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

[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.

[BDBopper]

I wouldn't shoot to kill the two men. I might fire warning shots

But then again you don't want a legally blind guy owning a gun. Those warning shots might kill them anyway LOL

[Alex]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

This is from the article above. The bold is my doing.

In the 911 call, a dispatcher urges Horn to stay inside his house and not risk lives.
"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."
"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."
After the shooting, he redialed 911.
"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."

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.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

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.

[BarTopDancer]

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.

[Alex]

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.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

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.