know) who have any desire to go out and do a law enforcement officers job. However, there are many time when the latter are not around to do their job, which is at least one reason provisions are made giving citizens the right to use force and/or deadly force in certain limited circumstances in involving person and property. This is not the same as playing policeman.

[KimK]

I think I have said I have no problem with one taking up arms to defend one's life and property. It is the going out with a concealed or non-concealed weapon and entering into a crime in progress situation for the purpose of assisting or aiding others. That is what I mean by armed citizenry. Really, whether it is a concealed weapon or not, does not concern me either although not concealed I guess would draw some attention.

You mention appropriately permitted to carry a weapon. Here is where law enforcement does a terrible job in some places. Most counties in California grant licenses to carry concealed through the office of the Sheriff. Now, wouldn't you think that if you had a legimate concern (I carry jewelry for a living or I take my receipts to the ATM daily) whatever, that you could get a license by taking a test? Not so. Unless you are a big donor to the Sheriff's campaign or a celebrity you are pretty much out of luck. There are some exceptions but largely no there aren't. So, there is at least one state where I would rather not have Britney Spears have a concealed weapons permit. Also, those tests in that state are shooting within five feet anywhere on a body target, six rounds, with no time. Yes, no time limit. I don't know that this test makes me feel secure. Most police are not good shots in crisis and they practice monthly.

I don't resent it. I just want it taken seriously. I think it gives some folks a false sense of power and control in situations where they really don't have it. It seems to come across to me as lightly as carrying a pack of smokes in the other pocket. Take the whole package seriously: the carrying, the practicing, the decision making, the shooting, the killing. That's all.

Statistics show as well, that the presence of a black and white police vehicle driving through your neighborhood has no impact on crime as well. That is pretty strange given that the mere thought someone might have a concealed weapon lowers crime. I worked under cover for about five years. I was so excited to be out there among the criminals watching for crime to occur so that I could stealthily take action. No such luck.

If people really want to help police, be a reliable witness, agree to testify in court. Carry a concealed weapon but do not call in petty crime annonymously, do not refuse to sign a complaint on your neighbor if you have bothered to call police on a matter, do not refuse to make a citizen's arrest where applicable.

Now, you would really impact crime if you would do that. Yes, I know, people are already mained or dead, property is already stolen and lost, etc. by the time we get to court. And, no, its not terribly exciting at that point either. But, it is important and vital to our system.

But, I digress. Thanks again for your interesting thoughts and opinions.