My Viper was STOLEN.

steelskeet

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Posts
33
Reaction score
0
I live in TX and feel Joe Horn made a tough decision and it was the right decision. The argument that it was "only" a misdemeanor non-violent is a complete and total joke. What if someone had been home??? Getting shot in the back dose not look the best but these two got what they deserved and the message was loud and clear to all criminals in TX.

If I was a ****** bag thief, VA, and PA would be great states to live in.

As for the stolen viper....man, I am so sorry this happened to you and that Bad-ass Viper.
 

Kala

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Posts
1,383
Reaction score
0
Location
Ojai, CA
here's the Wiki on Joe Horn...


The Joe Horn shooting controversy refers to the events of November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burglarizing his neighbor's home. Publicized recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicate that he was asked repeatedly not to interfere with the burglary, because the police would soon be on hand.[1] The shootings have resulted in debate regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of (deadly) force to prevent or stop property crimes. The illegal alien status of the burglars has been highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy.[2] On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings.
Joe Horn, 61, spotted two burglars breaking into his next-door Vietnamese-American neighbor's home in Pasadena, Texas. He called 911 to call police to the scene. While on the phone with emergency dispatch, Horn stated that he had the right to use deadly force to defend property, referencing a law (Texas Penal Code § 9.41., § 9.42., and § 9.43.) which justified the use of deadly force to protect property. He stated that he was going to go outside and confront the burglars. As the burglars were exiting his neighbor's home, and approaching Horn's home, Horn exited his home with his shotgun, while the 911 Operator tried to dissuade him from that action. On the 911 tape, he is heard confronting the suspects, saying, "Move, and you're dead",[3] immediately followed by the sound of a shotgun blast, followed by two more.[4] Following the shootings Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!" [5]
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, 38.[3] 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.[1] 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 ******* and was deported in 1999.[6]
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.[3] His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".[1] 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.
The incident touched off protests, led by community activist Quanell X, that were met by counter-protests from Horn's supporters.[7][8][9][10]

 

V10SpeedLuvr

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
15,320
Reaction score
4
Location
Daytona Beach, FL (Port Orange)
Thanks for posting that Kala. So Joe Horn killed a couple illegal alien, drug dealing, convicted criminals, who he gave a chance to "freeze" and instead was rushed by one of the criminals. The man is a hero. If you believe your life is worth more than some innate object, I suggest you not try to steal same. An armed person at the scene may disagree, and the man with the gun gets to make the final decision. I feel my life is worth a lot more than ANYTHING I could steal. Therefore, I don't steal. These guys felt different and Joe Horn took care of the rest. Thanks Joe.
 

Chuck 98 RT/10

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 15, 2000
Posts
17,923
Reaction score
0
Location
tampa, fl USA
but you should be more upset at general failure of the penal system than you are supportive of private citizens taking on the role of judge, jury and executioner for a non-violent crime.

The justice system (industry actually) failed decades ago. As with everything it takes a while for society to catch up. But slowly the honest law-abiding citizens are catching up and what you call vigilantism, we call protecting fellow citizens.

As for your question of where to draw the line. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
 

kcobean

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Posts
5,675
Reaction score
0
Location
Sterling, VA
Thanks for posting that Kala. So Joe Horn killed a couple illegal alien, drug dealing, convicted criminals, who he gave a chance to "freeze" and instead was rushed by one of the criminals. The man is a hero. If you believe your life is worth more than some innate object, I suggest you not try to steal same. An armed person at the scene may disagree, and the man with the gun gets to make the final decision. I feel my life is worth a lot more than ANYTHING I could steal. Therefore, I don't steal. These guys felt different and Joe Horn took care of the rest. Thanks Joe.

I think it's a stretch to call him a hero. He didn't save anyone or prevent any great tragedy. He killed two guys over someone else's cash and jewelry. He wasn't defending himself or anyone else, and his actions were effectively pre-meditated. He is a vigilante who ignored an order from a LEO to stay in his house. The only thing he has to stand on is that they were in his yard when he shot them, even though they posed no direct threat to him (otherwise they would not have been shot in the back.) I'd be interested to hear the reasons behing the Grand Jury's not-guilty verdict. I'll bet they revolve more around perceived threat than property defense.

Now, with all that said I absolutely can't argue that if had to happen, it couldn't have happened to two more deserving individuals, but I still have a problem with the use of deadly force to protect a dollar bill, unless that dollar bill happens to be on your person and the guy who wants it is trying to go through you to get it. Maybe my "stuff" just isn't as precious to me as other folks.
 

kcobean

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Posts
5,675
Reaction score
0
Location
Sterling, VA
The justice system (industry actually) failed decades ago. As with everything it takes a while for society to catch up. But slowly the honest law-abiding citizens are catching up and what you call vigilantism, we call protecting fellow citizens.

As for your question of where to draw the line. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

What fellow citizen was Joe Horn protecting?
 

V10SpeedLuvr

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
15,320
Reaction score
4
Location
Daytona Beach, FL (Port Orange)
I think it's a stretch to call him a hero. He didn't save anyone or prevent any great tragedy. He killed two guys over someone else's cash and jewelry. He wasn't defending himself or anyone else, and his actions were effectively pre-meditated. He is a vigilante who ignored an order from a LEO to stay in his house. The only thing he has to stand on is that they were in his yard when he shot them, even though they posed no direct threat to him (otherwise they would not have been shot in the back.) I'd be interested to hear the reasons behing the Grand Jury's not-guilty verdict. I'll bet they revolve more around perceived threat than property defense.

Now, with all that said I absolutely can't argue that if had to happen, it couldn't have happened to two more deserving individuals, but I still have a problem with the use of deadly force to protect a dollar bill, unless that dollar bill happens to be on your person and the guy who wants it is trying to go through you to get it. Maybe my "stuff" just isn't as precious to me as other folks.

Here's my take on it. Joe killed 2 people who were essentially career criminals who didn't belong in this country anyway (as mentioned in the Wiki article). On that day Joe may not have saved anyone's life, but when these guys robbed a house the next day, or week, or month, who's to say they don't escalate and kill someone who walks in on their burglary? I know thats assuming the worst, but when it comes to criminals, I always assume the worst just b/c of the type animals they are. I'm sure Joe was thinking along the same lines as a lot of other people do. Even if the thuggs were arrested, they'd be back on the streets committing crimes in under 24 hours. Joe knew in TX, he had the opportunity to go a lot further with taking justice in his own hands than in most states and did what he felt was right. Because of Joe, those 2 will never rob another house, sell any drugs, run any organized crime rings, etc. That to me qualifies as a hero.

Whether a person finds their stuff precious or not, that still doesn't mean you should have to deal with someone stealing it. The court systems aren't going to punish them, so its left up to the Joe Horn's of the world. As I said earlier, as long as justice is served, I don't care who serves it. I understand your view point that a human life is worth more than "stuff", but when the human life is spent being a thugg and drain on society, I have to disagree. Its up to YOU to mold your life. For those who take their life and live a life of crime, their life is no longer worth the same as a law abiding citizen. If a gang member kills an innocent person, is it a tragedy? Ofcourse. If a gang member kills another gang member, is it a tragedy? Not even close.
 

Chrissss

Viper Owner
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Posts
1,071
Reaction score
1
Location
Cincinnati
Here's my take on it. Joe killed 2 people who were essentially career criminals who didn't belong in this country anyway (as mentioned in the Wiki article). On that day Joe may not have saved anyone's life, but when these guys robbed a house the next day, or week, or month, who's to say they don't escalate and kill someone who walks in on their burglary? I know thats assuming the worst, but when it comes to criminals, I always assume the worst just b/c of the type animals they are.

So the moral is, execute all burglars because of what they might do in the future. Oh hell, execute all those who break the law because of what they might do later. If you are in the country illegally, you shouldn't be deported, you should be executed because of what you may do in the future. If you jaywalk, you shouldn't be issued a citation, an officer should just come up, put the gun to your head and shoot you. For jaywalking? No. But, next time you jaywalk and you are confronted, you may run, the police will follow, you then may run into a house, take the residents hostage, dad may come home, you have to shoot dad because he caught you, the kids try to escape, you kill them. All this because you jaywalked. Have to shoot jaywalkers, sorry. Ludicrous? You bet.

BTW, I am in law enforcement. I have been for many years and am a ******** law enforcement guy. However, this slippyslope mentality to justify vigilantism is beyond ridiculous. Quite simply and without debate, one has to right to deadly force to defend his or her life and the life of others from immediate danger. Not because one is stealing your jewelry or because of what they may do later.
 
Last edited:

propsail

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Posts
879
Reaction score
1
Location
Connecticut USA
The problem with the belief that this incident makes other criminals think about their actions before stealing ignores their desperation. None of us HAS to steal, therefore the decision for us not to steal is simple.

On the other hand, being a drug addict looking for his next fix before withdrawals set in does not make for logical decision-making. For anyone who's desperate, I think this incident will have no effect on them what-so-ever. That being said, at least in Texas, they'll only steal once.

~Craig
 

J&R3xV10

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Posts
2,143
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas
Hey bean, the eye for an eye comment was made in regards to the original topic of this thread, remember.... the viper being stolen and wrecked??????
 

Shelby3

Enthusiast
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
1,869
Reaction score
0
Location
liu;g
BTW, I am in law enforcement. I have been for many years and am a ******** law enforcement guy. However, this slippyslope mentality to justify vigilantism is beyond ridiculous. Quite simply and without debate, one has to right to deadly force to defend his or her life and the life of others from immediate danger. Not because one is stealing your jewelry or because of what they may do later.

Quite simply and without debate, in Texas you can use deadly force because someone is stealing your jewelry. Is it possible you are just worried about job security?
 

V10SpeedLuvr

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Posts
15,320
Reaction score
4
Location
Daytona Beach, FL (Port Orange)
So the moral is, execute all burglars because of what they might do in the future. Oh hell, execute all those who break the law because of what they might do later. If you are in the country illegally, you shouldn't be deported, you should be executed because of what you may do in the future. If you jaywalk, you shouldn't be issued a citation, an officer should just come up, put the gun to your head and shoot you. For jaywalking? No. But, next time you jaywalk and you are confronted, you may run, the police will follow, you then may run into a house, take the residents hostage, dad may come home, you have to shoot dad because he caught you, the kids try to escape, you kill them. All this because you jaywalked. Have to shoot jaywalkers, sorry. Ludicrous? You bet.

BTW, I am in law enforcement. I have been for many years and am a ******** law enforcement guy. However, this slippyslope mentality to justify vigilantism is beyond ridiculous. Quite simply and without debate, one has to right to deadly force to defend his or her life and the life of others from immediate danger. Not because one is stealing your jewelry or because of what they may do later.

Here's the points that I'm basing my argument on:
Following the shootings Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!" [5]

Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston.

[1] 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 ******* and was deported in 1999.[6]


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.

So a couple career criminals who run a organized burglary ring, deal *******, are in this country illegally and are convicted felons rob Joe's neighbors house and rush Joe in his own yard and you don't think they got what they deserve? Your comments about you can't kill people for what they may do is valid except for the fact they had been criminals for a long time. I dont think its a stretch to say if not killed they would've committed more crimes in the future.

I wish Joe was my neighbor.
 

Chuck 98 RT/10

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 15, 2000
Posts
17,923
Reaction score
0
Location
tampa, fl USA
However, this slippyslope mentality to justify vigilantism is beyond ridiculous.

What should concern you is not that there is a vigilantism mindset, but why there is a vigilantism mindset. Don't worry, it has nothing to do with cops, it has to do with judges and lawyers and a justice industry that started out as a justice system.

The "crime doesn't pay" motto couldn't be further from the truth. Crime does pay, you just have to have a law degree.
 

ViperTony

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Posts
7,554
Reaction score
0
So the moral is, execute all burglars because of what they might do in the future.

Yes. Case in point: Two career criminals (multiple arrests 20+) were released from prison spring '07. Days later they invaded a home in Cheshire. Repeatedly ***** an 11, 17 year olds and their mother. Beat the husband to near death, set the house on fire killing everyone but the husband. They were caught as they were leaving the burning house.

Until the 'system' is fixed, shoot to kill.
 

aries

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Posts
530
Reaction score
0
Location
Laurel, MD
So the moral is, execute all burglars because of what they might do in the future. Oh hell, execute all those who break the law because of what they might do later. If you are in the country illegally, you shouldn't be deported, you should be executed because of what you may do in the future. If you jaywalk, you shouldn't be issued a citation, an officer should just come up, put the gun to your head and shoot you. For jaywalking? No. But, next time you jaywalk and you are confronted, you may run, the police will follow, you then may run into a house, take the residents hostage, dad may come home, you have to shoot dad because he caught you, the kids try to escape, you kill them. All this because you jaywalked. Have to shoot jaywalkers, sorry. Ludicrous? You bet.

BTW, I am in law enforcement. I have been for many years and am a ******** law enforcement guy. However, this slippyslope mentality to justify vigilantism is beyond ridiculous. Quite simply and without debate, one has to right to deadly force to defend his or her life and the life of others from immediate danger. Not because one is stealing your jewelry or because of what they may do later.

Maybe if the law followed through with actual punishment for what these criminals do we wouldn't have this problem. It's staggering to read that so many people feel that it's "only burgulary" and really no big deal. Maybe if the law would hold them moraly and FINANCIALy responsible for their crimes, make them pay restitution to the victim each and every time they steal and destroy property, we wouldn't be so jaded by our justice system and would let the law do it's job. However, you and I both know that's not gonna happen. More importantly, the criminals know this. I work as a salesmanager at a motorcycle dealership, and I've time and time again, people steal bikes and nothing happen to them. We just had a guy steal a brand new $12,000 bike and get caught after he wreaked and destroyed it. We go to court and this is his 4th offense for grand theft and the fact he took it accross state lines is a felony, anyway it get pleaded down to a $2000 fine and a suspended sentence. Mean while, our shop is out a $12,000 bike. We don't dare claim it on insurance, one because the deductable is so high, and two they will raise our rates or cancel us, so we eat the $12,000. How is that fair? And this happens ALL THE TIME!!!!! I'm sick of it!! If these ****-bags don't want to conform to society and contribute like a decent human being, the hell with them! Shoot em, hang em, burn em, I really don't care!!!
 

Marv S

Former VCA National President
VCA Officer
Joined
May 25, 1998
Posts
3,150
Reaction score
0
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Mark, the worst kind of nightmare that you just don't wake up from. It's a loss. It's a personal violation. Stay strong.
 

Fatboy 18

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Posts
5,092
Reaction score
3
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
So to get us slightly back on track, ;)

Any more news from the insurance company? :eater:

Have you managed to get the police to take any fingerprints?

On another note, A while ago on this forum the question was asked how many Viper owners were Lawers? Are there any of you out there that could help in this case? A fellow Viper member needs some help here!! :mad:
 
Last edited:

KERS-VPR

Viper Owner
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Posts
267
Reaction score
0
If these ****-bags don't want to conform to society and contribute like a decent human being, the hell with them! Shoot em, hang em, burn em, I really don't care!!!

:eater:Tell us how you really feel:2tu:
 

Alexarz

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
863
Reaction score
0
Location
Kissimmee, FL
Never mind about refraining from posting public information on this lowlife rodent who stole this Viper. If the VCA can't implement a proper public hanging, what good is it? The legal system protects the filth of society and there isn't any chance in hell that the criminal will suffer as much as the victim of this crime has. This was a traumatizing experience for the victim and the only suitable punishment would be the death sentence or in the least, life imprisonment.
 

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
Here is some data that may surprise some of you. The criminal Justice system is a bit more efficient than you might think. It is not perfect. Part of the problem is that despite the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world, we still do not have enough prison space which results in early release programs. China, with four times our population has fewer people in prison.

Prisons in the United States are operated under strict authority of both the federal and state governments as incarceration is a concurrent power under the Constitution of the United States. Imprisonment is one of the main forms of punishment for the commission of felony offenses in the United States. Less serious offenders, including those convicted of misdemeanor offenses, may be sentenced to a short term in a local jail or with alternative forms of sanctions such as community corrections (halfway house), probation, and/or restitution. In the United States, prisons are operated at various levels of security, ranging from minimum-security prisons that mainly house non-violent offenders to Supermax facilities that house well-known criminals and terrorists such as Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, Zacarias Moussaoui, and Richard Reid. The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate,[3][4] and total documented prison population in the world.[5][6] As of year-end 2006, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Of the total, 2.2 million were incarcerated. More than 1 in 100 American adults were incarcerated at the start of 2008. The People's Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million, despite having over four times the population of the US.[7][8]
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, as of June 30, 2007, American prisons and jails held 2,299,116 inmates.[9] In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandated sentences that came about during the "war on drugs." Violent crime and property crime have declined since the early 1990s.[10]
As of 2004, the three states with the lowest ratio of imprisoned to civilian population are Maine (148 per 100,000), Minnesota (171 per 100,000), and Rhode Island (175 per 100,000). The three states with the highest ratio are Louisiana (816 per 100,000), Texas (694 per 100,000), and Mississippi (669 per 100,000). [11]
Nearly one million of those incarcerated in state and federal prisons, as well as local jails, are serving time for committing non-violent crimes. [12]
In 2002, 93.2% of prisoners were male. About 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.3% of white males. [13]
In 2005, about 1 out of every 136 U.S. residents was incarcerated either in prison or jail.[14] The total amount being 2,320,359, with 1,446,269 in state and federal prisons and 747,529 in local jails.[15]
A 2005 report estimated that 27% of federal prison inmates are noncitizens, convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally.[16] However, federal prison inmates are only a 6 percent of the total incarcerated population; noncitizen populations in state and local prisons are more difficult to establish.
The United States has the highest documented per capita rate of incarceration of any country in the world.[3][5]
 

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
Hi. I did not say the above. What I did say is that our local, state and federal criminal justice systems work better than some people think. They are not perfect but if someone can show me one in another country with a population equal or greater than ours that works better, I would be glad to take a look at it. There are many benefits in a free society. One of them is our Bill of rights. If you are ever accused of a crime, especially if you are not guilty, you will thank G-d that you have rights. In many countries you are guilty until proven innocent. With the resources available to the prosecution and the investigators, that means that in those countries it is not uncommon for innocent people to go to prison due to the presumption of guilt.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
153,644
Posts
1,685,209
Members
18,221
Latest member
tractor1996
Top