Would You Shoot 2 Men to Protect Your Neighbor's Property?
 

Source

What's your opinion on this? In Horn's situation, what would you have done?

The fact that he told the dispatcher he was going outside with the intent to kill them is a pretty damning fact in my view.

I wouldn't shoot two men to protect my own property.

Unless another human life is at pretty immediate risk I wouldn't shoot anybody.

But it is moot since I would never have a gun in the house with which I might shoot people. I suppose I could throw kitchen knives.

I see your point GD, but if two bad guys threaten me, I am happy to tuck them in for a dirt nap. I may not be legally entitled to do so, but I believe that I am morally justified.

But considering what state this happened in, I'm surprised it even got to a grand jury.

The only time I would wish to have a gun is if someone is threatening my family or if I could help save someones life.

I agree with the statement about going to kill them and shooting them in the back. If they were running with the items, a shot in the air would have probably made them drop what they were stealing {and their mud} and if they got away, oh well.

I have heard this before but I can not remember if this was something that had been happening over and over in the neighborhood? I know that sometimes people really lose control when they've been victimized repeatedly.

Like, the neighborhood where my highschool was, every freakin' night someone would have their tires stolen! {you would see the cars up on bricks} I remember one guy it happening to more than once. I can't remember how I know but after that he was ready with his shotgun to kill any one who tried to steal his tires.

Some people can not be victims. Even if it means property.

I would not shoot to kill, I would not own a gun. But that's me. This is Texas, an entirely different place on the planet.

What I wonder anytime something like this happens, doesn't anyone ever shoot to disable or hoblle them, then they (the crinimal) can be prosecuted by the law for the crime they are comitting? Why do you have to kill them? If they are not posing a threat to your own personal safety, why not shoot to disarm/disable and then wait for the cops and ambulances to show up?

He was inside talking to 911. How is that being threatened? He then goes out, with the stated intent of killing them and shoots them in the back.

Obviously this article does not give all the details, but I see no indication that the man's life was ever threatened, and definitely not before he made the decision to confront them with a weapon and threaten their life.

In reading the story, I see this (emphasis mine):

This is difference for me (assuming it is true - that will be for the jury to decide). If he had shot the robbers just to stop the robbery (of someone else's property), then I would have no sympathy for him. If he was truly defending himself, then he was justified in defending himself.


But I am with GD: he show a very clear intent to kill. First Degree Murder IMO.

I obviously haven't full details from just one news story, but:

1: He said he was going to kill them before they had made any threat. So if they did threaten him did he seek to provoke it?

2: According to the article he shot them in the back. In what way were they threatening him at that moment.

As I understand it, they came into his yard until after he went outside. Had he done what the 911 dispatcher told him to do, his life never would have been in danger in the first place. Couple that with his intent to kill and it seems clear this guy wanted to be vigilante.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, the jury already found him not guilty. Big surprise in Texas.

This is from the article above. The bold is my doing.
There are a couple of things that bug me about the whole thing:

1. The quote above. Was this a game to the man? Was it just adrenaline?

2. Shooting two people in the back. Wow. No threat to him, they were walking/running away from him.

3. Horn looks like my ex's dad.

4. I don't want to pull the "what kind of message does this send" card, but what kind of message does this send? Vigilantism is A-OK in Texas.

5. He could have shot to wound. He chose not to do that. Twice.

6. Does the fact that they were illegal immigrants make the ruling okay? I don't think so.

7. Does race play a part in this? If they were white guys shot in the back, what would the opinion be then?

8. Horn suspected they were robbing his neighbor, and they most likely were. But even suspicion of robbery was enough for this man to kill.


I don't think I could shoot to kill anyone unless me, my family or friends were in danger. Even then, my instinct would be to wound. But with all the adrenaline flowing, who knows.

No, no, no, no, and no. I don't and won't own a gun. I wouldn't shoot one under pretty much any circumstance. Not for my own safety, not for the sake of property or belongings. If the zombies are coming, I want to be the one who gets killed before the opening credits.

I possibly would lose my mind if I watched someone kill my husband (or a niece/nephew/my own child) and in that case I don't trust that I wouldn't be violent. But I feel no instinct towards violence in my life as it stands right now, and I tend to be pretty disgusted by other people's violence.

He showed clear intent. His defense is B.S.

He showed intent. If he said he was going to go fire warning shots, or if he was going to shoot to disable them it'd be slightly different. But he said he was going to kill them. Intent. They weren't in his house. They had their back to him. Maybe the case could be made they were loading shells, I don't know.

Could I? Not in this circumstance. I don't own a gun, don't plan on it. I think in the adrenaline of a situation where my life or my loved ones life was in imminent danger, perhaps. I wouldn't shoot to kill, and if I did I don't know if I could live with myself. But in regards to this situation? No.

No, you don't shoot to maim, especially with a shotgun. If you're going to shoot somebody it better be because you need them to be dead or consider that an acceptable outcome.

Pfft... speak for yourself, buddy.

Ok, but it is a lesson of proper gun handling that when you shoot a person it is to kill. There is no guaranteed "maim" (not to mention it requires shooting at a much smaller target) and if that is a risk you can take then you shouldn't be shooting them in the first place.

The other lesson from my stepfather was "Unless you're in immediate danger, you better be planning to eat it if it is alive when you shoot it. So keep that in mind if you get an urge to point this at your sister."

But it did keep me from harrassing squirrels in our backyard with my BB gun. Though I did become a great hunter of apples hanging from our trees.

Well, see, I know nothing about the lessons of proper gunhandling, and I hope never to.

I still think if you are popping soeone who is running away, aim for the knee.

I think everyone should know how to handle a gun and gun safety (beyond don't point it at people or at yourself) even if they never ever plan on touching or owning one.

One can hope all they want, but you truly never know what situation you may find yourself in.

It was all in how I read your earlier statement. The mental imagery made me snicker a bit.

I agree with you quite a bit on this topic, even if I do have a gun on my property with which I could shoot someone.

Well, if they are running away you shouldn't be popping them in the first place.

You also shouldn't fire warning shots and if you do it should be into the ground at your feet. Particularly in an urban or suburban area. What goes up does come down and even a high angle shot can have a good amount of lateral velocity remaining when it eventually hits something.

But he was using a shotgun - not exactly a gun you use for perfect aim.

And... if you aim for the knee, you can still inflict a deadly injury - femoral artery, etc.

Agree, agree, agree. And I have to say, using a gun isn't always as easy as it looks, so if you're shooting to kill or at least disable someone, you're better off knowing how to aim and handle the thing properly.

Mythbusters covered that!

exactly right.

in this particular case, I have little sympathy for those killed in this incident. Im of the mind living a life of crime is living on borrowed time. it IS going to catch up to you in one form or another.

the shooter however, even as a gun owner myself, was unjustified in killing these two. youre on the phone to 911 and not directly threatened. youre done. not enough? fine...take pictures, video, get evidence. yell out the window or whatever. from all I could read on this incident, there was zero reason for a gun to be involved at all.

I see this as doing far more harm than good for the overall perception of resonsible gun ownership

Um, this is Texas, right?


What are we even talking about? The groundwork for widespread, legal vigilantism has long been laid.



If I'm reading this right, he was aquitted even after commiting stated, premeditated murder of illegal immigrant, suspected criminals. The End. Welcome to Texas.

Considering it was Texas, I'm suprised they didn't give him a medal and a ticker-tape parade! :rolleyes:

I would not hesitate to kill someone threatening a loved one or myself.

Property is not worth the life of the victim or the thief.

I would not go outside to confront someone if I and my family were inside.

That being said, any unwelcome intruder in my home without permission has completely unknown motives to me is therefore a mortal threat to me and my family. I would not hesitate to shoot someone in that circumstance.

Because of this, I think this man crossed the line. He was under no threat. I'd say under the circumstances even if he had been in the house and all he heard was a wiggling of the doorknob he might be justified (though that's a stretch) due to the situation.

Yeah, I'm with you.

If the two men had entered his home instead, I'd say he had every right to shoot them. Even shoot to kill. If someone broke into my home, I'd assume the worst and would from that moment cease to care about that person's life. I'm not presently a gun owner, so my current defense plan is to tear out a throat with my bare hands because a D.A.R.E. office once taught my sixth grade class how to do that. Best D.A.R.E. office ever.

If people knew they were robbing the home of a gun owner, would they even bother? I do wonder.

If you break into someone's home, whatever your motive and reason, however needy or desperate, you should understand the risks: You can be caught or worse. Bad things may happen to you. Someone may KILL you for stealing a DVD player. Sure there are laws about the use of excessive force, etc., and rightly so. I don't think justice was served by the verdict in this instance. But I also don't feel much sympathy for the dead.

I don't know if I feel sympathy, exactly. But it's a ****ty life for many, and this is a particularly ****ty financial time. Without sufficient financial or educational resources, and without people around you teaching and demonstrating good ethics, I can imagine it would be pretty difficult to resist the urge to steal.

Peaceful resistance might lead to your death, but on the other hand, aggressive resistance like his might also. I wish everyone had the impulse to give their mugger their coat, because I'd much rather try to end up with both people alive instead of one of the parties dead. Much like Chekhov's Gun rule, introduce one in the first act and somebody's going to get shot.

He shot them in the back. They were running away. I just don't think property or objects are worth a human life, even if that human is stealing it.

Horn has not been acquitted of anything. A grand jury refused to issue an indictment. I believe that means the local prosecutors are able to represent to another grand jury if they think they can get another decision.

That said, since grand juries are strongly tilted in the favor of the prosecution it isn't a good sign.

As said before I am going completely based on a single news story, and that generally isn't a great way to become informed on events. So I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that there is information that makes this more justified than the story otherwise indicates.

I agree with your concerns.

Unless one is an experienced marksman, with a bullet (not a shotgun), as well as many other variables being perfect, the chances of someone just wounding someone running is highly unlikely.

There is no shortage of stolen guns in this country, and there's certainly a market for them. Many stolen guns are taken from private owners.

Nor do I. I think the shooter was guilty of a crime. But I don't value all human life equally, so I won't be crying into my hanky over these two. It's too bad that things like this happen, but the world is a beautiful place with a lot of bad it. A family bicycling in their neighborhood was mowed down and killed by a drunk driver in L.A. the other day (a la 21 Grams). As news stories go, that one pulls my heartstrings significantly more.

Hard times can explain certain actions, sure, but it shouldn't excuse it. There are plenty of people who have it rough and behave better. When everything falls to ****, some people are at their best and some are at their worst. It all comes down to the choices we make, and in this case three people chose poorly, and the legal system seems to have decided poorly.

Aw, I hadn't heard about the family - how sad.

Indeed, poor decisions in all cases. I hold everyone in the situation accountable for their behavior, and I am not presuming they were, like Jean Valjean, stealing a loaf of bread to feed their children. I'm just trying to say that in the sliding scale of ethics, I have less of a problem with stealing than killing. Which, I think, is an obvious thing to say? But still deserves to be said.

But then, I think I'm really not particularly feeling sympathy for the killed as much as I am feeling disgusted by the killer (and by Texas in general for their approval of vigilante "justice" for trespassing cases. When we visited my brother while he lived outside of Houston, he advised use never to set foot on anyone else's property because of the trespassing rule, and I promptly decided I was never going to live in Texas.)

Family was hit by a drunk driver apparently, who fled from the scene and is still missing I think.

Yeah, maybe Texas should be its own country. Heh. There are certainly some who believe California should be its own country, and I recently read that it was, but only for a very brief time. Tis when the bear first appeared on the flag.

LOL at the Jean Valjean mention. It's true, hypocritical me is far more forgiving of fictional crimes. The tragedy of the dead burglars is that people can change (and live to sing about it...2 - 4 - 6 - 0 - 11111111111). But some some aren't as lucky as my brother, who was finally able to get his act togeher. Some are gunned down by vigilante Texans. And them's the breaks.

One things for sure, the two are not going to be robbing anyone else.

I think they'd like that a lot.

They were once (just like California).

Not only do I think that California should be its own country, and Texas should be its own country .... but I think California should be the most progressive, liberal, generous, advanced, safe and peaceful country ...

















.... right after we annihilate Texas.

The problem is that Northern California would never agree to be an independent country with Southern California. There are enough people in Nor Cal who wish to break away as a separate state from So Cal. as it is.




OK, well, not THE problem, just one of many.

The problem with California becoming its own country (and yes, I know it you know it is just a fun to imagine pipe dream) is that I suspect Colorado and Arizona will no longer feel contractually obligated to provide Los Angeles with water.

Doesn't Texas have the right, in some deal when they agreed to become a state, that they can secede at any time without penalty?

Nope. And I linked to that site because if there was a case to be made that it was codified in writing, they'd make it.

Unlike them, I do think the Civil War did answer the question.


And above I meant Arizona and the Colorado River not Colorado the state.

Water is the primary wedge why some Nor Californians want to be a separate state from So Cal.

No.

Full article


ETA: Alex beat me to it.

Perhaps, but they will gladly give it up for our porn

Every time I read the thread title, I think of this. :)

No way! I'm not giving up mine! They can't have....


What?


Oh... The Southern California porn industry...


Never mind.


You didn't hear that.

:snap: :snap: :snap: :snap: :snap: :snap: :snap:

For Every Federal Dollar California pays in taxes it receives only $.80 in services. (Texas being #1 at receiving $1.34 for every dollar paid)

As for State taxes, Northern CA receives $.71 in services comapared to Southern CA's $1.29 (Due to the states representation in the more populated southern part of the state)

Northern CA is tired of carrying you guys. lol...

We should be so lucky. I say trade Texas for Baja with Mexico. We get Cabo, they get the Bushes.

I say, fry the old fart. There is no justification under the law for premeditated murder. It wasn't self-defense.

However, we are talking about the Great Country of Texas here (their words, not mine). Frankly, if they no longer want to be part of the United States, then GOOD. Don't let the Gulf of Mexico hit your arse on the way out.

California can, like, become it's own country and, like, we can have our own national language that we can, like, impose on anyone who decides to move to the rad country.

Would You Shoot 2 Men to Protect Your Neighbor's Property?

No...but I'd shoot my neighbor's property to protect 2 men...if they were cute.

:evil:

Chicago calls itself "Chicagoland", as if it were a sovereign nation state.

Well, LA has the Inland Empire and the Southland.