Not according to the law. He was sitting in his home. He saw a crime, he called the police, they didn't make it, he yelled at them to stop, they didn't, he shot them and saved his neighbor's property. Job well done.

The 911 operator didn't have the authority to tell him not to obey the law and protect the property. He had no requirement to listen to that operator.

I'm not saying it was self defense. It was protecting the property. The protection was not successful as they had the property and were leaving. His actions saved the neighbor from loss.

In this case, castle doctrine type laws are faar more than "few".
Sorry about the Wiki. Just easy for this purpose...
Castle Doctrine in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The number is rising.

Yup, sure does.

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

This statement is ridiculous. Even if the law did protect him from prosecution, he could have shot them in the legs. It was a shotgun for Christ's sake, and he knew that in hitting them in the back he would kill them. He actually stated that he wanted to kill them.

Of course, the fact that he was not prosecuted shows that he was within 'his right' under the law to use deadly force to stop men from taking property (disgusting when property is above any life), but the fact that the law is written so is quite appalling to me. They gave the life of these men less regard than they would give that of a dog.

Furthermore, not sure if you caught it, but he did an interview and said he was DEEPLY SORRY for what he had done. Taking a human life is no joke, no matter whose life it is, and he is feeling it now even though he got away with murder. I hope he feels the death of those men until his dying day.

For the record, I don't think he should have done jailtime, but I do think that he should have received some form of punishment, whether it be probation, community service, something to stress that there is such a thing as sanctity of life. The message this whole thing sends out is disgusting. I'm certainly glad I don't live in Texas.

Honestly, if I had done it, I would be sorry for killing a human being. He should be sorry. I find it a sad thing that he had to do it.

But I still think that he did the right thing. It was the chance they took when they chose that line of work. Just as if you catch someone in your house during a robbery, they might shoot you. Then you are out of your stuff and potentially your life. Sorry I have no compassion for these guys in no way other than it's a shame that a human had to lose their life this way.

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

Then we agree, up to the point that he had to do it. He did not have to do anything, he made a conscious decision to kill those men and lived to regret it. If it was the right thing to do, then he would not be sorry he did it.

I mean damn, I'm not callously saying "F em" they got what they deserved". It's a crying shame that that had to happen. But my sympathy is tempered by the fact that many unarmed people are killed by home invasions. If these guys were running off to later place another family in danger, since the cops didn't make it in time to save their lives, Horn might have saved somebody elses.

It's not like I think he should have run out there and tried to physically stop them himself. I might take pause of Hulk Hogan had done this. LOL.

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

Nope, you didn't say it, Horn did. These men were unarmed and he did not have to leave his house. He thought it would be like killing a dog, and found out that it wasn't. He could have stopped them just as well firing at their legs (apparently from the results, his aim was quite good).

Running after them the old goat might have had a heart attack. Instead, he cowardly hid behind his gun. I personally am a pacifist and I despise guns. I'd spit if I wasn't a lady, .

Where I live we have automatic trespassing laws and the property need not be posted. Defending one's property or even the property of a neighbor should be done with caution,you don't want to kill your long lost cousin that you haven't seen in 20 years! When a warning has been issued and the perp fails to comply,I would have no problem with property defense even if that meant taking a life.

I cannot agree. No matter how valuable the property, it is never worth a life, never mind how 'worthless' you may think it is. Not to mention the psychological damage you inflict upon yourself (as in this case, by the own admission of this man). If you are defending a life you can contemplate taking a life, but to take a life for property is to equate the value of the two, and that is sacriligeous at the very least, IMHO. Then we wonder why we are where we are in terms of empathy towards each other as a community.

I understand what Texas law is saying.
I am arguing that it is wrong.
This man took the law into his own hands. I agree that the law ALLOWS him to do so, but he is STILL taking the law into his own hands.
It is STILL vigilantism.

The whole fact that the killer can be acquitted or condemned based on the guilt of the man he shot demonstrates it IS truly vigilantism.


The 911 operator should be trained on the law, and knows the full picture.
Knows that police are showing up on the scene.
Should know how close they are to the scene.
The 911 operator is clearly an extension of the police force.


The protection was not successful. On that we agree.
When he shoots them in the back as they are leaving, it is no longer about "protection" but instead about something else...


1) Don't apologize over Wiki. I agree on the convenience.

2) I think it important to make a distinction.
I object to the issue of protecting OTHER people's property by shooting the RETREATING offender in the back.
What you just quoted primarily covers people attempting to invade YOUR OWN home to commit crimes.

Unfortunately, I'm skimming it at the moment, but I also don't see anything major (about the philosophy) which addresses people retreating from the property.

I agree it fits the definitoin of vigilantism. But I also agree with Texas law that allows you to use deadly force to stop a person if you feel you have to. If he had not used it, as law allows in many states, the crooks would have gotten away.

And I prefer to spin it that you are allowed to kill in certain circumstances instead of just standing there helplessly while you see someone steal from your neighbor. I assign much more guilt to the dead guys than Horn. This situation was easily avoidable.

But many times they aren't. I know in Ga, they are more or less dispatchers and not trained in law enforcement. Here's a want ad.
E-911 OPERATOR I job in Conyers, GA - Rockdale County Human Resources | SimplyHired
Texas
Job Details
According to the law, you are allowed to shoot if you feel the property will not be recovered.

I went to that thread on the other site and found this..
Bloomberg.com: Exclusive
The Texas penal code allows the use of deadly force to protect property, including a third party's, under certain conditions. Lynne Parsons, an assistant district attorney in Harris County, declined to say when the case will be presented to a grand jury.

If he is tried, Horn may have to show that he thought the neighbor's property couldn't be recovered any other way, said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. She said the verdict would depend on the ``reasonableness'' jurors saw in his action.

Trying this man would have been a waste of time.

The retreating is what sealed their fate.

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