Your reasoning is flawed in two ways. There is a huge, HUGE difference between execution by the STATE and a private citizen shooting people because he thinks they are committing a crime, and a much lesser crime to boot. And when "we" execute people, it's always after a trial and conviction.
The second flawed argument is that we are not talking about murder and treason. We are talking about a common burglary vs.physical assault and the inability to make a distinction between the severity of the two.You keep saying that, but HIS home wasn't being burgled. He was not defending himself in any way. He was quite safe in his own house and was in no danger. Not only was he safe, but he had already admitted to the 911 operator he intended to shoot the burglars even before he left his house.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Forget if it was legal. Debate the sanity and logic. The US has varying laws for state to state so legality of certain acts as justification is useless and can hardly be used to decide the logic or actual common sense involved.
If a cop was there and yelled halt and they put down the goods would he have killed them by shooting them in the back? Especially considering the dispatcher stated “Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK”
If the premise is that somehow his confrontation of these guys robbing another persons house was such a threat to his life or safety that he needed to shoot them then what action would on be able to take if a car was driving dangerously down a street where my kids were playing and was potentially a threat to their lives of safety. Do I take out a gun and shoot this guy (who would be breaking the law) in defence of my children or myself for that matter?

__________________
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.

That was my whole point, you can't make crimes comprable because its not the state determining it as punishment but an act of defense made at the time on the spot by a civillian standard.

Which he had every right to do....its legal.

I did.
I asked if the law said the two crimes (assault and burglary) were the same and you replied "If you want legal language equating the two, don't hold your breath. You wont see it. "

How is that different from "Eric said there was no law stating burglary and assault were the same crime."?

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

No, that's MY point. Those crimes were NOT comparable and saying it's all right to shoot those men in the back for simple burglary and when they were not in ANY way a danger to the shooter is insane, cowardly and morally corrupt.In Texas, apparently it is. Thankfully, that mental disease doesn't seem to be spreading over the border.

For future reference, may I quote your statement "Which he had every right to do....its legal." in the future when you DISAGREE with any other existing laws?

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

No its my point to say that because the state didn't sanction it as "punishment" the crimes aren't comprable, the defense of them is.

Ohhhh....mental disease huh? Touch a nerve with you?

Sure, in fact do what every one else here other than Eric, Matt and SM. Use the morality of the law to justify some philosphical outburst about right and wrong, and then when it comes to abortion or someother issue, do as they all do and justify killing an unborn child because its "lawful", its wonderous in its hypocrasy!

Ok.
What's to debate? its quite sane and quite logical. What I dont understand is the thought process (i cannot call it logic) which decides letting the criminal be able to steal with impunity is a better idea.

In my mind, this law is perfectly logical. Brutal, harsh and dangerous for the criminal, but logical. It is very simple to avoid having to deal with this law - don't mess with things that aren't YOURS. Have you not considered that? Do you not realize it is the CRIMINAL making the choice to risk his life?
Common sense was involved. Property represents part of someone's life. Nobody has a right to take it. If you're going to attempt to take what does not belong to you, and you get yourself killed over it, its nobody's fault but your own.

This made sense to countless generations of people in every known culture on earth until the late-20th century.
No, but then again, he has not been granted that authority. I have the absolute RIGHT to protect my property and do not need government permission to do it. These dead pieces of shit were on Horn's land. Period. Get that through your ignorant skull. He said stop. They didn't. They got shot. Too bad.
Who gives a fuck what the dispatcher said? It carries no force of law and the dispatcher was certainly NOT in any position to make that determination.

There most definitely IS property worth shooting someone over.
Different situation. The street is public property, your land is not. You need to accept some facts here which you keep trying to ignore.

If you're going to debate the logic here, you MUST be logically and factually consistent, otherwise its merely mental masturbation.
If he is heading toward your child? Does it make more sense to shoot at him or can you get your child out of the way? If the most logical and effective course of action is to shoot him, by all means, do so.

It is a rare situation in which that would be the logical solution to the problem.

People are responsible for their actions. A criminal doesnt get a pass on something just because his actions, taken completely out of context, might possibly (in some bizarro world) be innocent.

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

he's the one that said it, I just quoted him.

No, it is not very possible they complied. Go back and read the links that were posted.

That's like saying mechanics should be pissed because you work on your own vehicle.

The officer was still inside his car when the guys were outside, he didn't even ATTEMPT to say anything, to any of the parties.. That is NOT serving and protecting.

That’s the debate. The criminal does not steal with impunity. He has committed a crime and if caught is punished. If not the worst case is that your insurance company coughs and you get a new DVD. You are arguing form a point of indignation . You don’t wan the criminal to “win”. Sure I think these people are shit heads for robbing but accepting that anyone suspected of robbery should be killed is simplistic and not logical.
Well that is a very materialistic point of view and an excellent example of why laws enabling the public to take the law into their own hands is fatally flawed. Because it is clear that the values and beliefs of the masses vary wildly.
No it didn’t.
So an untrained ignoramus has more authority than a trained policeman. Logic isn’t high on your list of must haves is it?
As I said forget the legality. Your country is all over the place with these laws. You need to differentiate between what you want to use as an excuse for irrationality and logical consideration. The dispatcher would deal with these situations more regularly than this maniac. His advice is logical.

So then it is not about the danger of this guy being killed for you. It is about his deep and genuine concern for the goods (unknown) that were being taken from his neighbours house that was important enough for him to people?
That seems quite hypocritical coming from someone who places so much significance on legality and the law as I believe it would be illegal to do so.
And one you would paradoxically choose to ignore the law about?
You should add consistency to the list of things you need to brush up on.

__________________
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.

And where this falls down is the idea that there IS a defense here. One more time. He was not in any danger whatsoever when he decided to go out there and "defend" someone else's property.Nope. All my nerves seem pretty intact on this end. I just see this so-called defense of the man's actions as just plain nuts. You and a couple of others are pretty up front about saying this guy can defend somebody else's stuff by killing them. No law, no cops, no judge, no jury and no verdict. Just one man who saw something out of his window and decided then and there to go outside and shoot them. IMO, defending anyone who sees shooting people for stealing as a justifiable act is unbelievable.Read the question again, Trav. Your response makes no sense. You said it was permissable because it was legal and I asked if I could remind you of that position the next time you took exception to any other law.I could have sworn we were talking about ONE instance where I think the law was wrong.
And for the record, I find fault with a LOT of laws and I don't think I am hypocritical at all because I agree with some, which makes it hypocritical to use the excuse of "it's legal" as a defense. When I see a law that I feel need to be changed or scrapped I say so.
But you oppose abortion on moral grounds and the laws that say it is legal, but you support Horn's actions because IT'S legal is a lot more hypocritical than anything I have said here.

And I don't speak for other members, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't lump me in with anyone else.

I'd just say you haven't thought this one through. Would you change your mind when some delusional gunslinger shoots a friend of yours because he thought your friend was stealing something from HIS next-door neighbor.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

If you mean shooting someone breaking a relatively minor law is the same as changing your own spark plugs, I guess you have a point.
Otherwise, it just ain't the same.

And I doubt the mechanic would blow me away over it either.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.