Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Joe Horn: Hero

As anyone who lives on the north side of Minneapolis knows, crime is basically legal here. Mayor RT Rybak is more interested in encouraging citizens not to drink bottled water and sucking up to Barack Obama than he is in fighting crime. The wait for a police officer in emergency situations can extend beyond 20 minutes. The solution? Neighbors like Joe Horn.

Long story short, two drug dealing illegal immigrants broke into Horn's neighbors home in Texas. On their way out, they met Horn, vis a vis Horn's shotgun, which dispensed a Texas salute upon their persons. Now, they are no more. Good for Joe Horn, right? Not according to CNN's lefty spiritual columnist (and uninteresting dolt generally) Roland Martin.

According to Martin, Horn "chose to be judge, jury and executioner of the two."

Of course, no judge, jury or executioner is under immediate threat of having their houses ransacked by drug-addled degenerates. This fact changes the paradigm somewhat, no?

Apparently not. Martin elaborates. "...I just don't see exactly what there is to celebrate. Two men -- both illegal immigrants and one of them with a conviction for selling drugs -- are dead for stealing some personal effects, and we are supposed to welcome this vigilante justice? "

Do you consider this a rhetorical question, Roland? Of course, we would have greater cause to celebrate had these men never chosen to break into our country, peddle drugs, and break into law-abiding citizens' homes in the first place. If wishes were horses...

By the way, Martin's charge of that Joe Horn is a vigilante charge is libelous. A vigilante is one who has acted outside of due process of the law. Joe Horn had any charges against him by a grand jury, which makes him innocent. Tsk-tsk all you like, but you better hope Mr. Horn isn't litigious in addition to being trigger-happy.

But Martin isn't finished. In a parenthetical (btw, I neglected to mention hiding incendiary charges behind parentheticals and scare quotes in last week's debate tactics post) Martin asserts that "...it's ironic that one week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rape of a child doesn't merit the death penalty... many others are celebrating a man not standing trial for the killing of two others who committed robbery."

Why is this ironic? Joe Horn was acting in self-defense, not enacting the death penalty. Is Martin trying to suggest that America is less concerned about child rape than it is about robbery? Does he think Joe Horn agrees with the court's decision on this one? What is the point?

Martin asserts that "At no point was Horn's life in danger." Is Martin so unfamiliar with home burglary that he is unaware that robbers frequently come back to the same homes and neighborhoods? Jamis Marks' neighbors were broken into weeks before thugs broke into his home. But apparently, Joe Horn had some unspoken moral obligation to roll the dice with two men who very clearly have no respect whatsoever for the law. He should have " left apprehending criminals to the folks empowered to do so -- the police."

Since Roland Martin enjoys Supreme Court related irony so much, I'm tempted to note that he offers this particular snippet immediately after the same Supreme Court affirmed the right of citizens to own arms in order to protect a free state. Joe Horn WAS empowered to do precicely what he did.

Yes, the lives of those two men will weigh on his conscience. That is the price he has to pay for the continued safety and well being of his neighbors. Instead of heaping acrimony upon Joe Horn for exercizing his legal rights, perhaps Martin could show some compassion to a retired engineer who is, by all accounts a peaceful man.

Incidentally, the man who bought the home formerly owned by Jamis Marks is from Texas. I'll tell you this much. I'd rather have him for a neighbor than Roland Martin.

Labels: , , ,

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why can't people just shoot bad guys in the leg or foot? I'm not against shooting somebody who is robbing you or who presents an iminent danger to your well being but shooting to kill is hardly neccesary... right?

11:56 AM  
Blogger Ted said...

I think the most important thing to take away from this is that robbing Roland Martin's house is a completely safe activity in which reprocussions are pretty much unlikely. So criminals from all walks of life can start their crusade to the Mecca of theivery. Hate to be that dudes neighbor right now.

And just so you know when those two fellas decided to step outside the law they left the protection of the law and returned to survival of the fittest. They were found wanting.

12:10 PM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

Anonymous,

What if they are armed? What if they come back and decided to take revenge for their busted foot? Those men would have gotten 30 days in prison followed by deporation, which could put them right back in the same neighorhood inside of six weeks.

Again, you are asking a law abiding person to take a risk on behalf of a miscreant.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Guy Incognito said...

Plus, Anonymous, if that is your real name, shooting someone in the foot is a lot harder than in the torso. Not everyone is an expert marksman. It is a safer bet to aim for the torso. Cops don't aim for feet.

And, wasn't Joe Horn using a shotgun? Shotguns aren't the most precise weapon on earth.

12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also if their not dead they can sue you. It will happen.

12:58 PM  
Blogger Laura said...

This is the kind of thing where I don't think he should have done what he did, but I also think the perps got exactly what they deserved.

And if I made up my mind to shoot someone, I'd shoot to kill. You never know if they scumbag's got a gun he could retaliate with after you've winged his leg.

4:09 PM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

"Also if their not dead they can sue you. It will happen."

I dunno that juries in Texas would be as sympathetic as they might be in Minneapolis.

Minneapolis is a pretty well-known haven for race lawsuits. I mean, could you imagine having to face a jury of six that featured a hispanic, a Calhoun liberal, a level 3 sex offender, two college kids and a Seward neighborhood freak?

You'd be out ten million.

4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if they were space aliens? (In response to what if they were armed).

They weren't... they were unarmed and gunned down over property (wow a lousy VCR or TV) not even given a chance to surrender or made to realize they should change their ways.

It is so funny when republicans who claim to be "pro-life" say that it is OK to gun down someone over a lousy VCR. No one was in the house... Joe Horn was not in danger and was in his house on the phone with the police. He should of followed their orders...

Even the police were smart enough to know that taking a life just isn't worth it for property.

Property can be replaced... that's what insurance is for... and you may get a better DVD/VCR player for your trouble.


Geez...

7:25 PM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

"What if they were space aliens? (In response to what if they were armed)."

This is a non-argument. Cute, though.

"They weren't... they were unarmed and gunned down over property (wow a lousy VCR or TV) not even given a chance to surrender or made to realize they should change their ways."

One had been convicted of dealing drugs, and the other was friend of same. They had a chance to change their ways and refused it.

"It is so funny when republicans who claim to be "pro-life" say that it is OK to gun down someone over a lousy VCR."

Pro-life is shorthand for opposing legal abortion, just as the term pro-choice regers to advocating legal abortion. Any other use of the term is disingenuous. If you say that a man cannot rape a woman, is it legitimate for me to make a snarky comment about your "pro-choice" stance? Of course not.

"No one was in the house..."

And how would he know that? Are we expected, under the law or some vague legal code, to pretend knowledge we do not have?

"Joe Horn was not in danger and was in his house on the phone with the police. He should of followed their orders..."

A 911 dispatcher is now authorized to give orders? You are inventing laws on the fly.

"Even the police were smart enough to know that taking a life just isn't worth it for property."

What have the police said about this incident? I have not seen commentary from the police department specific to this case.

"Property can be replaced..."

Peace of mind cannot.

"and you may get a better DVD/VCR player for your trouble."

My friends got better electronics for their trouble. Several weeks later, their neighbor was shot to death. I wonder if they'd take backzeez on that one.

Incidentally, since you are an insurance professional, you might be interested to note that one burglary usually begets multiple burglaries. Most homeowners' insurance policies have a deductible of about a grand, which means they are out that amount each and every time a burglar decides to re-enter.

And if you are going to argue that burglars do not re-enter, I will warn you right now that you are walking into a minefield.

"Geez..."

Wait until your home is robbed. I'll show you geez.

12:55 AM  
Anonymous Ryan Pickett said...

"It is so funny when republicans who claim to be "pro-life" say that it is OK to gun down someone over a lousy VCR."

It's funny when anyone who is brave enough to publicly rip on a group of people (pro-lifers for example) aren't brave enough to actually use their name.

Mostly though, I take issue with this comment:

"Even the police were smart enough to know that taking a life just isn't worth it for property."

Excuse me. EVEN the police were SMART enough? So you are presuming that police officers are unintelligent? Pompous liberal jerk.

8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No one was in the house"

Read the story... he knew his neighbors were away. I see reading comprehension is not a strong point of the group of folks here.

"Pro-life"... it's completely logical and reasonable to use this argument. Pro-lifers claim that life is so valuable that it always should be born but thats all you care about... you wouldn't care if that life had enough to eat or if it spent the next 20 years scrounging in garbage dumps for food scraps.

The name is Patrick btw... I used anonymous because it was convenient no other reason.

"police officers are unintelligent" - If shoe fits... wear it. Considering how rude they've been I will base my opinion on personal experience.

9:02 AM  
Anonymous Ryan Pickett said...

Unintelligent and rude are not the same thing. I don't assume you are unintelligent because of your comments on this blog.
Your confusing the two words makes me wonder though...

Also the fact that you see typing your name as inconvenient...

9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your confusing the two"

I was merely making an observation that intelligent people are usually not so rude.

For example... would you be happy if you were pulled over for "passing a police officer" when there is no such violation/offense in the state law books?

10:36 AM  
Anonymous Thom said...

"Joe Horn was acting in self-defense"

I might quible with this...but then if a neighbor shot a guy trying to steal my Wii, I might feel differently.

10:53 AM  
Anonymous Ryan Pickett said...

That's an observation that you are inventing though. I know plenty of intelligent people who are extremely rude. Often because they become full of themselves and think they are smarter than everyone else.

I can't figure out what your example has to do with being rude or unintelligent.

By the way, did you pass the officer while exceeding the speed limit?

10:59 AM  
Blogger Ted said...

The reason the pro-life and death penalty arguement doesn't work is because the unborn human doesn't have a choice. The person who willingly breaks the law however is completely complicate in the action. The child in the womb however is not. They have done nothing. The other has worked to earn whatever punishment they face.

11:08 AM  
Blogger Ted said...

Also perhaps police officers are so rude because they go to the trouble of arresting criminals, only to have to arrest them again and again and again and again and I think you get the point. It has to be pretty frustrating.

11:09 AM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

"The name is Patrick btw..."

Hi Patrick.

"Read the story... he knew his neighbors were away. I see reading comprehension is not a strong point of the group of folks here."

I read the following.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5866865.html

Here is an excerpt:

"He said he began to feel scared. He didn't know who the men were, nor if his neighbors were home and were in danger. Was his home the next target?"

If you read otherwise, go ahead and provide a link. I don't see why my reading comprehension should be called into question on account of inaccurate reporting.

"Pro-lifers claim that life is so valuable that it always should be born"

Well, THIS pro-lifer simply argues for equal protection under the law in accordance with the Constitution. Most pro-lifers I know would make a stipulation in the law if the life of the mother is at risk.

"you wouldn't care if that life had enough to eat or if it spent the next 20 years scrounging in garbage dumps for food scraps."

This is not an accurate summation of what I care about.

The "policemen are dumb" argument doesn't interest me.

11:50 AM  
Anonymous Todd Branch said...

I left that first comment. My name isn't annonymous. I usually don't see a ton of conversation here so I just hit the annon button before.

I'm just thinking that if I were in that situation (and I could be... I own a shotgun) I can't see how I could just walk up to people and blow them away.

95% of the time you could just pop a shot off in the air and the baddies would poop their pants and run for it. They wouldn't come back. If you are worried about the other 5% of the time then aim at their feet. Now we're up to 99% trouser defecation. If you are worried about the other 1% of the time then play it safe, and call the cops.

I just can't see how someones first reaction to a situation is kill, kill, kill.

I think Joe Horn was just a pissed off dude who finally found a excuse to kill some of the muthafuckas who represent his problems and let rage fly.

8:35 AM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

Anonymous comments are allowed (I would forbid them if they were not).

Joe Horn's first reaction was to call the cops, which was fruitless. Having lived in tougher neighborhoods for the last several years, I always end my 911 calls by stating that I am going to confront the thief. Otherwise, they won't even bother coming.

His second reaction was to ask the men to freeze. Had they done so, they would be alive. They didn't, so they are not, because his third reaction, when they did not do so (and one approached him on his own property) was to kill them.

Where does your 95% statistic come from? These men were part of a Colombian crime ring. I doubt very much that they would have been scared by shots fired in the air.

Even if they do disperse, what is to prevent them from taking revenge on the guy by coming back and robbing his house? Again, why should law-abiding citizens have to spin the wheel with their own lives just so criminals are free to move about in an effort to escape accountability for their crimes?

One final note. These particular, um, muthafuckas did not represent a problem. They were a literal manifestation of his problem. It's not like he shot the pool guy.

12:36 PM  
Anonymous todd branch said...

I found a page with the actual 911 recordings.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5866865.html

It doesn't sound like calling the cops was fruitless. They show up about 4 minutes into the call and about 30 seconds after he kills the baddies.

Not sure if being Columbian and committing a crime automatically make you part of a Columbian crime ring. Maybe you read that somewhere that I didn't.

Page 1 of the Columbian crime ring handbook should say "If you are burgling a home and someone shoots at you... don't go back".

I would think he'd merit more revenge for killing crime ring members (likely having close ties with still living members) than for scaring them off.

Joe says, "I'm gonna kill 'em" just before he leaves the safety of his house and subsequently kills 'em. That doesn't bode well.

Joe does claim that when he moved to his porch that one of the guys charged him. If this turns out to be true then I would throw my support his way... for what it's worth.

I'm not saying that what he did was wrong... I'm just saying that I would have done things differently. Our government did a pretty good job of training me to kill people and TV, movies, and video games have desensitized me to murder quite a bit but something inside me still says that deadly force shouldn't be my first action.

10:23 AM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

They were, in fact, part of a crime ring.

An investigating officer reached the same conclusion regarding whether Joe Horn was charged, and the forensic evidence (indicating a bullet entered the torso laterally, also corroborates Joe's story.

Of course, we'll never really determine whether this is true because the criminal case is closed. There will be a civil trial, featuring whatever race hound lawyers decide they want some face time. But that will obviously be a circus.

2:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home