Houstonist: Houstonist vs. Houstonist: Joe Horn

Katharine Shilcutt Gleave

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:02:45 -0600

Duly noted and corrected, bluepencil. Thanks!

bluepencil

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:54:16 -0600

It's "Colombia", not "Columbia".

JCH07

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:34:26 -0600

Joe Horn did not have to go outside his home and shoot anyone and he was not in any danger! The Harris County Grand Jury's failure to charge Mr. Horn is appalling! We all heard the tapes and we all know the facts. There are no gray areas here. The man broke the law. Period. However, perhaps would-be burglars might do well to consider finding gainful employment instead of breaking into others' homes to steal. The price just might be too high.

RCAuclair

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:00:18 -0600

I'm getting tired of all the editorials I'm reading on this issue putting the knock on Texans. There are 28 million Texans, and we don't all think alike, but most of us think. As I see it, the facts are quite clear. Joe Horn shot two criminals in the act of robbing his neighbor of property of considerable worth, and only after he'd alerted the police and the criminals themselves of the consequences if this crime weren't otherwise halted. Horn is a 61-year-old retiree and the two criminals in question were in their thirties. Horn was clearly unable to physically prevent this crime without his weapon. Horn's only alternative to using his weapon was to permit the crime to occur, which Horn's conscience would not permit. I'm highly insulted by the insinuation that peace, ethics and morality are not taught in our colleges, as Dave Eberhardt of Baltimore stated in his letter to the Chronicle. Horn's defense of his neighbor's property preserved the peace. Horn was ethical enough to call the police for aid, watching the criminals about to abscond with their ill-gotten gains. He was moral enough not to allow a crime to take place that he had the means to prevent. I take exception to the implication that we're hypocrites, as implied by George Okamura of Rosemead in his letter to the Chronicle. However, as long as we're making implications, I have a couple of my own. If Horn were any color other than white, he would not be the focus of so much contraversy. If Horn were black, or another Hispanic like the men Horn faced that night, the outrage I see now would be far less, because the media show crimes involving them far less. The presumption there is that white people don't have the same right to defend their neighborhoods as other people do. And therein lies the true hypocrisy. Baltimore and Rosemead do not have the illegal alien criminals that Houston does. Their citizens have the luxury of blaming Horn and standing by criminals whom they now know they'll never have to face, because of Horn. Their semblance of morality might be sufficiently gray to presume that they know the facts of the case better than a grand jury tasked with them. I respect the grand jury, and Horn, for making the tough decisions so that others don't need to make them.

Katharine Shilcutt Gleave

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:39:52 -0600

Thanks, although I didn't write both of those arguments. It really was two Houstonist staffers. I leave it to y'all to decide which two... :)

coowen

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:31:14 -0600

Katharine--GREAT job! I'm also on the fence on the issue and depending on the day I get riled up for either of the sides.

fishing464

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:34:01 -0600

On one small technical point of the Ten Commandments. The literal sixth commandment is: "You shall not murder" (NIV) yet "You shall not kill" is (KJV), but it is widely agreed that this is in reference to murder only. There's a distinct difference in killing and murder. This is a sticky one since I did listen to the recording and he clearly says "I'm gonna kill 'em" more than once. He may have made the neighborhood safer, but I wonder what signal it sends to the already trigger happy in the larger society. I personally am a gun owner and supporter of the Second Ammendment. Owning guns to me is the same as owning health insurance. It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. And I pray I never need them...

tinyhands

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:00:51 -0600

As any police officer will tell you, killing someone is RARELY the only option, and should be the last. While legally vindicated, Horn's moral victory is not so clear. Chron.com commenters are a story unto themselves. I'm continually surprised that so many of the grossly uneducated & racist segment of our population have the means to access the internet on a regular basis.

monkypanda

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:54:04 -0600

I lean more towards Horn committed a crime, but I can see how the grand jury, especially in TX would think otherwise. I agree with Greg, the Chron commenters are the horrible side of Houston.

gregwlsn

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:31:44 -0600

>>>Using that logic it would be immoral to kill someone who was trying to kill you. Not a lot of sense there. I'm not saying I wouldn't, but that wouldn't make it any less immoral. How often is anyone *literally* in a "life or death" circumstance? Was Joe Horn? The news and blog comments (especially the Chronicle's "comments" section, which makes me want to move out of Texas) would have you think that you're more likely to get killed by a criminal than, say, lose your house or die in a car accident. This, again plays on our fears and is a victory for Mr. Horn and other white male property owners in the Pasadena area but not necessarily society.

MaryJane

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:38:36 -0600

But, based upon whose morals? The Ten Commandments include both "Thou Shalt Not Steal" and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and I've assumed that they all bear equal weight. Hammurabi called for an "eye for an eye" - so, our justice system has made progress, albeit if we started caning or hacking off the hands of thieves, perhaps we'd have fewer of them. Time incarcerated is not nearly so obvious to the general public as missing parts or scars. Quite honestly, it's up to a Grand Jury and they've done their job. It's not one I would want.

lunarducati

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:27:55 -0600

"If it’s morally wrong to kill anyone, then it’s morally wrong to kill anyone. Period." Using that logic it would be immoral to kill someone who was trying to kill you. Not a lot of sense there.

gregwlsn

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:38:11 -0600

If it’s morally wrong to kill anyone, then it’s morally wrong to kill anyone. Period.

jporter

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:54:53 -0600

For me, this is a gray enough area that I am happy to accept whatever the grand jury decided. Without knowing what all evidence was considered, I can certainly see myself being swayed either way. I'm not a big fan of guns or vigilantes or Pasadena, but I am a big believer that you forfeit most of your rights when you break into someone's house. And most of us are probably in agreement that if it's YOUR house that's been broken into, you are entitled to get medieval on the burglar's ass, if you so choose. In my mind, defending your next-door neighbor's home with deadly force could be argued to be an extension of defending your own home, i.e. you might reasonably believe that letting that crime in progress right next door go unchallenged could pose a threat to your own property. Maybe your house is next. Maybe it's on their escape route. Maybe they'll enter your home to hide out from the cops and take you and your wife, Judy Davis, hostage. On the other hand, if you're out walking your shotgun and you shoot a couple of burglars 2 blocks away from home, I'd certainly see that as a vigilante run amok. So, for me, it's a gray area, and it starts at the front door and goes maybe one or two houses in either direction.