No. I am not.
Just because I don't think these two criminals shouldn't be shot in the back doesn't mean I am "siding with" them.


And if we were to actually discuss the MORALITY of shooting two burglars in the back, I think we both know you'd lose.

I followed this case from the beginning on another thread. He was fully in his rights to kill those men under Texas law. It would have been a waste of time to even attempt to put him on trial because no jury would have convicted him. The law in Texas is such that you CAN kill a person burglarizing a neighbor if there is suspicion that they might escape otherwise. My Horn called the police when he saw the men going into the house. The police typically didn't arrive in time. So as they were leaving with the loot, he shot them. I have no problem with that. If you don't want to get shot, don't break into people's houses.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

I fully understand that is what Texas law says.
The law in Texas is wrong, and f%@#ed up.


Hopefully nobody mistakes you for a "burglar" or any other type of criminal as you happen to be nearby the scene of a crime.
That would exemplify one of the many ways this murder was wrong and unjustifiable.

This guy took the law into his own hands. The cops were EVEN THERE as he shot. He shot anyways.

Killing another person in self-defense is understandable.
That is NOT what this guy did.
What this guy did was vigilantism. He took the law into his own hands.

I disagree.

No it wouldn't. In this case Mr. Horn saw the men entering AND exiting the house. The law worked just fine in this case. As long as I am not crawling in and out of a window, I'll be okay.
Have you checked all the facts of this situation? These men were guilty of much more than "being nearby".
The cops were not in uniform, and they were doing nothing. He had no idea that there were cops there.

Your vigilantism is another persons protecting property. I'm on the "protect property" side.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

So is there anything in the law which states that the shooter has to be absolutely positive before he can shoot?
I'm not talking about THIS case where he got it "right".


I'm discussing the LAW itself.
Not how justified this guy was in applying "capital punishment".


Where do you get that from?


What a simplistic way of putting it.
A person can "protect property" without resorting to shooting people in the back.

I believe in property protection as well. Shooting people in the back as they flee the crime is not "property protection". The property was not "protected". That's like "protecting" against rape, but then the rape actually occurs.
What side YOU are on is the "shoot people in the back" side...

The law states that a person can defend his neighbors property if the perp might get away. If it is proven that he was mistaken he is criminally liable. And people have been charged since then.

I'm discussing THIS case. And he was justified. The law itself is sound, even if individuals aren't.

The reports of the story when this was current. The police that witnessed this were undercover.

How?

No, I'm in the stop the known criminal before he gets away side. Criminals take risks when they do their work, they paid the price when they got caught.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Doesn't that sound exactly like "vigilantism" to you?

They can kill the criminal without any pretense of "self-defense".
And if the person was innocent, then the killer is liable...


I have read a couple of articles and there is no mention of this.
Furthermore, if the guy had stayed on the phone with 911, 911 could have told him that.
If they hadn't actually told him that in the first place...


You don't understand how a person can protect property without shooting another person IN THE BACK?


You're making my argument for me...


Shooting somebody in the back, when there is no pretense of self-defense, is not justified.
I repeat, NO pretense of self-defense.

The "before he gets away" is not a reasonable rational for applying lethal force.
Defense of yourself or other people? Justifiable response if it's an equivalent reaction.
Just to prevent somebody from fleeing the scene of a crime? That's over the line.

I'm only dealing with THIS case. Where the law worked. There are others where it didn't. Vigilantism would have people roaming the street looking for criminals. In this case, the criminals were right next door and he saw the whole crime. All his story checked out. I see no problem with this.

He WAS on the phone with 911. They have the whole call on tape, no mention of undercover cops in the area. Do a google for "Joe Horn" and undercover and you'll see several hits.

No, how do you keep two younger men from running away from you and leaving? That's part of the law. If you think they will get away, you can shoot.

You need to read the law.

Self defense AND property defense. He was protecting the stolen property fropm leaving.

Not in Texas. And a few other states for that matter. I invite you to read the thread at DtT. You actually agree with Gary here.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Vigilante is defined as somebody who takes PUNISHMENT of a crime into his own hand.
Whether or not they "roam the street" is irrelevant.
This WAS vigilantism.


I'll have to look into it when I have time.
I have read that he told the 911 operator he was going to shoot and kill the thieves, and the 911 operator EXPLICITLY told him NOT to.


Are you for real?
Stopping people from "running away and leaving you" is NOT an action of "protecting".
It's a sign that the ACTUAL "protection" was SUCCESSFUL.
Apprehending is not part of self-defense.
It's not part of "protecting" yourself.


I have NO doubts that the Texas law creates a twisted version of reality.
The point of this is that the Texas law is screwed up.


"few" other states being the point.
Doesn't it seem irrational for the law to be one way in one state, but another in just a few others?

Does that argument sound familiar?

I think the man who said freeze or I'll shoot was completely within the law of the state and I wish more states had such laws.
In some states, if a woman is being beaten by her husband, the police cannot enter the house to intervene unless she can make it to the door to open it for them, then if the husband says they cannot come in, they must honor that he lives there too and has a right to privacy or some such crap. In the state of Texas if your estranged husband harasses you at work or elsewhere, and you state in front of him and the police that you have the intention of divorcing him, the police have the right to protect you wherever you are.
Sorry, but I like that in a police force. And I like the fact that if I'm being vandalized or robbed whether I'm home or not, my neighbor can protect my property.

__________________