Well, I'm still of the opinion that charges will be filed. Frankly, they should be. He stated his intention to kill them. When he made that statement, he was in no danger, yet his intention to kill them was made very clear.

Whether he's found guilty is a matter for a jury, but I think that, given his statement to the 911 operator, charges should be filed...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Guilty of WHAT?

Texas statute explicitly allows deadly force to be used to stop a felony in progress or to recover property. We take a pretty dim view of burglary here.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Murder... Manslaughter.

Again, the guy fucked himself when he told the 911 operator that he intended to kill them. When he said that, he was in no danger. Making that statement also shows that, whether he was ever in danger would not be a deciding factor in the decision to kill them.

Essentially, when he said he was going to kill them, he had absolutely no reason to conclude that he would have to use deadly force...

I'm not familiar with Texas law. Could you provide a link to the pertinent chapter of the law which states that?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Believe it or not, intent means nothing if the man did not violate the law.

Look particularly under sections 9.41 and 9.43. This is why he will probably not be indicted, and if indicted, will never be convicted. Gotta love the Texans.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

That's just not true...

I'm not so sure:

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or (C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

It was a neighbor, not a spouse, parent, or child. The neighbor didn't reside with the guy, nor was the neighbor under the guy's care. Whether or not he had a "legal" duty to protect the property is, I think, up for debate.

But, that notwithstanding, before the guy was in any threatening position whatsoever, he said he was going to kill them. Not "I might kill them" or "I hope I don't have to kill them, but I will if I have to", but "I'm going to kill them".

Look, I'm about as big a proponent as you're likely to find when it comes to carrying a gun, and/or using a gun to protect your life, the lives of loved ones, or your property. In this case, though, the guy said, before he ever stepped out of his house, that he was going to kill them.

That's gotta' be the very definition of premeditation...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I am willing to be proven wrong, but your assertion != proof.

Bold mine. Nor does the neighbor need to be any of these things. The neighbor asked for the shooter to watch his property. Which qualifies him under this clause, to shoot the burglars.

Irrelevant. As I said, intent is meaningless, if he is covered by Section 9.43. And he is.

Agreed, and in my own jurisdiction, he would be doomed. But not in Texas, which is where the shooting occured.

I am not defending his actionsa, which I find reprehensible. And I am a big proponent of carrying firearms, as well. Hell, I even have a license to carry in my own state (and eleven others, as reciprocity permits). What I am saying is that there is a reason he has not been indicted.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Fair enough.

If I plan to murder someone, and the plot is found out, am I guilty of anything?

I haven't broken a law; nobody's dead, are they?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Yes, conspiracy to commit murder is against the law. But this guy did not commit murder, and it was perfectly legal, under section 9.43 for him to kill those burglars. So what crime was he conspiring to commit? Killing two burglars? Apparently, in Texas, conspiracy to kill two burglars is not as crime. Conspiracy to commit murder is.

Do you understand why he has not been indicted? Because the DA for that area of Texas knows he will lose, and one thing I know about DA's is they do not try cases that they know they cannot win.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Not the same thing. Murder is against the law. This man's actions were not.

A more apt analogy would be someone saying he intends to cross the street, and then proceeds to cross the street in a legal fashion.

In other words, this man stated his intent to commit a legal act and then went through with it.

Killing criminals while they are busy committing a crime is LEGAL in Texas.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

If I plan to do something on my own, and include no one else in the execution of my plan, there's no conspiracy.

If my plan to kill someone is found out, and I'm stopped, where's the crime?

I'd imagine that the reason charges haven't been brought is more likely due to an ongoing investigation.

Given the man's statement to the 911 operator (I'm gonna' kill 'em"), I think we will see charges brought against him. Whether he's found guilty of those charges is another matter altogether, but I don't think it takes any great stretch of the imagination to see where a case could be made to support the charges...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

If the need arises to kill them, sure. Had he told them to stop, and they ran the other way, I'm not so sure that he would be protected by the law had he shot them.

But the guy in question all but stated that he didn't care about what the conditions were once he stepped outside. He said he was "going to kill them".

I think charges are justified, for reasons already stated...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

If you do not tell anyone, how would the authorities find out? I do not think that you can go to jail for a crime that you plan, if you do not carry it out, and you tell no other person.

Okay, you think charges will be brought against him. Fair enough. I don't, and have cited the legal reasons why. As for whether he is found guilty, if he does go to trial, we have to keep in mind that a jury of his peers would be selected from the very people in the area in which he lives. If you have been following the story at all, you would probably note that his fellow Texans are hailing him as a hero. Anyone with a competent lawyer could get him acquitted under the laws I cited.

Really, Steve, I do agree with your sentiment. I do not think those burglars should have been killed, at least not by Mr. Horn. But I am not a Texan, I live far from Texas, so I do not presume to second guess their laws for them. It's simply not my place.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

I was aways told by the cops I've known that if a situation developed to say nothing to 911 other than pertinent facts such as name, address, shots fired, send LE/ambulance. Even 'I shot somebody trying to break into my house and he's dead' can be construed as premeditation, especially if your home appears to be a gun store and the assistant DA is an eager beaver looking for a scalp. Then you get the possibility of the very, very expensive process of proving yourself innocent. Heed any lawyer's advice in such a circumstance by keeping your mouth shut until you've been instructed what to say by competent counsel. The investigation will eventually sort it out, that's what they're paid to do.

For the Hell of it, let's say I send the police a letter and tell them I intend to kill someone. Obtuse and extreme, yes, but it's not a conspiracy.

But I can guarantee you that I'll be arrested...

I think it would depend.

If I told police that I planned to kill someone, and nothing else was ever found, it's probably unlikely I would be charged.

If I told police that I planned to kill someone by sticking a garbage bag over their head after binding their hands and feet in red duct tape, and then hitting them in the head with a green baseball bat, and then I was pulled over and a green baseball bat, red duct tape, and some plastic garbage bags were seen, in full view, on the back seat, I'd be arrested...

The presence of the objects in my possession, after making such a statement, would be cause to do so...

That's all I've ever said...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"