What he is choosing to steal is not the issue. The issue is, the law allows the use of deadly force to stop a criminal in progress and recover your property. If I decide that the only way to recover that property is to stop him with deadly force, so be it. Would I? Over valve caps? probably not.

You can present absurd scenario after absurd scenario, but that wont change the law, or this particular situation. This was not a child swiping valve caps. This was two adults breaking and entering. VERY different scenario.

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

Irrelevant. This is a legal issue, not a religious one.

Next stupid objection?

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

And i'm sure you're basing that slanderous accusation on hard cold facts right?

Of course not - its nothing but a fantasy created in your mind to make someone look like a murderer because he removed a criminal from the gene pool.

I understand why you support criminal behavior. I realize you very likely choose to make your living that way.

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

Its both a legal and a moral issue. Was it indeed legally and morally correct (if you give a fuck about that) to shoot them in the back, when nothing indicates that he was threatened at any time, or that it was necessary in order to recover the stolen stuff?

__________________

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

Is a little consistency too much to ask?

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

Well it is HIS call to make at the end of the day as to what he values enough to stop a burglar fleeing over, he is within the law to do as much so i don't see what he making his mind up on it has to do with anything.

And just to add, none of us can predict what the scenario or situation may be, i've thrown in a couple possibilities and got some answers from folks as to what they would do but usually it would depend on the situation.

That is all that needs be said. He is an irresponsible gun owner whose idea of the right of self defence is an excuse for his desire to commit murder. The only ones who feel the need to justify his actions are those who are frightened this may serve as an argument against public gun ownership. Which it indeed does.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

No it doesn't, just look at all those against his actions. Just those who posted in this thread who are in favor of gun rights.

Not to mention it wasn't the gun that caused him to do what he did, it was the scope of the law that allowed it, again another problem with the law itself passed on to either attacking the person, the state or now even the weapon.

I am not sure what you mean here.
It doesn’t matter what the law is. It was his lust for guns combined with the desire to either kill or use one to kill with. There are two problems here. A nut and a gun. The absence of either in this case results in nothing more than the loss of a few possessions and a subsequent insurance claim. FFS he could have waited for the cops to arrive.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The bit where you said:

And you're wrong, just look at those in favor of gun rights in this thread alone who have all said his actions were wrong.

I'm not even gonna bother to argue the aspect of this being the fault of gun ownsership....if anyone feels the need to there are loads of others who will make the argument against your statement, but i'm not even sure anyone is gonna feel the need.

Nobody in this thread has taken the issue of guns and gun rights/control up at all.

I agree, but maybe it'd be better to keep the gun control issue aside in this discussion; there's lot's of other threads on that.

__________________

LOL I'm all for gun rights and own a .357 myself, but I truly see Horn's actions as unnecessary.
I'm sure we'll agree on something else eventually...

__________________


"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!"

Don't worry i don't think the thread is gonna get mucked up by it, its a heck of a thread you've started here btw...one of the very few that has last a fair while, that has stayed on topic and that hasn't gotten nasty or personal. Well done.

In the real world people (even*gasp*cops) will often go with whatever is easiest. Happens all the time. If you don't believe me then I recommend you take a close look at the world around you.

__________________
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

I AM consistent. I am also realistic. Valve caps? No - just gonna tell em to get lost. Breaking and entering? He's getting shot.

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