And I respect your position but defense of property can also end up being defense of one's family and their lives. What starts out as a simple robbery can lead to kidnapping and murder! When someone enters my property they had better use caution and have a good reason.I would give them ample opportunity to state their business before I made the final statement.

I don't agree that deadly force should be used to stop a person from getting away, especially when it's just theft.
Property can be replaced. A life, even if it's criminal, cannot.

To a greater degree, I think we both have made our positions plain on this.


We're delving into a situation of "blame the victim". And while it's not as simple as that, that's what I see at its heart.
In rape cases, sometimes lawyers will try to blame the victim for the rape. To me, no means no. It doesn't matter if the victim was a $2 hooker who had done the guy a dozen times before, no means no.

In this case, the thieves were unquestionably guilty. Their guilt does not justify a private citizen killing them. One of the reasons that the guilt of the dead person "exonerating" the shooter is so distasteful to me.

While the thieves could have "avoided" the decision, it wasn't THEIR decision for Horn to pull the trigger.
That is entirely HORN's decision which he made based on the circumstances at hand.


Point acknowledged.
I doubt we'll ever know the background of the person who was on the other end of the 911 call, but assuming the operator was law enforcement is not justified with current knowledge.


Again, I fully accept what the Texas law says.
I just find it absurd and unreasonable.

The idea that "recovering property" actually trumps a human life is amazing to me.
Where are the "pro-lifers" when you need them?
(Last comment not aimed at you, but just general sarcasm.)


"Retreat" is a funny angle on the issue...
Cause according to the web-site analysis, it's not the "retreat" of the intruder which is the primary issue, but some states require the HOME-OWNER to "retreat" before lethal force can be applied...

"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home [2]. Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law:" the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

There are 12 out of 50 states in the "States with a Stand-your-ground Law (No duty to retreat anywhere)" category, which gives the largest capability to the resident to defend himself / his home / his property.
The other 38 states are more stringent against the person in the residence, limiting the capability for lethal response.

Of the 12, I wouldn't be surprised if Texas was the most extreme in its capabilities. The web-site gives links, but for better and worse it's to the actual "legalese" that the state has in their law.
Reading through Florida's law, it looks like it specifies justification for lethal force if the intruder was kidnapping another, but not for simple theft.

But you are talking about totally different circumstances, in which your life or that of your loved ones is at stake which was clearly not the case here. This man chose to kill these men to stop them from taking their loot. In short, his neighbor's valuables were more important than the sanctity of life, and that is where the whole sad issue lies. In all his 'righteousness', even he recognizes that it was not worth it.

I wish the rest of the country were as sided with the rights of property owners as Texas has shown itself to be.

I agree. I'm calling it..DONE!!!



Your phrasing right here tells me so much. Thanks. Hilarious.

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

Am I really? Here is what I said.

There are situations where this can and does happen! Sometimes what starts out as a robbery situation ends up being far worse. Robery may be the primary intent but rape,kidnapping and even murder can occur even though that was not the original intent.Need I site you hundreds of examples of this to prove my point? When people violate one's property it can be only the precusser of additional crimes. When one decides to violate another man's property and privacy or that of a neighbor, they do so at their own peril.Who knows what would have happened if he was allowed to continue?

And that's just it...if someone invades my home, I am going to assume the absolute worst of his intentions out of a sense of duty to protect myself and whoever else may be in my home. If the invader's intentions were benign, he would have announced himself and asked for admission into my home, not invaded it.

Exactly...

I agree. My standpoint on this case is that the whole thing is documented on the 911 tape. Mr. Horn DID try to do the right thing. He DID call the police. But the police didn't get there in time to stop the burglars and possibly save their lives.

But then again, with them looking like Black guys, they probably would have gotten shot anyway.....
I'm kidding.....sorta.

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

Exactly. If I find someone in my home and I demand that they "freeze", that means follow my instructions to the letter until we can sort this out. Failure to comply is an act of hostility and I don't know what your intentions are. A turned back does not occlude the unfortunate situation of them having a gun or intending harm. An innocent person would comply until I got some lights on and sorted through the situation.