Biker Blogs > Flame2000's blogs > What do you think?
What do you think? Sort by:
Author
Flame2000
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 538
Posted on Tue, Nov 27, 2007 06:28

PASADENA,TEXAS --When he saw two men pry into his neighbor's house with a crowbar one afternoon earlier this month, Joe Horn did what many people would do: He called 911. But when police had not shown up by the time the suspects were about to leave, the 61-year-old retiree did something most people probably would not: He stepped outside with his 12-gauge shotgun and killed them. "I'm not going to let them get away with this," Horn told the 911 dispatcher, who responded: "Property's not worth killing someone over." Seconds later, the sound of a gun being loaded could be heard on the 911 tape,followed by a warning -- "Move[and]you're dead" -- and then three bursts of gunfire.Miguel DeJesus,38,and Diego Ortiz,30, both of whom had small-time criminal histories, died of their wounds. The six-minute recording of Horn's anger, frustration and eagerness to take the law into his own hands has made him the focus of a national controversy. Critics condemn him as a vigilante bent on meting out murderous justice.Admirers praise him as a courageous hero whom any law abider would love to have next door.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Flame2000
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 538
Posted on Sat, Dec 08, 2007 01:09

UPDATE Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Pasadena protests collide Two men suspected of burglarizing a neighbor's home were shot in the back by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn after the suspects ventured into his front yard, Pasadena police disclosed Friday. Also, for the first time, investigators revealed the Nov. 14 shooting was witnessed by a plainclothes Pasadena detective, who had pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-guage shotgun. The detective's name was not released as the new details emerged about the controversial shootings that have outraged minority activists but also brought an outpouring of support from others. "We have now documented a summary of what we think happened. We will turn it over to the district attorney in a couple of weeks after we finish our extensive quality control review," said Pasadena Police Department Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett. The Harris County district attorney will then present the case to a grand jury to determine if any charges should be filed against Horn. The suspects were illegal immigrants from Colombia, and one man had been deported nearly 10 years ago, authorities said. Authorities have said they are investigating whether Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48, were part of a crime ring linked to burglaries and the use of fake immigration documents. The two ? killed by Horn after he said they were trying to steal his neighbor's property ? were in the country illegally, according to Leticia Zamarripa, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Horn, 61, shot Ortiz and Torres, who went by the alias Miguel Antonio DeJesus. Horn called police after hearing breaking glass. He ignored an operator's warning to not go outside with his gun. Corbett said Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction. He was on parole until 2017, Corbett said. Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz. He had two aliases. Torres had identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. He had three aliases. State and federal authorities are investigating whether the two men, who lived in southwest Houston, were involved in the crime ring, Corbett said. Police found almost $2,000 in cash in a white bag the men allegedly took from the home in the 7400 block of Timberline before Horn shot them. Investigators also are trying to determine whether the men knew about the home or family before burglarizing it. "I don't believe the victim was a random choice ... but there's no evidence of a relationship either," between the homeowners and suspects, Corbett said. Horn told the operator that he did not know his neighbors well. Neighbors said the family moved into the home next to Horn's house about four months ago. "I can't comment," a woman at the home said over the phone Thursday night. A source told police that Ortiz and Torres burglarized the home, in part, because the homeowners were immigrants. "They targeted foreign-born people," Corbett said. "They felt they were easier victims." Little is known about the homeowners, who have Vietnamese surnames. Neighbors said they own a small business near their Village Grove East subdivision. Records filed with the Office of the Secretary of State of Texas show that the family owns a dry cleaning business on Fairmont Parkway. Horn has received an outpouring of support from some neighbors, friends and strangers, but the incident also has outraged activists and other neighbors. Activists and Horn supporters clashed Sunday when they staged dueling protests outside his home. The homeowners association is trying to prevent more protests from being held in the subdivision.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 3009
Posted on Fri, Dec 07, 2007 00:57

Re: (o: infidelpig write: Wow, you started an impassioned debate with this one! I caught the police dispatch recording on the television and, keeping in mind that I have a totally sick sense of humor, it really ticked me. In a perfect world, we'd reimburse Joe's ammunition expenditure and send him on his way. On the damn "honestly and sincerely" side, yeah, he basically killed them both in cold blood. That was not self defense. Makes me think again about getting those bean bag or rubber bullet shells for my 12 gauge. I live in Colorado, where we have what is known as the "make my day" law. If you shoot someone who breaks into your home, it's pretty much assumed self defense as the act of violating that physical boundary indicates probable hostile intent. You can't go and shoot someone dead in your next door neighbors yard though, even if you do see them removing said neighbors property in broad daylight. But, I'll bet it would be acceptable to knock them down a couple times with a rubber bullet or bean bag load to subdue them until the cops arrived. The problem here was the use of deadly force instead of subduing force. overkill - pardon the pun. Joe should have tazed them instead! At the end of the day, as morally reprehensible as I know my opinion honestly is; I really have zero sympathy for a couple of criminals who were criminally gunned down by a criminal neighbor acting in a criminal manner while they were criminally engaged in the process of a criminal act. Have I mentioned that there were criminals involved? It's one of those rare examples of perfect, naturally measured, zero sum justice that we like to call "poetic." Kind of like the forcible sodomy of a pedophile on his first day in prison. It's just too bad that we don't have some legal vehicle to allow for it.



0 up Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 3009
Posted on Thu, Dec 06, 2007 06:14

Re: Pleadin' da 5th. Ain't sayin' nuttin' deepinthesticks write: I chose the word disingenuous on purpose because it EXACTLY describes the innacurate & misleading nature of your flimsy claims that you have been persecuted and attacked for me=rely stating your opinion on recent blogs. You're trying to claim victim status, when you're the one who started the attacking. Equally false is your assertion that I've gone from blog to blog attacking you. The truth is when I responded in kind to you on this blog, you proceeded to come after me on other blogs. Once you did, I responded in kind there as well. Now you claim to want the back & forth between us to stop. Suits me, and it's easy enough to accomplish: If you don't want any conflict with me - don't start any and there won't be any. I'm about as easygoing a person as you'll ever come across. If you can't get along with me, you pretty well just can't get along.



0 up Bookmark and Share
Junie2006
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 2379
Posted on Thu, Dec 06, 2007 04:21

Re: JerseyAngel write: This is what is so great about our country. We can have an opinion and express it. However, we should not be given crap because another person does not "agree" with our "opinion". We should be able to express how we feel without being put down for it. Personally, I would not have let them leave either. I have gone after people when they stole my son's bike. If I found them, I probably would have run them over with my car. Ooops officer, my foot slipped off the brake!!

I don't think the uprise in daily scenes of vile cat and spat fights in reality and on tv is what people emant when they advocated free speech. Can't be prou dof anything that is so ugly. the founding fathers made it clear that Liberty was not License. Personal thoughts and feelings is not intelligence we were meant for better things but got lost upon the way. There is a sentence in one of my books. BEING YOURSELF IS THE WORSE POSSIBLE ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE SOME PEOPLE. At one time man knew he was faulty and looked for aomething better, now every vile feeling and thought anger and anxiety, bitterness and resentment is treated as if it is TRUE. We are supposed to rise above such things and think of the greater picture. I hate individual spitting spats makes me feel like I'm in a cheap gutter soap opera.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 10
Posted on Thu, Dec 06, 2007 03:52

Wow, you started an impassioned debate with this one! I caught the police dispatch recording on the television and, keeping in mind that I have a totally sick sense of humor, it really ticked me. In a perfect world, we'd reimburse Joe's ammunition expenditure and send him on his way. On the damn "honestly and sincerely" side, yeah, he basically killed them both in cold blood. That was not self defense. Makes me think again about getting those bean bag or rubber bullet shells for my 12 gauge. I live in Colorado, where we have what is known as the "make my day" law. If you shoot someone who breaks into your home, it's pretty much assumed self defense as the act of violating that physical boundary indicates probable hostile intent. You can't go and shoot someone dead in your next door neighbors yard though, even if you do see them removing said neighbors property in broad daylight. But, I'll bet it would be acceptable to knock them down a couple times with a rubber bullet or bean bag load to subdue them until the cops arrived. The problem here was the use of deadly force instead of subduing force. overkill - pardon the pun. Joe should have tazed them instead! At the end of the day, as morally reprehensible as I know my opinion honestly is; I really have zero sympathy for a couple of criminals who were criminally gunned down by a criminal neighbor acting in a criminal manner while they were criminally engaged in the process of a criminal act. Have I mentioned that there were criminals involved? It's one of those rare examples of perfect, naturally measured, zero sum justice that we like to call "poetic." Kind of like the forcible sodomy of a pedophile on his first day in prison. It's just too bad that we don't have some legal vehicle to allow for it.

Available only
to logged in members

0 up Bookmark and Share
JerseyAngel
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 706
Posted on Wed, Dec 05, 2007 15:18

This is what is so great about our country. We can have an opinion and express it. However, we should not be given crap because another person does not "agree" with our "opinion". We should be able to express how we feel without being put down for it. Personally, I would not have let them leave either. I have gone after people when they stole my son's bike. If I found them, I probably would have run them over with my car. Ooops officer, my foot slipped off the brake!!


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
deepinthesticks
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 222
Posted on Wed, Dec 05, 2007 11:44

I chose the word disingenuous on purpose because it EXACTLY describes the innacurate & misleading nature of your flimsy claims that you have been persecuted and attacked for merely stating your opinion on recent blogs. You're trying to claim victim status, when you're the one who started the attacking. Equally false is your assertion that I've gone from blog to blog attacking you. The truth is when I responded in kind to you on this blog, you proceeded to come after me on other blogs. Once you did, I responded in kind there as well. Now you claim to want the back & forth between us to stop. Suits me, and it's easy enough to accomplish: If you don't want any conflict with me - don't start any and there won't be any. I'm about as easygoing a person as you'll ever come across. If you can't get along with me, you pretty well just can't get along.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 3009
Posted on Wed, Dec 05, 2007 01:17

Disingenuous: Not straight forward or candid; insincere or calculating. I disagree with your choice of that word to describe my comment. So,now what? Are you gonna go looking for me or on every blog or comment I post on,so that you can pick apart and dissect everything I say? You continue to pursue me to "slam" me relentlessly. Rather obsessive isn't it? Nancy made her comment to me and challenged me by saying "What if it was my family" and she wrote it sarcastically. Then you came along and did your pick apart and dissecting... line by line of my comment, and,yes,it was belittling and attacking. BOTH of you ripped apart my comments and most definitely made it look like I was totally in the wrong for my beliefs. The comments are still here. They speak for themselves. There isn't a need to keep raising up the issues over and over again in an attempt to persecute me. Back off,chill out, and leave me alone. I am not going back and forth to your blogs to attack you. I said I wasn't going to post anymore on your blog,and I haven't since then. You won't let it rest. You keep trying to provoke me to fight. So,what, are you trying to get me to say things in anger to you so that you can keep using it against me? I won't give you that satisfaction.


0 up Bookmark and Share
Flame2000
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 538
Posted on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 20:20

It certainly wasn't my intention to see that happen! I was thinking, as we all seem to be a bunch of misfits..Different opinions would be tolerated here....lol


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
deepinthesticks
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 222
Posted on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 15:16

NightNurse write: ...All I know is that I will never be the first person to reply/comment on any blog again. I made a comment to Flame. I was aked why I felt that way by Flame. Then,I told her why I felt that way. Then, all hell broke loose and I got slammed from every direction because of "my personal opinion" My opinion became WRONG, and everyone else was right. Lesson learned: Never be the first person to reply/comment to a blog. It opens ya up to be shark bait.

That's a pretty disingenuous account of what happened. I disagreed with your opinion, said so, and stated mine - without belittling or attacking you. YOU were the one who came after me, and then HDCouple, for daring to state an opinion differing from yours. You are the one who instigated the personal attacks on this blog. To the extent you "got slammed" it was not for offering your opinion, and it was certainly not for being the first to do so. You were "slammed" (your words - and not a fair characterization of what was actually written) for belittling and verbally abusing others for offering theirs.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 3009
Posted on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 14:00

Re: Hi maneater, I respect what you're saying,and I thank you sincerely for you're understanding my point of view. All I know is that I will never be the first person to reply/comment on any blog again. I made a comment to Flame. I was aked why I felt that way by Flame. Then,I told her why I felt that way. Then, all hell broke loose and I got slammed from every direction because of "my personal opinion" My opinion became WRONG, and everyone else was right. Lesson learned: Never be the first person to reply/comment to a blog. It opens ya up to be shark bait. (see original comments below) Re: It was pre-meditated and with malice. They were no threat to him. He was in no immediate danger. They were not on his property. As per the article,they were doing a B&E on someone else's property,and they were not threatening or harming another human being on that property.He has no right to take the law into his own hands,and he has no God given right to take the life/lives of another human being. I can understand his vigilante efforts if the men were comitting murder,mayhem,and havoc which could have provoked his intervention with a split second decision,but they weren't. It was B&E. I rest my case. hehe! Flame2000 write: Re:NN..Thanks for your honest reaction! Why do you see it that way? NightNurse write: Not a hero. He's a cold blooded murderer. maneater write: Okay.....whispering here....the old man did tell them to stop or he would shoot. NN...us Texans...well we have a differant way of thinking....once you are a home owner/renter/homesteading...you(Texans) have the right to protect your property. I personally would feel safer knowing that my neighbor was watching my back....but on the other hand I understand your view...Judge, jury...die? Unfortunately (or fortunately) in Texas...that is how we play. And we can still hang cattle rustlers...if we chose....we're just country folk!! (Using my Texas drawl here) But we don't marry our cousins!!



0 up Bookmark and Share
irishpatti
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 2440
Posted on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 12:32

Re: LOL at the cousins Manny! maneater write: Okay.....whispering here....the old man did tell them to stop or he would shoot. NN...us Texans...well we have a differant way of thinking....once you are a home owner/renter/homesteading...you(Texans) have the right to protect your property. I personally would feel safer knowing that my neighbor was watching my back....but on the other hand I understand your view...Judge, jury...die? Unfortunately (or fortunately) in Texas...that is how we play. And we can still hang cattle rustlers...if we chose....we're just country folk!! (Using my Texas drawl here) But we don't marry our cousins!!



Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
habchick
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 145
Posted on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 10:24

Wow, this is a good one. Being from and living in Canada, I find gun laws in the US interesting. Ours have to be registered. Ya, right - just look at Toronto and Vancouver to see that they ain't all clean. Kids are getting shot left and right for wearing the wrong gang colours. Our "more peaceful nation" isn't that much more peaceful, we just have less population. Having said that, I am mixed on this one. I have a neighbour who hunts twice a year (legally) and has quite the firearm collection. I asked his opinion on this and his response was "you, young lady, live alone and have two beautiful young daughters coming and going. If I saw someone coming out of your house with your property and your dog wasn't barking, he's a dead man". Keep in mind, this fella has really become protective of me and my girls - he thinks he's my dad I guess. I guess my point is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Could I pull the trigger? Probably not. If my daughters were being threatened, ABSOLUTELY. But it's nice to know that someone's got my back should the need arise (and I hope to God it never does). I had an incident when I was younger and pregnant with my first daughter. It was early in my pregnancy, and I wasn't showing yet. Just leaving work to get into my car. The guy wouldn't leave me alone, and was being really rude, obnoxious, and acting crazy. Needless to say I was scared shitless, he was between me and my car and wouldn't let me past him, only because I wouldn't give him my phone number. Three guys came out of the coffee shop - yes coffee shop, not a bar - and one of them beat him to a pulp while the other two kept watch. To this day I don't know how the creep is because he was in bad shape that night, but I keep in touch with those three guys that took matters into their own hands. And yes, we were a block from the clubhouse. The dumbass. Is there any difference between the neighbour in TX shooting these guys and the three guys wearing colours coming out of that coffee place and making sure I got home safely? Only one of them knew me, and just briefly. The other two didn't know me from Eve but what they saw was a small woman being threatened by a very big jackass and they took matters into their own hands. For that, I will always be grateful to them. Who knows what the cukoo would have done??? They weren't protecting their property - I have never worn a property patch in my life. But I still believe they were doing the right thing. I don't know if any of this makes sense or if I am coming across in an assbackwards way. I would like to know the outcome of this story, and if the thiefs were actually approaching the old man. Because if that's the case it's obviously self-defense. If they were shot in the back, well, maybe different. Just my long-winded two cents worth.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Flame2000
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 538
Posted on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 06:43

I'd be really up set,if my neighbor died protecting my worthless junk...LOL!


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
spiritvtwin
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 68
Posted on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 00:37

"Property's not worth killing someone over." thats crap and the reason there is so much crime,, Somebody tries to steal my Harley or even Cruisin's Honda, LOL they are risking there life.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
cruisineasy1
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 718
Posted on Mon, Dec 03, 2007 23:21

Re: Good points. Thanks for putting this up here. deepinthesticks write: From NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS web site: Adverse Results are Rare. Despite stories of gun owners who mistake family members for intruders and shoot them, and of criminals harming victims with the victims' guns, the fact is that defending oneself with a firearm generally is safer than the alternatives. The accidental shooting of an innocent person mistaken for an intruder occurs in fewer than 30 fatal firearm incidents a year, about 2 percent of all fatal firearms incidents. At a maximum, criminals take a gun away from armed victims only 1 percent of the time (while 10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns). A nationwide comparative study conducted by Don B. Kates, Jr., at the St. Louis University School of Law found that armed citizens were quite responsible in using handguns. The vast majority of people are not violent and use firearms only as a last resort. When they do use them, firearms can be effective. As noted above, private citizens kill about three times as many criminals as do law enforcement officials. And although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals.



Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
deepinthesticks
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 222
Posted on Mon, Dec 03, 2007 22:36

From NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS web site: Adverse Results are Rare. Despite stories of gun owners who mistake family members for intruders and shoot them, and of criminals harming victims with the victims' guns, the fact is that defending oneself with a firearm generally is safer than the alternatives. The accidental shooting of an innocent person mistaken for an intruder occurs in fewer than 30 fatal firearm incidents a year, about 2 percent of all fatal firearms incidents. At a maximum, criminals take a gun away from armed victims only 1 percent of the time (while 10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns). A nationwide comparative study conducted by Don B. Kates, Jr., at the St. Louis University School of Law found that armed citizens were quite responsible in using handguns. The vast majority of people are not violent and use firearms only as a last resort. When they do use them, firearms can be effective. As noted above, private citizens kill about three times as many criminals as do law enforcement officials. And although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 3009
Posted on Mon, Dec 03, 2007 17:51

I wasn't going to comment again, but,I have to say this. Suppose,just suppose,it's someone who is lost or confused,or it's a mischievous kid,not meaning any harm,just doing kids stuff, that wanders on to someone's property? I won't go any further.


0 up Bookmark and Share
deepinthesticks
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 222
Posted on Mon, Dec 03, 2007 14:00

From NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS web site: International Evidence. Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased. (Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Follow - Email me when people comment