The neighbor as well as everyone in the neighborhood. Remember, property represents a part of your life - and nobody has a right to your stuff except YOU. In addition, the dead guys were told to stop, and they refused.

Taking my property IS taking a part of my life.

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

So what does the preachers/fathers (whatever you call them) in Texas say about this Horn case?

__________________

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

I am still wondering if you would do the same as Horn did under the exact same circumstances?

__________________

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

I agree that nobody has a right to your stuff except you - pretty basic concept there, I think we all learn that at a very young age.

How is that relevant to my question? Was Horn in "harms way" when he told them to stop? Was he in harms way when he was sitting in his house, talking on the phone to the 911 operator? Were the neighbors in harms way, even though they weren't home?

OK, but is taking your property a threat to your life? If someone has taken your property, were you in any danger? Did you even get a little scratch?

So far Matt has been the only one who has said that he would be comfortable with defending a neighbor or friend if they were in danger, i'd like to see all the rest of you say the same too.

Whoah - slow down there. I'd be absolutely comfortable doing that. I thought the pretext of the discussion was whether or not I'd go a-people huntin' on someone else's property.

__________________
"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

Yes we do - apparently the concept is only retained by a few Southern states though.
When they didn't stop immediately? Yes.
In fact, yes - because he could see the crime occurring and would realize HIS property was at risk as well.
Yep - they were having some of their life taken from them by the people ripping them off.
Yes.
Yes.
You seem to think i need to actually experience harm to my direct body.

Texas law allows the use of lethal force in defense of property. PERIOD.

The reasoning is simple: Property is obtained by exchanging a portion of my life for it. Replacing stolen property will require MORE of my life to be exchanged, as well as permanently reduce my resources. Allowing others unfettered access to my personal property without personal risk to themselves is a very good way to ensure they keep coming back to take my things.

We happen to like our criminals either ventilated or firmly incarcerated. Not our fault you yankees prefer yours out and about in society. If you want to believe they are just poor lost souls in need of guidance - that's your choice. We see them as targets.

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

Okay well that's a good start, but i thought you said if it was you then you'd rather somebody not interfere?

The EXACT same? Absolutely.

This does not mean the criminals would end up dead you know. They would have the choice to stop where they are and assume a non-threatening position.

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

Depends - the more worthless race-baiting type of preachers seem to have a problem with it for the cameras. Most others see it the same way most Texans do - the dead guys had it coming, and Mr. Horn saved Harris County some money.

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

No it works because we're generally not in easily confusable environments where folks end up breaking into their own property and get shot due to mistaken identity.

To use that as an argument to knock this law, well you're gonna have a hard time convincing most people.

No the scenario is not likely at all, more than likely if there were folks moving stuff about from the house someone who lived there would have also been there, supervising and directing what was going on.

Also the big van/lorry with the sign that indicated they were removal men etc would have also been a give away sign. It would be very difficult for Horn to make the case that he in any way thought they were burglars and would be in trouble if he shot them.

Yes but that's not likely to happen, and more than likely if he told them to freeze they would have, not tried to get away like this pair.

If new folks come into small towns you can tell, you know if there's another car and the light in the spare bedroom/guest room is on etc, the scenario just isn't likely.

It does if you have abuse but again if you really deemed him to be a burglar and he wasn't it may well be different to Horn's case, where it turned out he was right and actually killed the intruders. Mistakes can be madee, but this law doesn't make it any easier for them to be made.

Generally true, but that's just me. By and large, I can take care of myself, and if I were confronted with an armed assailant and unarmed myself, I'd rather just get new shit than have a friend or loved one risk his/her life to try to defend a bunch of shit in my house. I don't hurt for salary, I can buy new shit - I can't buy new friends and family.

If it's someone I don't know, I would prefer them to fuck off in general, helping me or not (in the case at hand - coming onto my property, armed, to "save" me).

__________________
"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

I thought I hade made that clear in an earlier post, but I must not have. I would have absolutely no problem defending a neighbor, friend, stranger walking down the street, whomever, if they were in danger. If that meant "blowing someone's head off", then so be it.

Good, that's better.

Yes, I was under the impression that "self defense" was to avoid harm to one's body, not their stuff. But thank you for explaining the reasoning behind Texas laws - it almost makes sense when you explain it that way.

Just curious, does there come a point where you would let the police handle the situation? Let's say you didn't witness the burglary of your home, so you weren't there to defend your stuf...uh... yourself. Then you later discover that it was a lowlife neighbor down the street who had actually stolen your stuff. The evidence is right there in his garage. Does Texas law allow you to walk over to his house and ventilate him? Or would you be required by law to allow the police to handle it at that point?