I can't speak for pramjockey, but it appears to me that the part you're leaving out to create the false dilemma is that it is possible to support the defending of property without applying lethal force to, say, a fleeing criminal. For instance, if I were walking down the street and a teenager tried to grab my wallet, I might well punch him or wrestle with him, but I wouldn't feel the need to say, restrain him, pin him to the ground, and snap his neck in defense of my property. Simply dispatching him and hanging onto my stuff would suffice.

__________________
"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

So what? This is LEGAL in Texas.
He had no reason to believe they were unarmed, and they did not have to run. They could have dropped what they were attempting to steal and stood VERY still with their hands in the air.
By condemning Horn, you certainly appear to be supporting the criminal.

Again, I'm terribly sorry there are so many people out there who get their feelers hurt when a criminal gets shot, but some of us really dont have a problem with a little chlorine in the gene pool.
Fair enough. Your words just seemed disturbingly similar to what one of the dead guys' girlfriends said.

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

Also Doc you have to remember, in our state its not a potential homocide so there would be no inconvenience either of having the place roped up as a criminal investigation.

I would defend myself inasmuch as I could, or else probably do what he told me if I weren't armed myself.

I'm not sure of the relevance, since Horn and his neighbors didn't know each other, but I wouldn't bear a neighbor a serious grudge for not confronting an armed criminal on my behalf. In fact, I'd probably prefer that a neighbor call the police as I generally don't trust people and would think him equally likely to shoot me or something in my house as the assailant. If it were a guy like this Horn, I'd be concerned that his bloodlust might cause him to shoot the burglars and me too and ask questions later.

__________________
"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

And if he wrangled free and or wriggled around and got free and ran awaym if he was faster than you, you wouldn't shoot him?

I'm under the impression that the place would be roped off in the event of any violent death. I could be wrong on this, but it's hard to imagine - they can't know that this isn't a potential homicide at least until there is some preliminary investigation of the scene and handling of the corpse. I doubt the cops just threw the bodies in the street and told the neighbors the house and yard were at their disposal.

__________________
"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

No. I wouldn't want that on my conscience. If, during the course of the struggle, he threatened me beyond the taking of my property, I might kill him. But, I don't necessarily view that my personal take on the necessity of lethal force vis a vis property should be codified into law simply because it's how I feel. I think that, logically speaking, you get into dicey ground. If lethal force is acceptable in defense of property with no threat to someone's life, I think generally unacceptable consequences will eventually result.

__________________
"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

So wouldn't a neighbor you knew help?

The relevance isn't there in that sense, i'm just asking.

But if he or she did come in to try and help you then you'd not be too pleased?

Surely the value of your life must weigh more than any incomvenience it may cause you, no?

Even with Horn he was free to stay in the house with no real need for any forensics or anything, though it was outside so that may be why.

you don't know that senator murtha...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

If a neighbor I didn't know came onto my property armed, I would view this as no different than the burglars and what they were doing. Since the person doesn't know me, how do I know whether he's interested in shooting me or friends of mine (which the burglars could be for all he knows), just interested in shooting someone in general, or actually trying to help. If I were in my doorway with a gun, I wouldn't wait around to find out.

Well, from what I recall, the crime scene wasn't on or in his property, so that makes sense.

__________________
"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

Well that may well be so, but its relative to your own view of what is acceptable and what isn't i guess. The consequences in this instance were perfectly acceptable to me, 2 guys dead who were lawfully killed.

WTF is this supposed to mean?

__________________
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

*sigh*its means, you like murtha, apparently convicting a man, before guilt is proven etc........

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

My issue isn't with the fate of the burglars. I consider them irrelevant and, generally speaking, if you go around invading people's homes, you're running a high risk of dying quite young.

My issue here is with the treatment of Horn and the precedent it sets regarding third party property. That is, the precedent seems to be that it is acceptable to shoot anyone you think might be committing a non-violent crime against someone else. That seems like a recipe for lots of death, which isn't really my problem, in general. However, next time I'm in Texas and driving down the street, I don't want Horn's cousin to shoot me in the face five or six times if I make a U-turn where a no U-turn sign is posted (an exaggeration, obviously, but it sounds funny )

__________________
"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