Oooh, I bet Lisa Falkenberg won't like this.

These comments to this story, that is:

To steal from anyone is absolutely deplorable, but to steal from people who are trying to make ends meet at this time of year is beyond sorry, it's a buckshot to somebody's backside.
...
I have a CHL and I'm a damn good aim from that distance. Go ahead...... I dare you.

As for me, though, I can't really say I have a problem with them. I know there are those who will say that using deadly force to protect property is extreme, but I don't agree with that. What I find myself agreeing with is the opinion that someone who would steal somebody's Christmas in broad daylight probably wouldn't have any compunction about escalating his (or her) crimes to the next level. And even in the cases of the ones who keep their crimes to theft, it doesn't really matter, because they're stealing from hard-working, law-abiding people and they deserve anything that comes to them because of that. If some of said law-abiding people deem that theft worthy of high-velocity lead injection, well, as far as I'm concerned that's just the hazard the criminals face. Sonsofbitches should have gotten their own Christmas presents.

Of course he was a choirboy, wasn't he?

Fed stray puppies, helped little ole ladies across the street, he was probably just asking that old man if he had any table scraps for the puppies...

On Jimbo Lane, Herrera’s family put on black ribbons Thursday as the boy’s mother, Evelia Herrera, sobbed on the front porch and tried to plan a weekend funeral.
Her son — her only son — was a good boy, she said.
He cooked food for her and dreamt of being a mechanic.
Herrera was in the ninth grade but he wasn’t involved in drugs and he never stole things, family members said.
“It’s not right, it’s not right,” said his sister, Marisa Peralta, 20. “I don’t know why my brother was over there, but I know for sure he wasn’t bad. He was probably just defending himself.”

Yes indeed, that big, strong teenager was defending himself from an old man so weak he needed oxygen to breathe, and that old man shot that little boy because he hates teh brown people. Couldn't have had a damn thing to do with the old man being in fear of his safety, oh teh noes. I can't WAIT to see what Lisa Falkenberg has to say about this. You know, I realize people want to think the best of their family members, but sooner or later they're just gonna have to realize he just might not have been the little angel they thought he was. I wonder why no one asked the family about the crack pipe...

Another unlikely headline

...in today's Chron:
Self-defense slayings rise against intruders

JACKSON, MISS. — A convenience store clerk chased down a man and shot him dead over a case of beer this summer and was charged with murder. A week later, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store followed and fatally shot a man he said tried to rob him, and authorities let him go without charges.
Police say the robber in the second case was armed, while the man accused of stealing beer was not.
Just the same, the legal plights of the two clerks highlight the uncertain impact of National Rifle Association-backed laws sweeping the nation that make it easier to justify shooting in self-defense.

I know there are a lot of people who are squeamish about killing over property, but ultimately I think something like what the clerk did in the first case isn't entirely a bad thing. If actions like that cause other criminals to think twice about taking other people's property, then when it's all said and done a lot of good has been done for society. Many will say it's "just stuff" or "a bag of loot," as Houston Chronicle columnist Lisa Falkenberg so self-righteously put it, but at the heart it's a lot more than that. When you get right down to it, taking someone else's property is a violation of their personal sovereignty, and letting said violations go unchallenged and/or unpunished constitutes a dangerous undermining of the social contract that keeps us from descending back into anarchy and tribal war. I know such a perspective is beyond many in the mainstream media and certain advocacy groups, but I bet most of us over in flyover country grasp it quite well.

Well, maybe because it IS...

Lisa Falkenberg is without peer in Texas print media when it comes to not getting it, and today's column is no exception...

Some see pride in Obama's win as wrong

...Some of my fellow whites apparently are feeling a bit confused, disturbed and even threatened by all the smiling, chest-puffing, Obama T-shirt-wearing black folks strutting around like they run the country or something.
Well, finally, for the first time in our nation's history, someone who looks like them will be running the country. Can we blame them for celebrating?
Yes, apparently, we can. Where some of us see pride, and share in it, others see divisiveness.
"Unfortunately, all these good black Americans see is the color of a man's skin," read one comment under my column last week featuring the perspectives of 1960s freedom fighters.
"I thought this election was not about race, but that's pretty much all I've heard since the result was declared final," wrote another, who went on to lament how Jesse Jackson wept openly, Condoleezza Rice "could barely contain herself" and a "usually composed Colin Powell was unabashedly happy that a black man was now our president."
Another reader e-mailed Viewpoints on Saturday, apparently in sarcastic response to the Houston Chronicle's promotion of a special section on Obama's historic win: "Is it still possible to get reprints of the special Sunday section highlighting George Bush when he was elected in 2000 or 2004?"
A white loss
All these people can't be oblivious to the historic moment our country has just witnessed: A man who would have been sent to the back of the bus in the 1950s will soon be riding on Air Force One.
Black schoolchildren learning about America's presidents will finally find among the row of white faces an image that resembles their own.
So why the sour grapes?
"It's a classic argument," says Eric McDaniel, a University of Texas assistant professor who specializes in racial and ethnic politics. "The victory of a black person is automatically seen as a loss for white people."

Oooh, logical fallacy alert! Namely, straw man argument. I have seen no one anywhere saying that the election of a black man to the presidency would be a loss for white people. And it would seem to me that Lisa Falkenberg and her ilk are placing the fact that this is a "historic" occasion above the fact that we just elected to the presidency a gun-grabbing Constitution-hating Marxist who couldn't pass a government background check for a defense contract with the government. It's worth asking, just exactly why the guns and ammunition have been flying off the shelves since Barack Bill Ayers Obama was elected. Considering his record, I find it difficult, nay, impossible to believe that all those munitions were just for target practice or hunting — especially considering it hasn't been the traditional bolt-action hunting guns whose demand has skyrocketed. I don't understand why the next step on the way to a completely non-racist society has to be the targets of past racism getting a pass on their own racism. And that's exactly what it is. If you vote FOR someone just because of their skin color, you're just as much of a racist as one who votes AGAINST someone for that reason. And it really is just that simple.
In yet another bitter irony, the clueless Falkenberg wrote last week about '60s freedom fighters supporting Barack No Guns For You Obama — ironic because of the fact that the President-elect deigns to bring back involuntary servitude via "mandatory volunteer service" for certain groups, although this time people of all colors will be under the lash if he gets his way. (How's THAT for equality?) Who is it once again that's distracting from the real issues?

"...a bag of loot"?!

Somehow I knew Lisa Falkenberg wasn't going to like much the fact that the Harris County grand jury no-billed Pasadena resident Joe Horn for shooting two burglars who broke into his neighbor's unoccupied home last October....

These are good times for gun owners.

Between the U.S. Supreme Court striking the D.C. gun ban and the clearing of Pasadena vigilante Joe Horn, I'm halfway expecting Gov. Rick Perry to issue an executive order this afternoon granting the long-held wish of open-carry petitioners to grant their right to sport handguns in hip holsters.

I read that and seriously got so caught up in what she said about the open-carry executive order that I thought she actually wrote that Perry WAS going to sign that order, and thought, "Oh, HELL yeah!" But then I went back and read it again and got what she was actually saying. Huh. She was saying that she was halfway EXPECTING Perry to sign that order. And with her typical air of condescension, no less. Oh, and she's saying that like it's a BAD thing...

...deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
Now, Texas law isn't known for its progressive trend-setting. Ours is the same state that had to be told recently by the nation's highest court that we can't wait until indictment to give poor people attorneys to defend themselves. But this statute appears to be particularly antiquated.

George Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas, located its predecessor in criminal code from the mid-1850s. The statute, very similar to the modern one, was found in the "Chapter of Justifiable Homicide," which also included an article explaining the circumstances under which it's justified to kill a slave.

Oh, nice work, Lisa. I'm sure your leftist professors are incredibly proud of you this morning, finding a way to link Joe Horn helping his neighbor out with killing slaves. Works really well with the "RACIST!" angle that's being covered by the professional race-baiters and grievance-mongers at LULAC. Really, though, what's that provision have to do with the one Joe Horn was no-billed under?

...(Horn) seemed to realize early on that needlessly shooting two men — regardless of their criminal behavior and illegal immigrant status, of which Horn was unaware at the time — would weigh heavily on him.

If I didn't know better, I'd say Lisa, who was mercilessly flogging Horn in her assigned space six months ago, is almost trying to sound like she feels sorry for him now. But I'm guessing that what she's really trying to do is make it sound like deep down he knew he shouldn't have shot those bastards. The fact is, though, that pretty much everyone who is forced to pull the trigger in self-defense feels pangs of regret for that decision and never really gets over it 100 percent. I'm betting Horn knew this. Still, he did what he thought to be the right thing. And yeah, I'd still be honored to have him or someone like him for my next door neighbor.

This case has never been about gun rights, or self-defense.

Perhaps not, but it is very closely related. Part of the rationale behind the whole concept of carrying a weapon is that those who carry them can not only protect and defend themselves from harm -- or deprivation of property -- but that they can do the same for others as well, thus producing a net benefit for society. It's that protective instinct that brings forth the warriors, the sheepdogs, if you will -- and if it were suppressed as I'm guessing people like Lisa Falkenberg think it should be, the consequences would be dire, not just for our society, but for Western civilization. We are our own best protectors -- and those for our neighbors as well, quite literally.

The little old man from Pasadena gunned down two men like dogs. For a bag of loot.

Wow. Just...wow. I am absolutely flabbergasted here. I guess she thinks Joe Horn should have just let those two thugs make off with his neighbor's stuff, stuff that man busted his ass for, stuff that it took that man no telling how long to get. I guess this is just an offshoot of that pernicious "just give them what they want" outlook, but still it's no less infuriating. I bet you that if it was HER stuff it wouldn't have been just "a bag of loot." If there is any justice in the world, sooner or later people who talk shit like this are going to come home one day and find their houses ransacked and looted, and everything they've worked for, GONE. And they will bloody well fucking deserve it.

Sometimes you just gotta ask, what the hell's wrong with people?...

...and this is one such time...

A grand jury will decide whether the accidental Christmas Eve shooting death of a 14-year-old boy should lead to charges against his older brother or other relatives.

Angel Garcia died Monday night after being shot in the head by a pistol held by his 18-year-old brother, Harris County sheriff's officers said.

The incident occurred about 9 p.m. as the brothers were visiting relatives in the 6100 block of Laramie, in northeast Harris County, said sheriff's Sgt. Dennis Field.

Investigators said the older teen told them he had found his father's pistol on top of a TV. The brother, who told officers he was not familiar with guns, said he pulled the trigger and the gun did not fire.

He then pulled back the pistol's slide, which loaded a live round into the chamber, and pulled the trigger again, wounding his brother, officers said.

Maybe it's just me, but I just can't fathom pointing a gun at anyone, especially if I didn't know it was loaded. I'll admit it's been a few years since I was a teenager, but even at 18 years old I just can't see myself actually screwing around with a gun like that. I didn't have that much to do with guns back then, but a semi-automatic pistol isn't that hard to figure out. Surely that man had to know that gun was loaded when he pointed it and pulled the trigger. I can see a toddler or a younger kid doing this, but 18 years old? What the hell? Try as I may, I just can't get my head wrapped around the possibility that someone could be so stupefyingly ignorant at that age. Both the adult who left the gun out and the one who killed his brother should be charged, and I for one would love to see one of the prosecution's attorneys ask him what the hell he was thinking when he was pointing that gun at his brother and had his finger on the trigger. Wonder how long it'll take Lisa Falkenberg to gin up a column saying we should all have sympathy for that poor, pooooor kid and push for ever tighter gun laws to prevent such traaaaagedies. For teh childrenses, you see...

Shooting At The Wrong Target

So, while Lisa Falkenberg continues her hand-wringing over the two dead Pasadena burglars on page B1 of today's Houston Chronicle, elsewhere in the City & State section we have another installment in the ongoing story of Riley Ann Sawyers, also known as Baby Grace...

A Spring couple indicted Wednesday on capital murder charges in the death of a 2-year-old girl tried to bury the body north of Houston before finally tossing it into West Galveston Bay, a defense attorney said.

The girl's mother, Kimberly Dawn Trenor, 19, and her husband, Royce Clyde Zeigler II, 24, tried to bury the body with a shovel purchased at Wal-Mart, said Trenor's attorney, Tommy Stickler Jr.

"He tried to dig a hole, but he wasn't digging fast enough so he gave up," Stickler said, referring to information Trenor gave during in a three-hour statement to investigators Nov. 24.

For those unfamiliar with the story, those two monsters beat that little girl with a belt, threw her onto the floor, held her head under water and pushed her face into a pillow. Which makes me wonder, why isn't Lisa Falkenberg using her valuable chunk of journalism real estate talking about that instead of pissing it away making bullshit comparisons between toilet-papering someone's yard and breaking and entering into their house? Riley Ann Sawyers, unlike the dead Pasadena burglars, didn't have a chance or a choice in life. With apologies to the great Bill Whittle, "We demonize the wrong people."

Spinning the Facts

Lisa Falkenberg in this morning's Chron, in a follow-up to her own armchair-quarterbacking of Joe Horn:

"It's not the things they steal that upsets people," said Joe Brignac of Katy. "It's that they're violating the sanctity of people's privacy in their houses."

Many of these folks have trouble seeing the trees for the forest. To them, Horn's actions send a message that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Never mind the facts in the case that suggest Horn was itching to pull the trigger and needlessly took two lives.

I don't really think it's the facts alone that suggest Joe Horn was "itching to pull the trigger" so much as the way people like Lisa Falkenberg spin the facts of the case to fit their own preconceived notions of how we should or should not be watching out for our neighbor. The rest of the column proceeds to cloud the issue even further by tossing out statistics about how crime has gone down in Houston and using these facts to say that people's fears about crime in Houston aren't really justified. Which is ironic considering how Falkenberg talks about "missing the trees for the forest." Why is that? Well, ask anyone who's been a crime victim what the decrease in crime means to them personally. I'd be pretty sure it's not gonna mean a damn thing to them since it happened to them. Or, put another way, there may not be so many home invasions here in the Golden Triangle, but the next time it happens it'd be interesting to see what the victim of said home invasion would say to the suggestion that it doesn't happen often. Just because crime has gone down doesn't mean Joe Horn should have just sat back and let those thugs break into that house.
And if what I've heard is right, said thugs came at Horn with a crowbar. Call me callous, but anyone stupid enough to come at a man with a shotgun with anything other than hands in the air deserves whatever they get coming to them, no matter what color they are. I'd just think of it as chlorination of the gene pool. But maybe that's just me.