Talk:Joe Horn shooting controversy

"Shooter" section

The name of this section, whilst accurate, is imo connotated enough in normal usage to suggest that the shooter was a criminal, but it's a minor quibble. However, there are two competing claims as to the date of Mr. Horn's retirement, one stating that he reitred from AT&T in 1998, and one that he retired in 2003; both are wholly unsourced. I thought a comment here would be better than two citation tags for the one discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.129.189 (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's very much incorrect as "shooter" implies wrongdoing in modern usage of the word, even if it's technically accurate. The law found he had no wrongdoing so we shouldn't imply that in the article either. That can be handled in a controversy section. Ergzay (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Diego Ortiz Hernando Riascos Torres section

Was wondering if perhaps a section (not an article) should be made of the major players, particularly these two since they were apparently part of a major crime ring and a string of robberies in the areas before they were killed. --Hourick (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as they are well sourced I think it would be a good addition. will381796 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The two were not a part of a major crime ring. That is not true. Look over the articles again. see stephanie story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.99.48 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

These two were part of a major crime ring. Look at the Pasadena Offense report relased to the public.

Nice Job

good job on the cleanup on this article. It's much, much improved since last week. Xdeserted (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks! Really I'm surprised it's not getting more attention, it's such a fascinating issue. That tape really is riveting. DBaba (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, good job on my bad initial article on it. Wanted to at least give it a quick start and hope people would start editing this instead of just adding onto Quanell's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this needed an article so good work on that. I'm surprised it hasn't got more attention yet since it's been covered on several television shows and in the news. It might help to find ways of linking this to other wikipedia articles, maybe ones that have lists of current events and so on. Another possibility would be to submit this to appear on the "Did you know" section of the main wikipedia page. That has generated traffic for past articles of mine. Don't worry, there will be more to come on this as the trial develops. Do we even know what the charges against Horn will be? Deatonjr (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

The statement that most Americans rightly consider Joe Horn to be a murderer needs to be cited. If this statement is backed up by a survey, the numbers should be added in also. If this is a statement of opinion it needs to be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuanmo (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "rightly" is a value judgment of the results of a survey, and should be removed from the sentence, regardless of any survey results. Leeirons (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the "most" part either. Actually I think that most sane people would consider that Joe Horn rightly shot the two burglars. But then that's also only my opinion.--196.207.47.60 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Article

Here is an interesting Wikipedia article that may be relevant to this story. Make My Day State -- Maybe Texas should be added to the list. Deatonjr (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm surprised it wasn't the first state listed on there. --Hourick (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading it a bit more closely, I'm not entirely sure that it would be appropriate to put Texas, particularly after rereading this quote:

refers to those states in the United States that allow the lawful occupier of a premises to use violent or deadly force against an intruder no questions asked.

Of course ANY shooting would be under investigation even if it was obvious the homeowner was using it for self defense. While I'm not saying the scenarios has NOT happened (since we're dealing with the human condition), this has a serious bias.--Hourick (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Pull

I've noticed the article "Man who killed suspects shot them in the back, police say" no longer appears on chron.com, or the link is incorrect. Deatonjr (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

took care of the link with another active article. Thank goodness for Chron's auto search feature. --Hourick (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Tie in to previous home invasion

I ran across this article in today's Chronicle which I think is relevant, but for the life of me, I dont' have the braincells to figure out a way to sit it in properly. Any suggestions? LinkHourick (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Updates?

Any updates, was the dude ever indited??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsu23phd (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an article in the Houston Chronicle i think yesterday on the front of the City section. It said there may be a decision on Horn's case within the next week. Deatonjr (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Texas Removal

I have mixed feelings on the removal from this category. This case has the potential for far reaching effects in law, but since the case isn't yet decided, it i not of historical note. On a slightly related note, perhaps it should be put in on the wikilaw? It might be notable enough for that. --Hourick (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it may not be of historical note, because Texas law clearly allows you to do something like this. However, the fact that anyone was surprised for a minute that he was cleared makes it more significant than I would have thought. 63.171.230.113 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm considering adding it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law since there are unusual circumstances of this case and supposedly sets a precedent for the "Castle Doctrine" which I'm not familiar with. --Hourick (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm the Joe Horn shooting has been at least as entertaining as the Wild West shootouts of yore. Seems like a piece of history to me. Deatonjr (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Castle Doctrine...

It is stated that this is the first instance (in Texas at least) that someone has been acquitted since the Castle Doctrine was approved in Texas. I've been struggling to figure out how to incorporate it in the Jury's decision section. Anyone have any ideas? [1] [2] --Hourick (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"I'm going to kill them."

I had not seen this in previous reports and do not see it in the article. According to the Associated Press, Joe Horn told the 911 operator before he went outside, "I'm going to kill them." The 911 operator was trying to dissuade him from going outside at all. I think the article needs to note that Joe Horn told the 911 operator "I'm going to kill them." before he went outside.

In the 911 call, a dispatcher urges Horn to stay inside his house and not risk lives.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

After the shooting, he redialed 911.

Besides leaving out the evidence of premeditation, the Wikipedia article also glosses over the fact that both people Joe Horn shot to death were shot in the back. Saftey dance (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry,but that is lousy reporting. If you look at the articles that I have there you HEAR the shotgun going off while talking on the phone with 911. There is no way he called AFTER the shooting if we can hear the shots going off. I have to listen to the footage again, but I don't think he said "I'm going to kill them."--Hourick (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the Associated Press invented the quote I'm going to kill them? Seriously, if that is the case, Joe Horn is still alive and can sue for defamation. No, Joe Horn told the 911 operator, and I quote, I'm going to kill them. He went outside and did just that, as he stated. He developed an intention, made it known to an outside observer, and then executed his plan. If that is not premeditated murder, I don't know what is. The bullet holes being in the decedent's backs is just more evidence. Saftey dance (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to "Calling back after the shooting" part. Either way, this isn't a forum (WP:Forum) or (WP:SOAP),regardless of your opinion on it. --Hourick (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't point me at Wikipedia rules. I was responding to your post. Further response is warranted, since you called into question a pertinent fact of this incident (the Joe Horn shooting controversy). Since you questioned what Joe Horn said about his intentions to go and kill them, I looked it up. The New York Times article confirms:

Mr. Horn, a retired computer manager who testified before the grand jury, called 911 on Nov. 14, saying two men were burglarizing his neighbor’s house in Pasadena, a Houston suburb. He described the men as black.

“I’m not going to let them get away with it,” he told the emergency operator. “I’m going to shoot.” He added, “I’m going to kill them.”

The operator repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to shoot, and the police had just arrived at the scene when Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs.

This information is all pertinent to the article and missing from it. Do you wish to keep it out? Why? If not, how should this sourced information on Joe Horn's statements be worked into the article? How can the fact he shot the two people outside in the back (right as the police arrived and after he said he was going to kill them to the 911 operator) be incorporated? Saftey dance (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Were you responding to "Castle Doctrine?" That is something totally different. You post what you want and as long as its WP:NPOV then you can cite whatever you want. --Hourick (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "I'm going to kill them" wasn't on the tape. The whole quote/statement is misleading. In any selfdefence situation the person defending needs at least to be ready to kill, if he can not control the situation otherwise. There is no proof that this was otherwise in the case of Joe Horn. So we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. Further suspicion is kind of libelous.

I Don't know which person I'm responding to, but the "I'm going to kill them" remark should be taken in the context of the conversation with the dispatcher. The full dialogue is on the internet, YouTube, elsewhere. The dispatcher asks Horn whether he can see the front of the house, which Horn responds that he cannot see the front of the house but he could go outside to check. The dispatcher tells him to not go outside, and over about 1 - 2 minutes, Horn says that if he goes outside -- against the dispatcher's wishes -- that he would bring his gun, and if he is approached, he will kill them. This is after the dispatcher tells Horn that he (Horn) will get shot, enforcing the presumption (to disuade Horn from going outside) that the burglars have a gun. It is in response to that, that Horn himself will be shot, that he says I'm going to kill them. Rather than quoting the AP or another newspaper, or what have you, you can listen to the actual undoctored conversation, it is all over the internet and it's only like 8minutes long. 68.116.194.150 (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I also find that kind of amusing or ironic how those against Joe Horn, bring up that the attackers were supposedly being "shot in the back" (which isn't what the autopsy report said). During the Ruby Ridge Massacre In the case of Samy Weaver the boy was shot in the back running away from police snipers to his home. And the cops even got medals for that. So this shouldn't be an argument, not remotely. --197.229.93.6 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is completely unexcusable for the media to edit out a pertinent factor of criminal intent. The phrase "I am going to kill them" is audible in all recordings of the segmant in question. Some media sources have chosen not to publish this quote for unknown reasons. I applaud all of you for finding and noting this. JurisDoctorMan (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Texas Law Made Changes in September 2007

In September 2007, Texas law created the "Castle Doctrine", supposedly making it "Legal" for Residents to apply deadly force as a form of self-deffense. That's why Horn himself took matters into his hands making it obvious that if he would have allowed the suspects go then he might as well could have been the one to end up shot. The two deceased suspects (both Colombian nationals/Illegals) Hernando Torres and Diego Ortiz, both shot in the back, either way even if they would have stop to a complete freeze ... Mr.Horn was still going to shoot.

There is no proof for the last statement. There is good reason to believe that there is a possibility that Horn shot, because he felt threatened - They were on his property, right.

What fried many to burst in fury after Horn's June 30, 2008 grand jury hearing was that he was found "Not Guilty" and was cleared of all charges anyway. It turns out (according to Houston newspapers and other media) that his deffense attorney (Tom Lambright) and the judge are "FRIENDS", and now many Houston residents are suspecting that this trio's friendship may have played a role in clearing Horn's case ... to many, the grand jury's decision dropped worse than an F-bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.252.117 (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevent, it would have gone either way. Had the grand jury upheld charges and indictedh Horn, a similar number would be upset with that ruling as well. Also, anybody who's worked in district courts can attest that most lawyers and judges have both professional and personal relationships... they work together all year, it's impossible not to develop some sort of relationship. Whether that alters the result of a case, especially one with a grand jury, is not proveable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.194.150 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost nobody is "in fury" over the decision except a very small percentage of crapheads who don't appreciate the good Joe Horn did. The only reason the left get media coverage on this is because some media want an opposing point of view. There should be more like Joe Horn and he should get an award for community service.

Joe Horn took out the trash. Good for him. Don't want to catch a load of double-ought buckshot in the back? Try not breaking into peoples' homes and stealing their hard-earned property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.162.7 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine Article

Link to a Time article dated 7/3/08: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820028,00.html?xid=rss-topstories Contributors to this article should be on the lookout for nationwide reactions to the verdict on this case since it was decided only within the last week. Deatonjr (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And another one...

This one happened just up the road from where I live... [3]

Afro-Latin-American?

If they had been French-Irish would that have been made as prominent? And they weren't American, they were illegals.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the burglars, as well as of the neighbors whose house was being hit by the burglars, are all verified by the cites. The article text is verified by the cites. Have reverted the removal of this information, as it is important, especially with regards to readers understanding the Quanell X demonstrations. (Quanell X wouldn't have been demonstrating had the burglars been French-Irish.) Yaf (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence as it reads now clarifies that they were illegals from Colombia, but "Afro-Latino" instead of "Afro-Latin American" is accurate and would be clearer and less cumbersome. When you stick "Afro" in front of Latin-American, it looks similar to "Afro-American" which has an entirely different connotation - i.e. "American" connotes the USA. Afro-Americans are American citizens with African heritage. The dead burglars were not American citizens. In this case using Afro-Latino would just be a cleaner way of saying it. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Afro-Latin American is the complete expression, but this ethnicity is also commonly referred to as Afro-Latino. Using Afro-Latino would be fine. I also took out the repeated wiki-link that appeared later in the article. The article is definitely better worded now, with less likelihood for confusing readers. Good sequence of edits, overall, I think. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerome Jay Ersland shooting

Will someone please just START a Wiki article on Ersland? http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/murder-trial-set-for-okla-pharmacist-for-killing-drugstore-robber/1

It looks like the more peaceful people in Oklahoma and the prosecutor's office do not understand the effects of adrenaline. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.127.28 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for article: the last third of: http://www.edmondsun.com/statenews/local_story_309233857.html

"In a case that has stirred debate over vigilante justice and self-defense, Ersland is accused of gunning down 16-year-old Antwun Parker at the Reliable Discount Pharmacy where he worked in south Oklahoma City.

A surveillance video shows two would-be robbers enter the store and one of them point a gun toward Ersland and two women working inside. The video shows Ersland draw a weapon and fire at Parker, who was unarmed, striking him once in the head.

Ersland then chased the other would-be robber outside. The video shows Ersland return about 30 seconds later, retrieve a second gun and fire five shots at Parker, who was lying on the floor.

Defense attorneys maintain that Ersland feared for his life and the safety of his co-workers, but prosecutors say he went too far when he shot the teen while he was on the floor, unconscious, with his hands extended to his sides.

After a preliminary hearing Wednesday, a judge ruled there was sufficient evidence for Ersland to stand trial for first-degree murder.

Parker’s alleged accomplice, 15-year-old Jevontai Ingram, has been charged with first-degree murder, along with two ex-convicts who prosecutors contend planned the robbery and persuaded the teens to carry it out." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.127.28 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No-bill?

Could someone explain to a non-American reader what 'no-bill' means? I assume this simply means Horn was acquitted, but it's a piece of legal terminology I'm not familiar with, and we don't seem to have a page on it. Robofish (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgable enough on the topic to phrase it properly, so I'll just send you a link. [4] But basically its what a grand jury gives when there is insufficient cause to file criminal charges. --Hourick (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's jargon, in a way. A grand jury returns a "bill of indictment", a list of charges they consider worthy to be taken to trial. Or they do not return such a bill, hence "no-bill". htom (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Elaborating, he was not charged, and had no opportunity to be either acquitted or convicted. htom (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave no bill a link to indictment which has somewhat of an explanation of what the term no bill is. Dancindazed (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting words in his mouth.

"Horn stated that he had the right to use deadly force to defend property, referring to a law (Texas Penal Code §§ 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43) which justified the use of deadly force to protect Horn's home." This is simply not true. I just listened to the call and the closest he came to saying such a thing was "you know the laws have changed since september 1st" and "A shotgun is not an illegal weapon." The way the article writes this, it makes the man seem like he had some kind of great knowledge of the law and he knew that if he killed them it was completely legal, when the only legal reference he made was his rights to defend himself and carry the weapon. Dancindazed (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link supporting "Police initially identified the dead men in Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both residents of Houston, and of Afro-Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of an individual named Hernando Riascos Torres" is broken and cannot be substantiated, especially in reference to them being of Afro-Latino descent. This is not a recognized demographic group in the United States and is obviously someone's open opinion as to their race. Since the article then goes on to talk about them being from Columbia, this further details the lack of evidence to Afro-latino descent. It is an overt attempt to insert racism into the article. The names would also have to be researched as they are both based on the same broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.60.147.129 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reactions section is too short

Why is Glenn Beck the only one whose reaction is mentioned? I'm pretty sure I remember their being other notable commentators on the Joe Horn shooting controversy besides just Glenn Beck. Therefore,as I've added the expansion tag since the section is currently to short given the degree of controversy this incident created. --67.101.223.176 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Horn shooting controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608053208/http://www.citizinemag.com/texas/0801_joehorn.htm to http://www.citizinemag.com/texas/0801_joehorn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705103358/http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080701_tnt_hornfolo.13264f98.html to http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080701_tnt_hornfolo.13264f98.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)