Would You Shoot 2 Men to Protect Your Neighbor's 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.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

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

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

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.

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

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.

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

Instead, 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, Lambright said.

"He was scared. He was in fear of his life," he said.

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

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.