I have to admit my own theory on the matter does put him a worse light, morally speaking, but then again he was confident enough to tell a 911 dispatcher he was gonna go shoot a couple folks, which he did.

I dunno if i'd say he's sociopathetic but once the incident had started and the whole mess got going, he was calculated and knew what he was doing.

Maybe the fact that he may have been paranoid and expecting such a situation (the whole "try and take my guns and you'll see what happens" mentality) but i think that he's someone who just won't setle for having someone else infringe on his way of life, be it criminal like in this case or otherwise.

I have to quibble on this one though; i agree that Matt would do enough to defend himself. Say someone was on Matt's property, came towards him and Matt told him to freeze, if the guy didn't and Matt did the same as Horn what's the difference? That it was Matt's property and there was no 911 call? Otherwise the calculation levels are similar, its just the degree and scope of the law. See in FL he can only do so much to protect his own self and not what we can. However because it would be to defend himself it would seem like he has lesser time to decide or that it would seem more justifyable...but at the end of the day it still comes down to the law, Matt wouldn't have the legal parameters to work within that we do, but he would still have to keep a cool head and make a split second decision as to whether to fire or not, Horny had more time but the calculation was still there. Btw none of this is a predictive scenario of what you would do Matt, yours was just a name (a a good one at that ) thrown up of someone who can defend himself but has a cool head; it could be in refference to John Doe.

The difference is that someone is advancing on Matt in your scenario, on his property - not running away from Matt on somebody else's property. Another difference is that, in your scenario, Matt isn't in the safety of his own home, with the police on their way, being advised not to go outside by the 911 dispatcher, and choosing to do so anyway with the specific intention of shooting people. Actually, the more I think about it, your scenario of someone on Matt's property isn't just slightly different - it's not even in the same ballpark.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Apart from the 911 dispatcher the only real difference seems to be the scope of the law that we have and the limitations and restrictions they have in other states.

Again it seems like your issue is with the law.

Personally, I would definitely feel very satisfied that one of my neighbors are standing up for me and protecting whats mine, just like I think most other people would, including Horns neighbors. In your scenario with a criminal taking off on my scooter it would be more appropriate if the neighbor just shot the tires of the scooter and made him crash.

From a society point of view it is still completely excessive to kill non-threatening criminals over petty property, and it just dont belong here in the 21th century. There is also the risk of misunderstandings, like if I gave you permission to borrow my scooter, and my neighbor thinks you are stealing it and splatter your head all over my driveway with his shotgun. No, thats not a good one!

__________________

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

I think some people here may beg to differ with you on that being a bad outcome!

But i do understand your point in saying that accidents may happen and to your earlier question yes my neighbor is like horn and would do exacty what Horn did, but for the most part hes a very traditionalist person with the views of a half century ago and he sticks by then. After he goes the next generation will hardly be in his mold.

As for shooting the tyres of the bike, well doesn't that then cost you to repair or push up the price of your premiums if its insured? Also if he gets hurt then in your system the taxpayer has to pay for his healthcare no?

But i am glad you have it in you to say what i think most people also feel which is if it happened to them they would have no moral objection to someone shooting at the intruder as a third party.

I disagree. Most people would object to the use of lethal force.

__________________
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

I fail to see why.

Maybe you could explain to me why a criminal should simply be allowed to walk into my home, take my property and walk away knowing he has a pretty slim chance of even being arrested, let alone go to jail?

From my point of view, that criminal made the choice to violate my rights. What happens to him after that is HIS problem.

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

Because punishment should be proportional.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

But would you indeed shoot them in the back when they run away with some of your things?

__________________

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

Punishment by the state should be certainly.

On the other hand, if I catch him in the act with my property, and I dont want to lose that property, if he doesnt very nicely give it back, am I supposed to simply let him walk away?

Realize, I will have lost not only the property, but the time/money necessary to acquire it, as well as the time/money necessary to replace it. I have also had my personal space violated, and I'm going to have to give up even more of my time to discuss things with law enforcement and possibly my insurance company. Then theres the added costs of replacing/repairing whatever the criminal may have damaged in the process of helping himself to my stuff.

So what is my recourse? You see, the point is not to dole out punishment, but to ensure the property remains mine. If lethal force is necessary to stop the criminal from leaving, then thats what it takes. The criminal DOES have the choice, not just to not commit the crime in the first place, but to return my property immediately. The CRIMINAL decides the level of force i must use to recover it, not me.

Why do you even care what happens to a scumbag burglar? Perhaps because you want to live your life that way? Perhaps because you think its OK to steal from others who have things you want and don't want to pay for? That would explain why you think it is so bad to use lethal force to stop one.

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

Yep - and I've explained why.

The law is explicitly clear. I may use whatever force I deem necessary to recover my property. That he is running away is further proof that he intends not to return it.

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

It's fine for a Texan to shoot a burglar in the back with a shotgun but wrong for a Muslim to behead a mercenary assisting in the military occupation of his country. Anyone else smell a strong aroma of hypocrisy?

Could be...or maybe some have shot neighbors in the past and are just just trying to make themselves feel justified about it. Guilt can make folks pretty vehement about a point. Who knows? It's all speculation, though, about the motives.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Irrelevant and unrelated.

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