And it was still murder. The man had called 911. 911 had told him not to shoot.

Yes, they had broken the law but I'm sorry. You will never convince me that property is worth a human life and that goes from both sides of the coin. You want to rob a place? I hope you get caught and spend some time in prison. You don't need to kill the owners to do that. They want to take your or your neighbors' stuff? Let them. It's STUFF! It certainly isn't worth the loss of life.

You don't know if these guys would have robbed again. Yes, the odds are likely but who knows? They could have found God tomorrow and never robbed again. We'll never know if these could have become good and honorable men. We do know they are dead and that some guy killed them because he could. Where does that make him much different than the thieves? They both robbed -- two a home, one two lives. Sorry, doesn't balance out in my mind.

Anyway, this is a debate that could go on forever and none of us will be convinced. You think that murder is right in protecting a neighbor's home that is unoccupied and there was no immediate danger to anyone. I think it was cold-blooded murder and should have been punished. Shall we agree to disagree?

Well said RedWitch...couldn't have said it better.

No we shall not agree. The man was found innocent by Grand Jury. That does not make him a murderer as you put it. Am I right or wrong?

rjrex's statement was simply put and so very true.

But the Fed Man commeth....

We shall see.

Originally Posted by JohnnyM

No we shall not agree. The man was found innocent by Grand Jury. That does not make him a murderer as you put it. Am I right or wrong?

rjrex's statement was simply put and so very true.

There are differences in being "innocent" and "not guilty" and "no probable cause to return an indictment." The latter is what a grand jury returns if there is no indictment. As there is no "double jeopardy" involved in "no indictment retured," nothing stops a prosecutor from trying again if more/other evidence refreshes the case.

Grand juries are unique, in that members cannot be challenged for bias, etc. and replaced. They are who they are, and indeed mirror the attitudes and mores of the community.

Grand jury proceedings are also secret. No matter what, the only persons who know what really was presented to the grand jury are the jury members themselves, the prosecutor and judicial staff working the case. So, there's probably a LOT more to this particular case than ever made it into the press.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

So, there's probably a LOT more to this particular case than ever made it into the press.

Steve care to share some of your thoughts....

Police initially identified the dead men in Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston of Afro Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of Hernando Riascos Torres. They were carrying a sack with more than $2,000 cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston. Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz while Torres had three identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and had been previously sent to prison for dealing cocaine and was deported in 1999.

Steve I read up on this story and it sounds to me that these guys got what they deserved. Their past history is enough to make you cringe. RW made them sound like two misguided youth's. Also, testimony revealed one of the men ran toward Joe Horn and both were on his property during the escapade. He then ordered stop and finally shot.

No, I didn't say nor imply they were misguided youths. I certainly knew better than that. They were robbing a home. They were fleeing. Did that mean that they couldn't in the future turn their lives around? It has been known to happen.

Unless the news articles have changed, neither man was on the killer's property and they had dropped the bags when threatened by him. And, I'm sorry, but if you shoot two men in the back, you tell me where the threat is to you. They were fleeing -- plain and simple.

Yes, the grand jury found the neighbor not guilty of any charges. I'm sure in most communities that would not have been the case unless a lot of facts (like he was being threatened) were hidden from the public at large. Our justice system is not perfect. Innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to prison and even put to death. Guilty people have been decided to be not guilty -- sometimes in a trial, sometimes by decisions made by others, sometimes by error. Telling me that two people are shot in the back for having stolen property makes it murder to me. Unless you can show me that these men were in fact threatening the neighbors, the man who did the shooting, the little old lady from Pasadena, someone, you're not going to convince me otherwise. And I doubt anything I can say will convince you that this man is other than a hero.

That's why I asked if we could agree to disagree. You said no. I'll hold out my hand again. Is this subject really worth the debate?

Originally Posted by redwitch

Well, I could take each and every point apart but I doubt you guys would believe it. If liberals believed half the garbage written above, they would be pretty stupid and I honestly don't know any stupid liberals -- it usually takes some thought and effort to say no. And please quit confusing Democrats with liberals. Some liberals are Democrats. Most of us are independents and are as likely to vote for a Republican candidate as a Democrat.

JFK gave a good definition of a liberal Democrat: http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

The American Heritage Dictionary defines liberal as: "1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."

To me, it is a willingness to listen to all sides, respect the rights of individuals, not be willing to have my mind made up by the prejudices of others but rather by what I can verify.

BTW -- I'll defend your right to protest outside of an abortion clinic even though I totally disagree with you and so on and so forth.

Aren't you guys glad we liberals aren't as willing to bash and insult you conservatives as you are we liberals?

NOW YOU ARE TALKIN RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by sidbforever

* You think kids in public schools should have to watch Earth in the Balance and read Heather Has Two Mommies, but no piece of literature with the word "Jesus" on it should be allowed within a hundred yards of a school.
;D

Perhaps having children watch Earth in the Balance and not allow the name Jesus on school grounds can be compared to one another.....or debated.....but adding the comment about some book about Two Mommies has nothing to do with either one....

Let me tell you that Heather is probably better off with two mommies...

A plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car. His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear". Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

RW, do you still want to disagree???

You're coming up with facts I have not heard. According to the reports for the at least the first week of this incident, the men were shot in the back. Horn was on the phone to 911 who told him to not shoot. There was no mention of police being on the scene -- supposedly, they arrived after. There was no mention of either of the men coming towards Horn -- the exact opposite as a matter of fact. Sorry, but I don't buy the change in stories. It sounds like someone condoned Horn's actions and covered them up. Might make it more palatable to the grand jury but you'd have a hard time convincng me that facts would change that drastically from the initial news reports and then from the follow-up reports of a week or so later (which meant reporters did have a chance to get the facts).

If a police officer was there, why didn't he shoot or take some sort of action? And why didn't he at least bring Horn in? And why did initial news reports say Horn had in fact been arrested?

And since when is any property more important than human life? Granted, these were two bad guys but Horn had no idea if they were two men tryng to feed a starving family or two kids being stupid. So, yes, it was and is and will always be murder to me. The only way it wouldn't be is if you could convince me that Horn was truly in danger and I doubt that's possible.