In my opinion, he did nothing wrong or illegal.

I consider it morally wrong to expect people to give up even more of their lives - to be repeatedly victimized as it were - just so some worthless bag of shit doesn't have to worry about being killed while burglarizing a home.

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

I agree, (that its not the same thing) and its certainly your and anybody else's right to have their view on the issue, however trying to influence and change our laws is another.

Having the federal goverment coming in is not a plausable option at all, neither is us being sold to Mexico nor is us invading the rest of the country.

It is or business at the end of the day so long as we don't trump or try and circumvent federal law, which i don't believe we're doing.

To me, the solution is simple:

If you don't want to get shot breaking into homes, then don't break into homes.

What's so hard about that? Why should I have to tolerate criminal behavior?

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

Right and all this incident is gonna do is help us broaden and expand land and home ownership, and property ownership rights, i would expect the state to start opening things up even further at some point this year.

Matt started off by stating that the reason that these 2 burglars were on his property being the only reason he's not in jail but now i assume he has realised that its the case that he lawfully had the right to kill these 2 people.

Well, I am not 100% cartain that I wouldn't shoot burglars on my property who didn't pose a threat to me - that if I had the right to do so. If I did shoot them, it would be out of pure anger and frustration, and not because I felt that it would be morally defendable.

What is the morally and ethically correct procedure and what I might do are not necessarily the same thing.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

No argument - you're welcome to hold your own standards and not do something i may choose to do.

on the other hand, you have no right to demand that I do not defend my property because you are unwilling to defend yours.

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

You know that sort of statement that really earns my respect, you don't claim to be morally and ethically perfect and you admit that you may well shoot someone out of frustration and not because you thought you can justify it. You also said above you would feel no anger if this would have happened to someone to robbed you and that's the emotion/feeling that a lot of people would have. They probably just wouldn't admit it.

Horn had nothing to lose because it wasn't HIS home being burglarized. He could have left everything to the police but instead he told the dispatcher he was going to shoot someone that was NO threat to him at the time.
In this particular case, yes, the neighbor's home was being burglarized but suppose Horn had seen someone enter the back door of the residence and come out carrying a television and he shoots them. But wait...it's only the neighbor's son who came over to borrow mom's and dad's extra t.v. while mom and dad are away. Then what? "OOOPS! But Texas law says I can shoot them because I thought they were burglars?"

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

It is worth noting that the police can be heard arriving very shortly after Horn's execution of the two fleeing burglars.

Had Horn not rushed out to administer his pre-determined punishment for these burglars, it's very likely the police would have caught them.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

He did say "you move you're dead". So one would assume the burglar did indeed move...i'm sure had it been the neighbor's kid he would have known it was the neighbor's kid or at least had the same courtesy to warn the guy first he would shoot if the guy didn't halt.

If you listen to the 911 tape, Horn didn't follow police commands when they first arrived, either.

He's lucky the cops weren't as determined to kill him as he was to kill the burglars.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Who the hell says that property cannot be recovered if you already have the burglars at close gun point? He could just have told them to surrender, and they would do it if they couldnt get away. Even in the old Wild West it would have been seen as a highly cowardice act to shoot someone in the back. I could be wrong, but I believe that theres something fundamentally Un-American about allowing citizens to play judge, jury, and executioner, and gunning others down from behind.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Yes he is, but let us not forget this entire situation could have been avoided had the burglars not decided to commit a crime.

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

That's wrong on his part, law enforcement are the legal authority. But the 911 dispatcher wasn't.

Well that would be because he hadn't broken the law, tried to flee his crime scene and is a U.S. citizen.

Well he did tell them not to move, which they did, and they then paid the price.

Say he told them to hold surrender and they didn't (which is what happened), then what?