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.