I was going to write a diatribe about why people like to complain about the U.S. being a welfare state when they don’t even have a basic understanding of what that means, but this is much better.
As my father is fond of saying, “if you don’t start no shit, there won’t be no shit.”
A Texas man (you know it’s gonna be good) was cleared of all charges after killing two men who were allegedly burglarizing his next door neighbor. You can read the story here. I’ll give you a minute.
Notice anything funny about that story? For starters, he shot them in the back. IN THE BACK! Only in Texas would shooting someone in the back be considered self defense. What kind of coward shoots two people in the back and then claims they were trying to harm him? Next, the shooter claimed he “didn’t want to do it” immediately after telling the 911 dispatcher that he was going to shoot them. Did the judge or jury not notice the bald faced lie? The story doesn’t mention whether the burglars were armed. Based on the bullshit that already happened, I’d guess no. But if they were, was it equal force? If they had billy clubs and he shot them in the back, that meets the definition of excessive force. If we’re going to hold police accountable for excessive force, shouldn’t the public be held to the same standards? Finally, the attorney claimed the shooter was in fear for his life. Really? Because you started by being safely in your house, calling the proper authorities, and had a gun for protection in case they came into your home. There was no reasonable fear for your life until you stepped outside and started some shit. I hope you end up on the death row Texas seems so proud of for being a murderer, a douche-bag, and a big fat liar.
Let me say here I am totally fine with protecting yourself, your property, or other people. If someone broke into my house I would have no problem doing whatever is necessary to protect my family. But there is a huge difference between shooting two (possibly armed?) burglars in the back and facing someone in your own home. Once someone is running away, they are no longer a threat. I would also help my neighbors if they were in trouble, but once the culprits have left the house and are headed away, there is no immediate need to kill them.
The justice system in this country is truly fucked. It’s racist and elitist. It punishes blue collar crimes far harsher than white collar crimes. Lord knows I wouldn’t want to be anything but a white heterosexual male if I was in a courtroom. Don’t get me wrong…I think we have a great system in place and I would trust our system before many others. But there are far too many inequalities and all-out failures for us to begin trumpeting it as a “justice” system. Law, the judiciary, and justice are three separate things that are very difficult to bring together. Based on this horrific screw-up, it’s at least time to review our idea of justice and its practice in law. This was justice for gun-toting, trouble-starting white people. There was no justice for the victims or their families.
6 comments:
Joe Horn is a hero. He obeyed the law. If you don't want folks shooting thieves, then move to Chicago where you can't have a gun in your home. You can just stand by while the intruders rape your family. One must wonder the future murders, rapes, and other crimes that were prevented by popping caps on those two thugs; additionally, his quick and brave actions probably paid back the two criminals for unmentionable crimes that they probably had never paid for. Good shooting Joe!
The issue at hand isn't whether or not he had a right to have a gun and protect his property. Not does disagreeing with Joe Horn's actions does not mean you condone the theives actions. There are three major issues with this case:
1. He disobeyed the dispatcher and left the house, creating the threat on his life. By his own words, he intended to shoot them before leaving the house.
2. He did not have the neighbors' permission to protect their property. Regardless of whether or not they later gave that consent, he did not have it at the time of the shooting.
3. He shot them in the back, which implies they were running away and therefore not a threat on his life.
I hope Anonymous comes back to read this:
Let me start by saying your argument is extremely flawed. You're basing your argument on your own reactions while providing no evidence for your conclusions.
First off, heroes are those that give selflessly of themselves to help others. Heroes are not people that commit pre-meditated murder. And that's what it is since he was already aware that's what he would do. In face, he told the dispatcher as much.
Your argument is also based on flawed, baseless, and unwarranted assumptions. You assume these guys have committed many crimes or would commit many more. Any proof (besides the drug charge against one of the alleged burglars)? When you can provide proof, I'll be more inclined to believe your argument.
Your reasoning of the law is also wrong. The law only applies to personal property, personal safety, or the safety and properties of others that give you permission to protect them. Unless you can provide proof that he had such permission, then he broke the law you claim he was following.
If we're going to play the what if game, as you seem to want to in your post, what if these had been two young teenagers playing a practical joke or committing their first crime? Would you be upset then? What if it was two white guys instead of two Hispanic men? Would you feel differently?
Obviously you didn't read my entire post since you assume I'm okay with people "rap[ing] my family." I'm not. If they had broken into his house or threatened his family then this would be an acceptable response. He left the house and started trouble rather than letting the proper authorities deal with the situation. Why even have police if we just all get guns and shoot everyone we think is committing a crime? The fact is that they were shot in the back. That immediately makes the shooters argument suspect that he was in fear for his life. Last time I checked, running away from someone with a gun was a smart thing to do. You've provided no evidence these men were armed or posed any significant risk to a man with a gun.
Finally, what if your child got mixed up with some stupid kids and was shot in the back pulling the same stunt? How would you feel? Would you expect justice? If it's ok to shoot grown men in the back for suspected burglary, then it's ok to shoot your kid in the back for the same thing. How would you feel about that? If you're ok with that, then you're a man (or woman) of your convictions. If it's ok to shoot two Hispanic men under the assumption of guilt, it's ok to do the same to the people you care about. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
I know this is an emotional issue, but please provide evidence or proof of your assertions. With no proof, shooting suspects is simply vigilantism.
Anonymous' comments are too fallacious to even believe that anyone could really take them seriously. My only comment is on the "brave actions"...I have always thought that shooting someone in the back is an act of extreme cowardice.
But, I guess that is what I would expect from someone who is too cowardly to even use a pseudonym to make a comment.
While Brandon, Janelle, and Jack have all chimed in I still feel the need to add to the mess.
Before I dissect "anonymous" I might suggest that Brandon disables the anonymous comments and forces commenters to use a name, even a fake one of their own choosing.
Hero is hardly the appropriate term for a person who abuses a position of power (having a gun) to kill those in a weaker position. He did not obey the law but, in fact, did exactly the opposite of what the dispatcher told him to do. His actions show premeditation and under most circumstances would find him charged with first-degree murder.
It is not the responsibility of the citizenry-at-large to distribute streetside justice nor try to "pay back" criminals for their other crimes. This leads to a state of vigilante-ism whereby the laws of the individual/group override those enacted by society.
The police are in place simply because they are responsible to an authority and enforce the laws appropriately.
"Quick" and "brave" action with guns will not necessarily help the situation, nor will it necessarily prevent other murders, rapes, etc. Aside from the obvious arguments about deterrents and their dubious efficacy, bad people are going to be bad people, no matter who goes around "popping caps on.. thugs." Joe Horn and anonymous can kiss my ass - whether their promotion of a system of violent retribution is detrimental to greater humanity or not is up for debate, but I could easily name a few people it didn't help, either. Isn't that enough?
Post a Comment