Under the title “Was Burglary Worth Killing Two Men?”, CNN’s Roland Martin comments on the recent Grand Jury no-bill of Joe Horn, the Texas man who shot two men he caught burglarizing his neighbor’s house.
In predictable fashion, Martin wrings his hands about the morality of taking two lives over “mere personal effects”, and he reflects on how our actions can have have life-altering (or -ending) consequences. He also manages to toss in an underhanded insult in the very first paragraph, describing those who agree with the no-bill as “gun enthusiats and thrill seekers”.
“Thrill seekers” is a lovely characterization right there: he suggests that anyone who chooses to arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense is a trigger-happy psycho who’s just itching to shoot folks and get away with it. In reality, nothing could be more removed from the truth.
I don’t want to “seek the thrill” of having to defend my life against criminal attack. In fact, if I get to live to the ripe old age of 101 without ever having even drawn my weapon in an emergency, much less shot someone, I’ll die a happy man. There’s no “thrill” involved in even having to take those safety measures and making sure one doesn’t end up as food on a predator’s menu. To suggest that gun owners are the equivalent of Mountain Dew-chugging base jumpers, looking for adrenaline kicks by offing poor, misunderstood burglars is an insult and a complete twisting of reality, and for that alone, I kindly invite Mr. Martin to perform an anatomically improbable autoerotic act upon himself.
Crime exists because we let it happen, because people like Martin propagate the notion that “stuff isn’t worth fighting or killing over.” Crime exists because we don’t chase after the guy who took the old lady’s handbag, and stomp him flat in the parking lot. It exists because we don’t treat it like the violation it is, which is the stealing of a slice of our lives. Sure, a stolen purse is just “personal effects”, but what about the money we worked hard to put into that purse? What about the Social Security check, or the keys to the car that will cost us months of our productive lives to replace? When you’re stealing “mere stuff” from a person, aren’t you stealing the time from them it takes to replace that stuff? Isn’t taking a wallet with $100 in it on the same moral level as holding a gun to their head and requiring them to dig a ditch or mow the lawn for the amount of time it took the victim to earn those $100? If a portion of your life isn’t worth defending, then your life isn’t, either, and then you’re effectively defending slavery as “not worth fighting or killing over”, because someone who steals your stuff enslaves you for the duration of the time it took you to earn that stuff.
And then we get the bullshit about “choosing to be judge, jury, and executioner” again. Look, Martin: if a crime is being committed against me, I don’t need to examine the evidence to make sure I have the right guy, because as the victim, I am a direct witness to the crime. I don’t need to establish guilt; I have the offender right in front of me, threatening my life and livelihood by force. All I have to worry about is to stop the crime committed against me right then and there.
Yes, our actions can, and do, have life-altering consequences. That goes for everyone involved, though. My act of self-defense may have life-altering consequences, but Mr. Martin needs to remind himself that the chain of events in a crime is set in motion by the criminal, not the victim, and that the criminal is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for the consequences.
To quote a certain fictional starship captain: Mr. Horn didn’t kill Torres and Ortiz; they killed themselves. Mr. Horn just carried the buckshot for a while.
24 Comments
July 2, 2008 at 8:12 am
Technically speaking, Captain Tightpants was the captain of a spaceship. According to Joss and all other offical sources, the Serenity `Verse contains no FTL travel and it all takes place in one star system.
(Gotta be the first nerd to pick the nit…)
July 2, 2008 at 8:33 am
As someone who’s been burgled to hellandgone…
“Is burglary worth killing two men?”
Er, yeah. Yeah it is, actually. You end up doing things like moving house, because the whole building reminds you of the dark-hearted strangers who broke in, moving around while the family sleeps upstairs, stealing the time – as you rightly say – of our lives. You end up working overtime shifts for months, to replace the stuff the insurers screwed you on.
And you never, ever get over the feeling of being unsafe.
So yeah. Burglary is worth killing over. One man, two men – as many as would wish to take irreplaceable time, and irreplaceable things, and the security and peace of mind that “being home, being safe” means.
July 2, 2008 at 8:39 am
Amen, friend. It’s sickening to see there are so many who boil it down to Mr. Horn killing those thugs over “just stuff.” I would bet money they wouldn’t be thinking that if it was their houses being ransacked.
July 2, 2008 at 9:09 am
One common collectivist trait is to attempt to separate “human rights” from “property rights”, as though one can exist without the other. A simple gedanken experiment puts the lie to this.
Imagine you are starving to death, but you have earned enough money to buy a loaf of bread. This will sustain you long enough to earn your next meal. Along comes a thief who wishes to steal your money/bread. If he’s successful, you will die. Is this simply a “property crime”? Of course not. He is (in this extreme case) taking your life.
Similarly, I have (through the sweat of my brow, or at least as a design engineer, some skull-sweat) earned the little goodies that I possess. Every single item can be regarded as distilled sweat of human effort…a small part of my life expended to gain them. When a thief steals my possessions, he takes a part of my life with it, the part of it which was necessary to earn that possession.
Will I kill to protect property? No…current law states that the ONLY reason for using self-defense is if I (or others) are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury.
According to what I have read (the accuracy of which is questionable) Mr. Horn did NOT kill these two over “mere personal effects”. When they were confronted coming out of his neighbors house, they proceed to come into HIS yard, threatening him. He felt he was in imminent danger of death/grave bodily injury, and he defended his life. A grand jury agreed, based on the evidence presented to them.
So the entire premise of the new article is erroneous. But the author’s anti-life prejudices come through quite clearly.
“Not shooting a thief is the same as encouraging him” is a quote from an un-published H. Beam Piper novel. While it would be an incredibly strong deterrent for crime, it is unfortunately not current law. And as law-abiding citizens, we can only try to change it.
July 2, 2008 at 9:32 am
It is sad that Mr. Horn had to shoot them in the back, it would have been much better if he could have shot them between the eyes when they came out of the house. In the article, Mr. Martin states, “He could have left apprehending criminals to the folks empowered to do so — the police.” What a joke this comment is, only a liberal could think as Mr. Martin does. All one has to do is look at crime statistics in this country. Anywhere one looks they will see repeat criminals committing crimes over and over, along with the severity of those crimes most often becoming more violent with each new offense. Too those who break laws in a never ending cycle, the police, along with the court system are a joke. The only justice that these types will ever respect is for them to fear getting killed during the commission of their offenses. It is past time for Americans to stand up and show anyone who wants to commit a crime that there will be a consequence for their actions, including the loss of their life. Hopefully their are many Mr. Horn’s in America, and that they will grow in number since the police and justice system is too incompetent to keep America’s citizens safe.
July 2, 2008 at 9:33 am
“When you’re stealing “mere stuff” from a person, aren’t you stealing the time from them it takes to replace that stuff?”
That has been my feelings for some time. I also happen to believe Piper’s quote that blackwing1 uses in his last paragraph.
When someone tells me that some junkie’s (most petty thieves are drug addicts) life is more important than my belongings, I would like to know why. Most of them do nothing but steal from one person after another, sometimes causing physical injury to victims. As far as I’m concerned, shooting a burglar is nothing more than a legally assisted suicide.
July 2, 2008 at 9:40 am
The nationals missed part of the story. A plain-clothes detective arrived in time to see the end of it, including one of the fools running toward Mr. Horn, who shot as the gene-pool-reject swerved and hit him more in the side than the back: Mr. Horn then shot at the second. The unnamed detective said Mr. Horn was, then, in fear for his life.
So, Mr. Horn probably would not have shot if the pair had frozen in place, and possibly not if they had run away from him.
July 2, 2008 at 10:35 am
I wonder where mister Martin lives? If my life is more valuable to him than his stuff, it looks like I am getting new furniture.
July 2, 2008 at 10:37 am
How does he know that all the criminals wanted were “personal effects”? Is it possible that the thugs might have decided to indulge in rape, torture, and murder if they were able? Do potential murderers use a different door than the ones that just want to steal stuff?
You pay your money and take your chances when you decide to invade someone’s house.
July 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Not to mention the end result will be criminals mayhapse still reamaining criminals, but choosing a vocation where they are less likely to get shot.
Narrowing the criminal options does make things better for all of us!
July 2, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I am so very tired of the liberal attitude that blames the person who kills the criminal. When a person decides to commit an act of robbery, that person is making a choice to take the risk of being killed. Those criminals, not Mr. H, are the ones who decided to place a value on their lives.
July 2, 2008 at 12:40 pm
He was on the phone whith a dispathcher and TOLD not to go outside! Please! That’s just plain murder. And if I remember correctly, he did say he felt he was in danger even though they were shot in the back. This guy just wanted to kill somebody, and if it wasn’t them, it would have been somebody else. Don’t get me wrong, for I am for the death penalty and if these two guys were dragging a little girl out the window, or something more heinous… but this guy was just trigger happy.
July 2, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Thank you for the expert psychoanalysis there playjojo. Aside from the teeny, unimportant face – noted above – that the theives were running *towards* him when he opened fire, your piece has shown me how terrible this is. Also, how shocking that he didn’t pay attention to a dispatcher dozens of miles away, who was obviously better informed than the was himself!
Sadly, I think most of my neighbours would agree with you. This does not give me warm, fuzzy community-centric feelings.
July 2, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Very good post, Marko.
Playjojo, you obviously aren’t going to let facts get in your way. Being shot in the back in and of itself means very little. It’s what the ex criminals were doing in the milliseconds before they turned that matter. Unlike you, the Grand Jury saw all of the facts and evidence and made a decision based on the applicable Texas statutes. Nor does the fact that dispatcher told Horn something mean anything. Read Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1. The dispatcher in that case told Warren that the police would be right there. Fat lot of good that did Warren, huh?
Property is worth defending because even though it can be replaced, there is almost always a significant cost as other commenters have pointed out. My life or time can’t be replaced either.
July 2, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Did any of the commenters here listen to the 911 tapes? This was *not* a case of self defense. Joe Horn was *safe* in his house on the phone with 911 and being told cops were on the way. He told the dispatcher he was “going to go out and kill” these guys. And he did. In fact, by the time he went outside the first cop was arriving.
Joe Horn decided that robbery warrants the death penalty. Mr. Horn’s life was in no danger. Nor was his family’s nor his neighbor’s family and he knew that because they were on vacation and he said that to the dispatcher.
How can any of you (original poster included) claim this was a case of self defense? He told the dispatcher he was going to go outside to “kill them”. He could have stayed inside and waited for the cops, who apparently were already very close and would have likely caught the bastards (remember the detective that arrived in time to witness it?).
If the burglars had entered *his* house, this would be a very different story.
Let me ask you this… What crime is too petty for someone in Mr. Horn’s situation to follow through and kill the others? … Siphoning gas from the neighbor’s car? Stealing cans from their recycling bin? (Yes, this is a crime) Splicing a cable onto the neighbors cable-TV feed? Would he shoot a teenager that he witnessed shoplifting?
There is a reason that juries decide these matters. Mr. Horn decided that this particular theft case warranted execution. **He said this directly to the dispatcher!**
Does everyone here feel that anyone found guilty of burglary in a court should receive the death penalty?
He went outside, putting himself in danger with the sole intent of killing them. He is on record with his plan of action. So please… tell me how this is self defense.
I would *not* want a neighbor like this. Hell, I used to sneak in and out of the window over our garage and climb a tree to sneak out when I was a teenager. What if one day I did so while carrying the 13″ TV from my room to take to a friend’s house and he was watching? Ouch.
For the record, if a person were in danger then I feel shooting the perp is entirely appropriate.
July 3, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I wouldn’t want a neighbor who would cower in their house and watch someone walk off with my stuff.
“I would *not* want a neighbor like this. Hell, I used to sneak in and out of the window over our garage and climb a tree to sneak out when I was a teenager. What if one day I did so while carrying the 13″ TV from my room to take to a friend’s house and he was watching? Ouch.”
July 3, 2008 at 1:12 pm
@Reuben
He did everything I would want a neighbor to do, up until the point he said “I’m going to kill those guys” and went outside shooting. He immediately called 911, he described everything to dispatch, he stayed on the line (until the very end), he gave accurate information and the cops arrived just as he decided to kill.
I ask again… Should he be allowed to kill a thief that is stealing recyclables? …gas from the car? …a shoplifter in a nearby store? Why does he get to decide killing is justified when nobody was in danger? (I know you all are going to now say that *he* was in danger. He was not, at least not until he went outside to confront them and, in his words, “kill them”)
Marko, you are very intelligent and a great writer. I’d really like to hear your opinion on these issues. The US has not used the death penalty on a non-murder case in, I think, about 50+ years. The harshest punishments I’ve heard of overseas for theft involve things like cutting off one’s right hand. Have you listened to the 911 call. Have you heard Mr. Horn tell dispatch that he “wants to kill” the perps even though he’s warned that cops are about to arrive? He decided that the theft was worthy of death.
I’d feel completely different if he had told dispatch something like “I need to go outside and scare these guys away”, and then had to fire in self defense if they came after him. But that is not what happened. He told dispatch he was going to kill them. He was told not to and that cops were moments away. He shot both perps in the back.
I doubt you’ll find any jury in the country that would send a burglar to death row.
July 3, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Sorry… no idea how that smiley face appeared in my comment. Must’ve been my closing parenthesis. I certainly did not intend that to be there.
July 3, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Leon,
He did not say he was going to kill them until the 911 dispatcher verbally backed him into a corner, ~6:00 in the tape, “your going to get yourself shot if you go outside with a gun”. The dispatcher placed this man in a heightened state of fear, mortal fear. And he chose to go outside rather than let someone walk off with his neighbors things.
July 3, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“The harshest punishments I’ve heard of overseas for theft involve things like cutting off one’s right hand.”
I am sorry, but this is FAR more heinous than outright death.
July 3, 2008 at 3:24 pm
If someone breaks into my flat while I’m not home he’s safe.
Should I happen to be home while he breaks in, he might end up looking into a bright Surefire and a dark 9mm hole – or two of both if my brother’s home, too.
If someone enters my home against my will I have to assume that he’s after me. If he were after my “mere belongings” he’d do it when I’m away. I won’t give the criminal the benefit of the doubt.
July 3, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Mr. Horn can move in next door to me any time he wants to.
July 7, 2008 at 10:19 am
It seems that some folks put a lot of credence in Mr. Horn’s statement to the dispatcher that he was going to kill those guys. Although in the end that is what happened, do not be so sure he really intended to do that.
Police do not give property crimes a high priority for response. Some jurisdictions (mine among them) take speeding more seriously than a burglary in progress. After all, it’s just stuff (right?), and speeding tickets make money, unlike arresting a burglar.
Explain that gunshots and death are in the very near future, and the police will respond as fast as they can. The bad thing about this is now you have to back it up, at least create the possibility. We want the police to respond quickly to these kinds of things, so ‘crying wolf’ is not a good idea.
Finally, think of it as evolution in action. Expecting that a man with a shotgun won’t use it when you threaten him deserves at least a Darwin honorable mention.
July 8, 2008 at 6:19 am
Leon,
He confronted the thieves from his porch. The thieves charged at him brandishing tire irons, then started to turn when Mr. Horn raised his shotgun. Both of them were shot on Mr. Horn’s lawn. Explain to me please how this is not self defense?