"I've got a shotgun. Do you want me to stop 'em?"
tags:
Stumble ThisOn November 14, Pasadena, TX resident Joe Horn saw two men breaking into his neighbor's home. He called 911, told the operator what he could see through his window, and offered to go over there with his shotgun and stop them (an offer which was declined). As Horn watched the men, he grew more and more agitated, saying he was going to go outside and kill the burglars [despite the operator's repeated attempts to dissuade him]. When the men left the neighbor's home, Horn cocked his shotgun, went outside, and fatally shot the two burglars. All of this can be heard on the 911 call tape.
Have you not figured out the program yet??? Firstly, NOBODY WITH A CONCEALED CARRY HAS EVER COMMITTED A HEINOUS ACT LIKE LUBY'S, LIKE VIRGINIA TECH, LIKE OMAHA....on the fucking contrary, had there been a "YAHOO" at any of those events, the death toll would have been smaller-
Pasedena, mind you, does have some rednecks, and some idiots as well....the dumbass who fired at fleeing burglars, did so, killed them, and dropped them OFF, his own property, so YEAH, we probably will see this guy get busted, cause Texas law says you have to drop them on your own property, and they have to be in your home perpetrating, if they don't lay there bloody with a weapon in their hand, on yer stoop.
I say stupid fuckers so virulently, because the tone set by sometimes, pisses me off worse than the gun laws in Illinois. hey folks, we have guns in America for a good reason. Today, more than ever, wouldn't you folks in L.A. like to be able to legally kill a gang-banger during a home invasion, with whatever you wanted?? They have guns, and more asshole dick heads have them illegally than folks with concealed carry licenses...
EXAMPLE:
The flowers in guns pricks in San Fran Freaksco, screamed so loud after John Luigi Ferri, a man with mental problems, walked into an office building, and killed 8 and wounded 6...that Lawyers for the families of the deceased sued both the gun makers and the store where the guns were purchased. They charge that the sellers of the gun acted irresponsibly because they should have known the weapon they sold to Ferri was inappropriate for legal use.(I call grieving folks who try to place blame on innocents, because they can't handle grieving healthily,..ASSHATS!!
Anyone with a sense of where they are in time and space, should be able to guess why the media jumps on shit like this.....because the controllers of the meatbots, would love for the US to be like Britain...immasculate3d, and vulnerable, with goddamn cameras and informers everywhere.....Anyone ever red the history of a dictatorship..(pick one)
I say, eliminate the banned guns....(really want a street-sweeper that does not cost an arm and a leg....) and ban stupid fucking people instead, like those who push for laws, knee-jerk styley....like the assshat running for congress who was protesting the war cause of her wittle boy...SHEEHAN
\
"Californian", and "activist", should say it all.......another grieving flake, whose self-righteous grandstanding, acts a diversion to the real......
are you an only child by any chance???
While I agree with the statement that property isn't worth dying over, if you let this shit happen, it will continue to happen. If someone had been home in that house, there's a chance they'd be dead now.
It's incredibly unfortunate that you cannot trust neither criminals nor the Pigs with your life anymore.
use them for the very (very) thin legitimate uses (not saying polar expeditions with a knife would be doable) but outside that, its pretty pointless.
i mean self defence ? from what ? i've never needed a gun here, cos the people who break into your house dont have em either.
He won't even be indicted. C'mon, people. This is Texas we're talking about.
That said - everyone who commits a crime is a human being who has made some poor choices. Choices which are the result of a life lived such that the outcome seemed logical to them. This does not excuse the behavior, but it should provide a degree of perspective.
Furthermore, many criminals are undeterred by such risks as "X criminals were fatally shot by armed citizens", as by the time home invasion becomes a serious consideration for a person, critical-thinking skills have often long ago left the building.
In case this post makes you wonder where I stand on the issue, I'll just say this and let you work it out yourself: I'm glad I live in Texas.
Before railing on the police, did they play the entire 911 call? I'd say that any SANE person could safely assume that a car would be dispatched when they are calling 911 to report a live robbery. If you disagree, please offer us CONCRETE and ACTUAL examples that would lead us to believe that out of the millions upon millions of 911 calls that are made that a significant % of them would end up being ignored. Do the math and figure out how many examples you would need to even get a 1% failure rate out of a million....
This guy was itching to kill them. Notice how long the warning was that he gave? Maybe 2 seconds before he started a shootin'. If they heard the warning and ran, did he not prove his point and scare them into never coming around there again - without having to fire a shot? Nope, he was out to kill, and got his wish.
Notice how he also used a SHOTGUN to "protect" his neighbor's property. I think the only other weapon he could have employed to do more damage would have been grenades, or a mounted .50 cal machine gun.
I hope he gets what's coming to him and gets the death penalty. This IS Texas , and they do execute a ton of folks yearly for shooting people in cold blood. O, but wait, these guys were black and the shooter white. Guess probation will have to do....
Yeah, cause guns are never used for hunting or target practice by millions of responsible citizens. Good call.
There are only two reasons people get killed during a home invasion. Either they confront the invader, with a weapon of some kind, or the invader has nothing to loose since he's already risking his life. (Due to the society and gun-acceptance)
Here in Norway, the police don't carry guns. They have them in the car, locked away, for use if needed. This means that the criminals don't really use guns either.. Of course there are gun-robberies, murders, etc. BUT in the big picture, it's a different world.
The way gun-enthusiasts go off on a tear when we discuss gun-politics, is as if the gun itself was their manhood. The reason guns are constitutionalized in
USA is only because off the founding fathers saw a possibility where the people would have to fight the government. I don't say this doesn't apply today, but not in the same way.. That would only work if both sides had muskets.. But that's not the reality anymore..
Another problem I see is that If you have a gun, the likelihood of a bad guy shooting after you / back at you is a million times greater, than if your hands are up, and you're not coming off as threatening. I can't see how people can't understand that..
And further more, it's only property.. I got my car stolen once, but I didn't want to kill the guy, nor have anybody else kill him!
Gah.. Guns kill people.. People kill people.. There shouldn't be a "not" in there.
Is it the importance to protect yourself, or is it just really fun to play with? What if your three-year old plays with it.. Will it be just as fun?
-seltar
Yup. Piss on 'em.
The "killer" would be me sitting in my house minding my own business.
The "victim" would be two reprobates violating the sanctity of my household.
If you've never been burglarized, I don't think you can understand the scar it leaves on you. It's partly about the stuff, true, but it's much more than that.
It's a very real psychological violation that never really heals.
"Yeah, cause guns are never used for hunting or target practice by millions of responsible citizens. Good call."
hunting and target practice isnt worth the utter sh*t attitudes and society that guns bring with them. If somehow you cant find a problem with american society, prehaps people feeling the need to have a gun is one ?
come on, its 2007, not 1791.
Our society is, by and large, just fine as it is. The vast (VAST) majority of firearms are never used in a violent act, and the vast majority of firearm owners are perfectly reasonable people. Alcohol makes a mess out of more situations than guns do - and kills more people, to boot.
It's nice that that ideal exists, but you also have to accept that the world is a diverse place. Most countries do not have the necessary soft hearted populace to rely on such trusting rules.
You mean to tell me that you've never heard of someone dying in a car crash because someone got drunk and hit them?
They won't try this guy; they'll probably name a damn city after him.
Do you live in America or Sweden?
There are some parts of the cities here in America where you would be shot just for walking down the street and minding your own busines, if you were the wrong color (forget about actually trying to burglarize one of the homes).
I hate what happened, and I think that our American culture and society is partly to blame for what happened.
But burglars...I have no pity for them. They wouldn't have any pity for you or for me, and that's a pretty good bet.
#2 for all the gun toting people who think the SOLUTION to Virgina Tech, Columbine etc is to add MORE guns to the mix, I'm really trying hard to understand you... Let's think about it, a random shooting opens up, people scramble, they're scared, nervous, and shocked... Do you think they're going to react by pulling out their "piece" and nailing the assailant(s) with one clean shot? Come on! And what happens when inevitably someone trying to "do good" accidentally shoots another civilian? "oops?, sorry, my bad, I was trying to get the bad guy..."?
The solution is LESS guns, NOT more.
You wanna hunt? fine... get a license, get dressed up in your orange outfit and hunt... with a hunting rifle. You want to go to a shooting range, fine. That doesn't mean you need to be carrying a gun with you all the time (honey, stop the car, there's a deer!), you certainly do not need it concealed, and certainly do not need a handgun/shotgun/automatic-death-cannon.
The second amendment was written in a time of muskets where the US had no full-time army and the populous would be relied up to defend against/overthrow the government. Well... a lot of good all those guns have done preventing the government from stripping the US citizens of their rights. At this rate, the right to bear arms will soon be the only right remaining.
This guy was bloodthirsty and was rationalizing his desire to shoot people as "protecting himself". He is obviously in no personal danger and I hope he gets jail time.
And, for the record, I am someone who is perfectly fine with the idea of folks keeping guns to protect their homes. It's just that this guy was perfectly safe in his home which was not being threatened, and he used his gun outdoors in public to shoot a man in the back. Fuck that.
If some stray buckshot had hit a neighborhood child I have a feeling some people here might be singing a different tune.
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again sometime: unpleasant things happen in a society with sufficient freedoms, because there will always be people who cannot behave themselves when given sufficient freedom. However, just because there are a minority population of morons who decide to use guns, alcohol, vehicles, and other freedoms inappropriately does not mean we should all be penalized for their lack of sense, or even their malicious intent. Things like Columbine, 9/11, Oklahoma City - these things happen in a free society. They are more than simply unfortunate, and there are things we can do within our current bounds to minimize their chance of occurring, but they will happen and we should not allow ourselves to act irrationally in response.
I dont care what race these two miscreants were, they were robbing someones house in Texas. Not very bright...
You mean to tell me that you've never heard of someone dying in a car crash because someone got drunk and hit them?"
what has that got to do with guns ? - thats just someone being an ill educated moron, which, for what it's worth, is anouther problem coming to society at large.
seems silly to try and come up with reasons to own a gun. maybe people dont all act like idiots with them, and maybe you need them because other people have them, but wtf ?? why not just not have the damn things in the first place ? freedom isnt about having the ability to kill someone for taking some stupid object from you, if you sorted your culture out you wouldn't need them
Yeah, it sure would. One doesn't know that upfront when you're home is being invaded. When you hear someone coming in your house and you're out in the country alone with your children late at night, I want to have more than harsh rhetoric to protect us.
I'll be more than happy to get rid of my guns when I know there aren't any folks willing to come into my house with some of their own.
Times change, and ending a criminals life is no longer an acceptable act unless in perceived self-defense. In my opinion, he should have fired at the ground.
(if it were 1890 and this old man lived in Arkansas, he'd likely be hung for murdering these men; a nice run-down of early self-defense Supreme Court cases here; http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm )
But the next minute or next day or next month it could have been. We are talking criminals here. Since when do they deserve any rights at all? They're human? No. They're animals. When they turn their backs on the law the law should turn its back on them.
I'm not celebrating what this man did. He seems to be pretty shaken up about it too, but I am so damn tired of criminals having more rights than the rest of us.
Should he have let them walk? No, you say. Why couldn't he just hold the gun on them?
Cause thats in the movies pal. You aim a gun, you prepare to use it else you put yourself in a very dangerous position.
Now I hear the illegals' wives want to sue. I wonder though if we were to walk in their house and take a look at the tv or the jewelry how much of it was hard earned.
These are vermin. Sad life were lost, but better those than that of an innocent person.
Anyone who gets thrilled by this or celebrates the shooting or the punishment of this man is an idiot. Its just a sad situation.
Oh and for the one who said "he chose the messiest and most deadly weapon he could have" ...don't be a fool. Shotguns are just the most common hunting tool and quick. Rather he peg em with a 22 until they stopped moving?
woah, now. They stole a bag of valuables and would have made the robbery-victims feel less safe in their own home... its not like they kidnapped a child, or murdered an elderly couple, or stole thousands of people's pensions ENRON-style.
I got a speeding ticket a few months back; should the cop have just pulled me over, told me to dig my own grave and offed me right there? or would other drivers have been in the right to aim a gun out their car window as I passed them and tried to shoot out my tires if I were speeding?
"Get yourself some stricter gun-laws. Nobody, NOBODY needs a fuckin AK or an M16 for anything else than becoming a fucking killing machine."
First, fully-automatic (select-fire) weapons are restricted for purchase to individuals under fairly strenuous requirements, including permission from local law enforcement. (This is termed a "Class 3 Transfer", and obtaining the signature from local law enforcement is understandably difficult.) That said, many automatic weapons are obtained illegally. Second, fully-automatic weapons (and Assault Rifles), while potentially menacing, are NOT a significant contributor to gun crime. I may be misinformed, but the data I looked at placed their involvement in less than 1% of all gun crimes. Handguns are the firearm of choice in the vast majority of gun crimes.
"We are talking criminals here. Since when do they deserve any rights at all? They're human? No. They're animals. When they turn their backs on the law the law should turn its back on them."
There is no such thing as an "evil person." I stand by this assertion. There are people whose perspectives are warped to the point that incarceration is the only means to prevent inevitable harm to society at large, but no one should be denied due process unless doing so would infringe upon another person's inalienable rights. The justice system (and the term means something - it means to "make just" or to "make equal" a situation that has become imbalanced with respect to a person's rights) serves both to attempt to restore balance to inequity in so much as it can, and also to levy punishments sufficient in severity to discourage future crimes from the perpetrator and those who would consider similar actions. For the law to turn its back on "criminals" is to render it useless and return us to an anarchic state.
Society, and by extension, government, exists as a framework for its citizens to submit to the sacrifice of certain freedoms in order to assure that the rest of the citizens are similarly denied those freedoms. We voluntarily submit to be protected from ourselves, to the degree we deem acceptable in exchange for the security that provides. I do not feel the security provided by the criminalization of firearms is worth giving up my own ability to own one. This is a weighted judgment. Similarly, I *do* feel that the security provided by the criminalization of driving while intoxicated justifies my personal loss of the freedom to drive in any dang state I deem reasonable.
By that token, I am perfectly willing to give up my freedom to kill anyone who I deem worthy of the act to ensure that the government will do what it can to prevent others from exercising that freedom against me, but I have no reservations allowing my fellow citizens (and therefore myself) the freedom to kill intruders in their own homes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanell_X#Joe_Horn_Protest
Personally, while I feel Joe Horn used excessive force, I don't have any sympathy for burglars getting shot while they're robbing someone's home. Those are the risks you take when you rob houses. I also think Quanell X can find some better black guys to help out and protest for. What does he want? All black people to be able to rob people in safety?
if I saw somebody robbing something through the scope of my sniper rifle, would it be okay for me to have a pop at them?