Well it is a firearm. It's a hand cannon that fires tennis balls.

Say the family wanted to follow this up and sue him in civil court could he use the failures of allowing these 2 to return as a possible loophole for him to get off? I.e. as a technicality? But who would take the greater blame, the state or the federal goverment?

But even though they were deported, they weren't legally allowed back into the country, they just hopped over the border and there's not much we can do to stop that if there's an open border is there? Our immigration system is indeed beyond comprehension at times due to its absolute and utter failures but this wasmoreof a security failure i guess.

But one thing i am almost certain of is that if it hadn't been for the fact these two that were shot dead were illegals, that this would have been a huge international incident, butluckily right now Colombia also needs our help to get rid of the threat from Venezeula so its quite smooth.

Something doesn't seem right regarding Horn's story of self defense.


1) One of these criminals were shot twice. Was it really necessary to shoot them a second time? In the back? Is it unreasonable to suspect that the cops can't track down a hobbled dude trailing blood all over the place from a shotgun blast?

2) I've asked this several times and I suspect I'll never get an answer but how is it possible to lunge AT someone and flee FROM them at the same time?

Has Texas even bothered to investigate this?

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Indeed a very valid question! Anyone care to answer it????

__________________


"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!"

According to our friend EricOKC it is indeed within American (and especially Texan) moral values to cowardly shoot non-threatening criminals in the back. Im just glad that we got that straightened out!

__________________

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

Think that will satisfy those who say the US has no cultural depth beyond TV and Christianity?

I have no moral issue with shooting a criminal in the back. I have no moral issues with killing them to recover my property as they are trying to escape with it.

I have serious moral issues with being told I have to let them violate my life and take away my stuff but I cannot stop them unless they present a physical threat.

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

Because, clearly property is worth more than life!

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Well i'm sure folks care more about their property rather than the life of a burglar...(who wishes to do the owner harm).

Irrelevant. It's not about personal feelings.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Interesting thought, completely hypothetical but suppose the reason he shot them was simply because he wanted to kill somebody and he's using defense of property thing as a cover...has he committed murder or not ?

__________________
England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests - Palmerston

No but your point was questionning what's "important"...his own personal feelings clearly do dictate what's important, seeing as i would be him who made the decision as to whether he chose to shoot an intruder or not.

I'd probably vote "yes" on that one. He probably didn't HAVE to kill. The threat likely would have been enough to stop them. (And I've already said my piece about vigilantism.)

But, then again, reasons and justifications are rather hard to prove in a court of law - ultimately, I suspect you might be right about being rather overexcited about the opportunity to justify his gun.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Where's "important" in there?

Oh, and how much property is worth taking a life over? If I steal a candy bar, should I be shot?

A CD?

An iPod?

A laptop?

A car?

Where's the line? How much is a human life worth?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

But this isn't "vililantism"...what he did was within the law.