Law and Order

These two gentlemen represent opposite ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, we have a guy who broke the law to enforce it. On the other is a guy who went out of his way to make sure he had a chance to enforce property rights.

“Sergeant Bill”, on the surface, seems to have taken upon himself to kit up with a Crown Vic, play policeman, and bust a boatload of meth heads. With the willing co-operation of the town mayor, CoP, and three of the five cops employed by the town. At least 17 lawsuits (claiming millions) are in the works, the mayor is facing impeachment, and the town needs a few billets filled on the police duty roster. (No word on whether any of the folks he “arrested”, without any warrants mind you, were actually meth users, dealers, or producers.) If Billy Boy actually has cleaned out the town of it’s drug problem, I would almost say he had done a sadmirable job. But the real cops in that town, and the mayor, should all stand for bastinado.

Joe Horn, however, is just a guy protecting his neighborhood. I would have done it, too. Except i wouldn’t have called ES until after the echoes from the gunfire had died off. Some criticism has come his way since he shot the career criminals in the back. Some others counter with the fact that the perps were illegal aliens committing a B&E in broad daylight so therefore didn’t have any right to keep using up our oxygen. I am not going to stick my face in that hornet’s nest, feel free to hash it out in the comments. All I know for sure is that Mr. Horn is the kind of neighbor I want on my street. Assuming he doesn’t get killed by jackasses in retribution, I’m thinking there isn’t going to be any more burglary within a mile of Joe’s house.

Share

Tags: ,

Help Support SimonJester.info!

9 Responses to “Law and Order”

  1. Joshua Says:
    July 2nd, 2008

    Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting discussion going on about “Sergeant Bill”. There were more red flags around this guy than at a May Day parade in Beijing, yet the authorities overlooked them all.

    As for Joe Horn, I suspect no jury would ever have convicted him even if he were charged. The grand jury here probably just saved Texas state taxpayers tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted trial expenses.

  2. StraightDs Says:
    July 8th, 2008

    It is wonderful to see that the great people of Texas think that shooting someone in the back is an admirable accomplishment.

    And here I always thought it was an act reserved for only the lowest of humanity.

  3. Ted Bronson Says:
    July 8th, 2008

    Gee, D, I don’t even live in Texas.

    But if I did, and a pair of felons doing a B&E in the house next door came into my yard, I would have shot them as well. The undercover cop on scene seemed to find no problems with what Horn did, and he saw the whole thing. Of course, if he had the nuts to get out of his unmarked car and do his fucking job, Horn would not have been in the position of facing two career criminals alone, in this country illegally may I add, who were trying to escape the law.

    And yes, Joe Horn was the Law. So am I. And so are you, whether you choose to uphold it or not. Your citizenship in this country, or your state, or town, means that you get to vote on what is and isn’t the law of the land. In Texas, when two felons enter your property, it can be assumed that they are there to do you harm. One felon was shot as he ran past, in the side, not the back. The other ran past, didn’t even try to help his now dead friend. However, the assumption of the law is that felon number two would have turned and rendered aid to his partner, therefore further putting Horn in danger, or at the very least could have attacked Horn from the rear. As long as those two were physically in a position to do Joe Horn harm, they were legal targets. Remember, they used a big ass crow bar to enter the house in the first place, so they were considered armed.

    I really hate that folks (who either don’t have all the facts or just don’t want to know them) feel like they get to judge that what this man did was wrong. You may not be a sixty-one year old man who was angry, scared, and felt abandoned by the police because you called 911 twenty minutes ago and the perps are getting away through your yard…but try to put yourself in his place. If you are not able to put yourself in that place, good for you. Your life has never had any adversity in it. But these two dead assholes had previously taken hostages, committed home invasions, and, again, were illegal fucking aliens. This whole thing could have been avoided if the cops had responded quicker. Or if these fuckers never got through the border. Or if they had been captured and prosecuted for any of the other NUMEROUS crimes they committed. But “if” is for children who can’t face reality.

    This was not a cold blooded shooting like when Ford stole up on James. This was not the act of a coward. This was the act of a man, who although was very scared both for himself and his neighbors, stood the fuck up and said NO! THE LINE IS HERE! A coward feels fear and lets it force him into inaction. A hero feels the fear, but does something about it.

    So which one do you want to grow up to be, D?

  4. MadRocketScientist Says:
    July 8th, 2008

    Ted’s right, it’s not like Joe snuck up on them as they were walking down the street away from their crime. They ran into Joe’s yard and at him, knowing he was armed (scatter guns ain’t exactly easy to conceal on your person). As long as they are on his property, his right to employ deadly force is in play, and Texas Castle Doctrine appears to be a bit more open than most places, so he may have had the right to do more than I would have been able to do here in WA.

  5. StraightDs Says:
    July 8th, 2008

    Ted:

    Your long diatribe adds up to a lot of nothing.

    Were these two criminals low-life scum? YES
    Should they be locked up or deported or deported AND locked up? YES

    Do they deserve to be shot dead in broad-daylight? Not in my opinion.

    Let’s put it this way.
    IF these men were arrested would a jury of their peers give them the DEATH SENTENCE based on the laws of our country and of Texas? Answer: No. Because that is not the punishment for a B&E.

    Then why on earth does Joe Shotgun get to decide that Yes, in fact the penalty is death?

    I’m not trying to say people should have the right to protect themselves. Hell, I even like the basic idea of the Castle Law. I have a feeling if some low-life crept into my home here in Cali and I unloaded on them with my 30-30 I would have some answering to do – and that would piss me off plenty. But this guy felt he needed to go outside even after being told not to. If he was in any danger it is because he put himself in danger. Of course some will say, That is his RIGHT, by golly. Its his front yard!

    If you see a race riot going on in the street in front of your house does it make sense to step out on your lawn? It may be your RIGHT to do so – but you would be an idiot to do so. Your right about one thing, he was obviously angry and frustrated because the cops had not shown up in time. Perhaps not the best time to be grabbing a shot gun and playing king of the hill.

    I live in a pretty sketchy part of San Diego. Punk teenager (and younger) Mexican gang bangers killing each other right and left. I have had my Jeep broken into four times. I have been confronted face to face with plenty of adversary chap. Sometimes I wished I had my gun with me, but somehow I survived just fine, and I certainly do not want to kill someone for stealing. Now, if someone happens to slip and fall while stealing, well that’s their own dumb fault and I would probably laugh my ass off.

    It turned out that these guys were all the bad things your mommy scared you about as a little kid. But all he knew is that they were breaking and entering. Hell, I did that as a kid at my friends house to joke around and mess with him (taking his star wars figures, then giving them back later). And he did it to me as well. Good thing Joe Shotgun didn’t live in my neighborhood.

    So, long story short. I wouldnt kill someone for a B&E.
    You would. Congratulations have a cookie.

  6. Ted Bronson Says:
    July 8th, 2008

    D, so what you are saying is that you are a thief? I guess you would take the wrong side here…

    As for my mother: she shot two guys breaking into our house when I was one year old. Dead. For B&E. And my dad was a cop at the time. They were breaking in specifically because they knew he was a cop.

    Maybe that gives me a different slant on things. Or just maybe that gives me the idea that sneak thieves are dangerous predators and parasites who care nothing about the rules of society.

    My only objection to your comment is that you had the balls to call this man the lowest of humanity instead of merely saying that, in your opinion, he was wrong. You may not judge a man whom has been cleared of wrongdoing by his community while visiting my house. Argue, cajole, even whine if you think you have to. But do not slur this man’s integrity or honor, especially if you are not going to stick to the facts of the case to intentionally make it seem like a cowardly act. You, sir, are noise in the signal.

    It matters not one whit that YOU live in a sketchy part of San Diego. Or that I live in Florida. Florida Castle Doctrine states that I can’t shoot an intruder if they are “fleeing” but gives wide latitude as to what that word actually means. In The Republic, the law is different. The situation is different. The crime rates are different. And sure s hell the police responses are different. The fact of the matter is that the cop on scene could just as easily shot both these felons IN EXACTLY THE SAME FASHION and would have never seen a grand jury.

    As for your question about the death sentence being handed down for B&E: Would you kill someone to protect your car? Would you kill someone to protect your home? Your wallet? How bout protecting your vagina or anus from a rapist? How bout protecting yourself from a robber in a stop and rob who comes in with a syringe full of blood he says is infected with AIDS? Would you kill to protect yourself from getting stuck with that needle? All he wants is your money? Surely you can take his word that he will leave you unharmed afterwards because we see that all the time.

    Yes, a citizen has rights that the State does not. A citizen has a right to defend himself to any degree necessary BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE ON THE SCENE WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. So yes, B&E gets the death penalty; not from the State, but from the citizen who is in danger from the thief.

    I say we all pitch in and get two bronze heads to put up on pikes on Joe’s street as a reminder to the lazy, parasitic, stupid, felonious dregs of humanity that citizens still have the right to protect themselves from felons, and to use guns to do it.

    If you don’t like my house, feel free to not bother with a reply. The voice of a confessed thief isn’t anything I care to hear, but others might. Keep to the facts, do not slur, and remember that Joe Horn is a free man today because he did nothing illegal.

  7. MadRocketScientist Says:
    July 9th, 2008

    StraightDs:

    One of the points we try to make here is that EVERYONE has a responsibility to oppose crime. We pay the police to patrol for it, and to respond to reports of it, and to investigate it, but we all have a responsibility to oppose it to whatever degree we are comfortable doing.

    Sure, Joe could have stayed inside on the phone to 911, but by arming himself and letting the crooks know he was there and watching them, then they know they are not getting away free and clear. If the thieves had just run away from Joe, and he still shot them, I’d say he was wrong. But no, they ran at him, while armed with a crowbar, which changed the game completely. They had the choice to run away from Joe, they didn’t.

    If I saw my neighbor getting robbed, I would arm myself and step out into my yard, and make sure they knew I was there and watching them, so when the police arrived, I’d be able to give out good descriptions. I might even attempt a citizens arrest (which is still legal everywhere as far as I know). And if they came at me, instead of fleeing quickly, I would shoot them.

  8. StraightDs Says:
    July 9th, 2008

    HOLY COW TED!

    I am going to assume you are not really that thick and are just acting the part.

    First: for the record, I was not necessarily calling this guy “the lowest of humanity” What I said back up there ^^^^ is that I THOUGHT shooting someone in the back is an act RESERVED for the lowest of humanity. In other words. Dont be too proud about your acts if they are similar to those we most despise.

    Second: A “confessed thief?” Clearly you are not listening to what I was saying. I will try to type slow. The effect may be lost on you, but believe me, I am getting chuckles out of it.

    As a child I would break into my FRIENDS house and take some action figures to fuck with him. Then GIVE THEM BACK later. (Like I clearly stated). He would do the same to me. Kids will be kids. Our parents knew we messed with each other. The point was to illustrate that someone “breaking in” to someone else’s house does not always mean the person is some hardened criminal. You of course, probably know this and was just trying for a lame redirect.

    Just so you know the term “Breaking and Entering” does not imply anything was actually broken. If you simply open the front door and walk in uninvited it is called a B&E – at least in California.

    And YES, I certainly DO have the right to voice my opinion on some blog that apparently hardly anyone ever responds to about what I think is right and wrong. If you or the mods want to bump me – be my guest, I will certainly not lose any sleep over it. I dont care what the “law” is in a different place, I can certainly disagree with it all I like. All sorts of “laws” are stupid. That does not make them right. Glad to see you will goose-step to whatever the powers that be say but I am not that type of guy.

    Tell me this. Do you agree with “honor killing” of woman by their fathers in foreign countries because they dont want to marry some dude they dont know? What about setting them on fire? Hey man – its their LAW, so you better not say anything about it but agree, right? According to your thinking apparently so.

    Would I kill someone for stealing my car? No. Would I kill someone for stealing my TV? No. Would I kill someone who was threatening my family or myself and I had no idea what their intentions? Yes, if I HAD to. None of those situations fit what Joe Shotgun did. He disobeyed what the 9-1-1 operator said and took things into his own hands. Everything I have read and heard – including the full audio of the 9-1-1 call does not portray this man ever as being scared or in danger for his life. Rather a man disregarding what he was being asked to do and doing what he wanted.

    “‘Im going outside, then I’ll find out,” Mr. Horn said.

    “No, I don’t want you going outside,” the operator said.

    “Well, here it goes, buddy,” Mr. Horn replied.

    Seconds later, Mr. Horn can be heard saying, “Move, you’re dead,” followed by two shots and then a third.

    All is well because he killed some really bad guys, but lets not be too quick to paint this dude as an example of a neighborhood hero. I may like the idea of the Castle Law, but I think he used it in a terrible fashion. That is pretty much the long and short of it.

    It is clear that we will just go back and forth on this. I think he showed very poor judgement, you think he’s the cat’s meow.

    You go ahead and have the last word. I have a feeling this is going to turn into Chocolate vs Vanilla, and there is no arguing that.

    P.S. MadScientist: I see what you are saying and I don’t disagree. I simply feel this guy chose extremely poor judgement. In this particular case “The end justified the means” but it will not always be so. Thank you for your response.

  9. Hazel Stone Says:
    July 9th, 2008

    @StraightDs: It matters not what you say at this point. You’ve decided to be rude and personally insulting in a simple difference of opinion, and that moves you straight to non-entity status. Maybe next time you argue with someone you can remain civil.

Support Us

Donate Through Paypal
Buy From Amazon

Display It

Link to SimonJester.info
(right click - save as)

Wear It

Misbehave in style, and get your own Simon Jester gear for Tea Parties or other event:
I Aim to Misbehave

Show Us

Email us your pictures of Simon Jester's appearances at Tea Parties, town hall meetings, wherever he pops up.

Gallery

DSC_0032.jpg                n674518740_1662492_3029190.jpg DSC_0103.jpg DSC_0111.jpg DSC_0020.jpg DSC_0112.jpg DSC_0054.jpg DSC_0102.jpg DSC_0024.jpg DSC_0023.jpg DSC_0026.jpg

Recent Comments



Subscribe via RSS