If they know you cannot legally shoot them, and you give them any reason at all to run, they're not going to just stand there. Besides, what if they dont stop when you tell them to?
He did, they didnt. Next stupid fantasy you want to suggest will always work?
Only in the romanticized "Old West" you see in movies from the 50's. In real life, shooting someone in the back was perfectly OK - especially if that was the only way you could do it and live.

Believe it or not though, the Old West was surprisingly law-abiding. People respected each others property for the most part, and criminals were caught and killed.
You are wrong. I see nothing un-American about the people taking responsibility for their own lives and property. What I consider "un-American" is expecting me to act like a good slave, er, "citizen" and forcing me to simply let the almighty State deal with it, when or if it gets around to it.

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

Maybe they couldnt understand what he said, maybe he didnt make himself clear? He told 911 that he would kill them, so he propably said "dont move", and because they didnt turn themselves into statues in a split second - boom boom!

__________________

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

So what? It isnt his job to know every possible language and how the command to stop would be interpreted by the criminal.

Maybe if the criminals had not decided to BE criminals, they'd still be alive today?

Maybe someday you will accept that the criminal's actions are what led to this, NOT Horn's.

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

The laws are indeed far beyond what others find acceptable on using deadly force to protect property, but even the statutes I posted indicate he still broke the law because he was not authorised by the owners to defend their property at the time he shot them.

On the bright side, he was able to save the system some money.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

You're making this a one or the other thing, and that's completely flawed.

The criminals conduct provided Horn the excuse to do what he told the dispatcher he wanted to do - kill them.

But not for the fact that Horn was pre-determined to kill them, they would still be alive, criminals or not.

They threatened no human with death or bodily injury. They were fleeing when Horn shot them in the back.

There was absolutely no element of self defense here - Horn decided to kill them, and he saw an excuse to do it, so he did.


Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

We in Texas do not find the law unacceptable.

Our opinion is frankly the only one which matters.

I do note nobody has said ANYTHING about the fact that the criminal could have simply not committed the crime.

Rather than berating Mr. Horn for what he legally chose to do, realize had the criminals not decided to break the law, this would have never happened.

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

They chose to commit a crime. Period.

Had they not chosen that act, they would be alive today.

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

Yes, the criminals deserved to be punished for what they did.

Doesn't make Horn's decision to invoke the death penalty any kind of right, even if technically legal.

Horn determined before he ever went outside that we was going to kill both burglars. He announced his intention to be taped for posterity.

Then, he stepped outside and executed both burglars.

Might have been legal (or might not, as OSB noted), but it sure wasn't any kind of right.

Horn's very similar to someone who goes and kills some people for the hell of it in a Wendy's. The only tiny difference is that Horn wanted to kill these two guys and found a legal loophole that allowed him to go unpunished for two executions.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You keep repeating that as though it's some revelation.

I've never represented in any way that the two dead men were not criminals.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You aren't TX or the law. The law is the law. It speaks for itself, and the TX code as applied makes it clear Horn was not authorised to do it.

Moreover, TX is not the only law. Every person in TX is subject to the federal law and the US Constitution. If those statutes are so broad as to violate federal civil rights laws, due process, etc, by authorising people to kill others with insufficent cause and certainty of facts--such as shooting a perceived thief of petty property who might not be a thief at all, or the state refuses to prosecute unlawful killings--then everyone in TX who would do it is subject to accountability to the supreme law--the federal law and constitution. The federal laws and constitution are the whole nation's rightful business and have the right to see them exercised and enforced. Anyone in TX who doesn't like those laws can call their Congressmen to seek to change them or move somewhere else where they would allow it.

As for the burglars, they were criminals. Nobody has to condemn the obviously condemnable actions of others. They deserved to be prosecuted for what they did in a court of law.

Well its not like he went into the middle of a crowded road and started to do this!

They were trespassing on (private) property, the burden is not heavy on Horn here.

It is not his obligation to make sure they understand him.

Also for this context of this specific issue he seems clear enough even froma distance on a recorded phone conversation so unless it was a case of them not speaking English they should understand. And if the didn't understand well that's their problem, he's not the one infringing on their property, land or security.

Right and that's fair enough and if texans or those who have some sort of plausable right to appeal this in court are more than welcome to do so.

But if he deemed that they had stolen irretrievable possession from his neighbor like fistfuls of cash that they stuffed in their pockets wouldn't he then be justified to shoot? Under our law i would say yes, you may interpret it differently i guess.

But i might add that i was the first one who said in this thread that he would not be prosecuted irrelevant of the facts of the crime either way, then after that when others realised the law was on Horn's side they started getting onto a "blame Texas" bandwagon. (Not you).

I don't blame Texas - I blame Horn.

He decided well before he confronted the burglars that we would kill them, and clearly said so. The he went out and carried out the premeditated executions.

Can't fault a whole state because one guy decided to be judge, jury and executioner.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I cant fault him because he did nothing wrong. I consider killing criminals in the act of a crime to be a civic duty and a net benefit for the community at large.

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