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

[Gemini Cricket]

Ever since he fatally shot two men he suspected of burglarizing his next-door neighbor's home, 62-year-old Joe Horn has been both praised and vilified for his actions. Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the intruders. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but a defiant Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.
Some community activists wanted Horn to face charges for the deaths. Supporters of the retired grandfather said what he did was justified under the law.

Source

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

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

[Alex]

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.

[MouseWife]

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.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Horn was a frightened retiree who tried to defend his neighbor's property and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn defended himself

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.

[Snowflake]

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?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

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,

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.

[blueerica]

Originally Posted by Alex

No, you don't shoot to maim,

Pfft... speak for yourself, buddy.

[Capt Jack]

Originally Posted by Alex

If you're going to shoot somebody it better be because you need them to be dead or consider that an acceptable outcome.

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

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Capt Jack

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

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.