Remember, I said governor of TEXAS. They seem to follow a different path, it seems to me.

Some Texans don't listen to authority, apparently. They are their OWN authority.

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

I've always been my own authority, and no law will EVER change that.

I don't know why you believe otherwise Scribbler, but I do not now, nor have I EVER, answered to government - it answers to me.

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

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

For the record, he shot them on his own property, not his neighbors. They crossed into his property while escaping from the neighbor's house.

Also for the record, we simply see things completely differently. I am not of the belief that I lose the right to protect myself, my family, or my property merely because we have created a police department which is tasked with arresting criminals after the fact.

A person protecting his property is not the same as the state meting out punishment for a crime. Consequently, any comparisons to the death penalty or claims of a private citizen acting as judge, jury and executioner are inherently flawed.

Ultimately the choice to get shot was that of the dead shitbags. They made the conscious decision to make someone a victim, and they discovered the hard way that this choice carries some very high risks.

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

Exactly. The people who defend this old fool are just confused, IMO. First, any decent law would not give the right to shoot someone to anyone watching a relatively minor crime from the safety of his own home, where he was in no immediate danger. If there was any danger, he freely CHOSE to put himself in it.

Second, these people are a little unclear as to DEGREES of criminality, apparently. Even if thee lowlife scumbags were arrested, tried and given the MAXIMUM penalty allowable, it still wouldn't be death. Burglary is not a capital crime and it's pretty obvious they didn't intend to harm anyones person because they chose an empty house to break in to.

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

The dispatchers comments mean nothing from a legal, moral or ethical perspective. Dispatchers are not empowered to give orders and certainly do not make law.

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

It wasn't the death penalty. That can only be applied by the state.

Just because the ultimate condition of the criminal is the same does NOT mean the acts are the same.

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

The one who is confused is you.

People have the right to defend themselves and their property as they see fit. The ones who broke the law here are the dead pieces of shit.

You may want to see this differently because it scares you to realize there are people who do not cower in the shadow of government as you do, but that ultimately is your problem.

Frankly, I find your attitude morally reprehensible. How dare you even imply, let alone insist, that I must remain helpless and scared while waiting for a government employee to come protect me or my family (or property) when it is convenient for him? What sick individual expects others to become victims just because we pay a small portion of the population to investigate crimes? You're basically saying I must become prey just so someone can have a job.

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

Not absolutely, and only to a certain degree. To think otherwise is just delusional.
Have you ever paid taxes or done the speed limit even when you didn't want to but there's a cop nearby? Ever punch out the girl in the McDonalds drive-through because she short changed you? Have you ever built a house that wasn't up to code, or without a building permit in an area that required it?
Or to put it in more general terms, have you ever been told by a cop that you broke the law and argued that your personal authority exempts you from that law (I wouldn't advise it. It doesn't work.)?Or you just ignored the times you DID answer to the government by way of obeying laws because you think those laws are fair. Maybe you LIKE paying taxes, I don't know.

But you DO answer to the government all the time. You see, in an ordered, civilized society as we are supposed to have, YOU don't matter, but WE do. In this country, these laws came FROM "the people" who cede a certain amount of power to the authorities for the common good. It's even specified in the Constitution. Rights not described in the Constitution fall to the states, and then the people, and then YOU, in that order. If you've ever obeyed a law, even one, you HAVE to know your personal authority is limited.

To use the real estate situation once more. If you buy a small piece of property in downtown Dallas, for instance, and you figure stacking 10 Winnebagos on top of each other qualifies as an apartment building, see if your personal authority allows that to happen.

As for me personally, I'd LOVE to have absolute authority over every aspect of my life, but I realize that is impossible unless I live on a deserted island. In my own small way, I try to get what I see as bad laws changed.
But many laws, as personally restrictive as they may be I see as necessary and even "good". For example:

I can't legally marry my Sister. Seems good to me.
I can't throw black people (with green money) out of my store because they're black. Noting wrong with that.
I can't burn my garbage because the stench goes right in my neighbor's window. I don't do that but I can live with that because it also stops HIM from stinking up MY house.
If my pit bull chews up every child in the neighborhood, I can't let him run free. That seems fair.
I can't go outside and blow holes in people because I think they are doing something illegal. I can live with that too.

It's a long list, and a LOT of your personal authority is simply nonexistent. But it's just for the good of the people I share my country with so I gladly live with most of them while I grin and bear the ones I'n not wild about.

That's just the way it is, my friend.

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

Obviously.A technicality. People walk across my property line all the time. It doesn't make them a threat to me.
And according to all the stories I have read, it was more like he CLAIMED they were on his property anyway.You never give up with this falsehood, do you?
This man was not, NOT protecting himself, his family or even HIS property. Repeating this bullshit doesn't make it correct.
I would have no problem if he blew away attackers, or even burglars, but those men were NOT in his house or taking his stuff.More utter bullshit, and all based on your repeated lie that he was defending himself or his property. You KNOW it wasn't his home or property he was "defending". HORN even said so. I suppose Horn is a liar now too, eh?
The minute he walked outside the safety of his own home, he was taking the law into his own hands, and he even TOLD the dispatcher his intentions.

And the state doesn't execute for burglary.You watch way too many cowboy movies, I think. It's incredibly obvious they deliberately made the effort to NOT get shot, which is why they (and burglars in general) hit empty homes.

And you're right. The choice DID come with some high risk. They had no way of knowing some scared, pathetic John Wayne wannabe lived next door.

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

I don't think I'm confused at all. For one thing I can tell the difference between MY property and MY safety and somebody ELSE'S property and safety. You apparently cannot, which is at the very heart of what this man did.Look, tough guy, you don't know the first thing about me, and you don't know what does, or doesn't scare me, so lets just lay off the immature insults and discuss this issue like mature people, kay? I can understand why you find my position morally reprehensible. That's bound to happen when you don't have a clue as to what MY position is and you completely base your position on Horn being in any kind of danger.

Your argument is weak bullshit. Not because I say so, but because you keep repeating things you ought to know are false, as regards Horn's personal peril.
Your other vaporous argument is that it's okay to blow people away because they are stealing someone ELSE'S property.

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

It would REALLY be interesting to see how Texas would do without any law enforcement other than the ciitizens themselves. They would still need their courts, but when they are willing to grant citizens more authoriy than cops, then why not go all the way and let citizens handle arrests too?

__________________

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

He was defending himself and both properties of any further actions from the intruders. Not that he had to but he even gave them a chance, by telling them to freeze which they didn't. They could have returned to the neighbor's property or his or move to attack him now that he had seen their faces etc.

How is it nuts? Or have you run out of arguments that everything is just "mad" now?

He acted as an individual, which he had the right to do, and when you do act as an individual, taking an instantaneous or even calculated decision that means there is no cops, trial or jury involved, that's the whole idea...

Their is a difference between law enforcement and civillian protections/self defense etc.

It is our laws that grant us the right to make those decisions when it comes to protecting ourselves and our property btw.

Yes and no. He was NOT defending himself, as he was safely in his house when he got it into his head to go outside and shoot somebody. And he decided to shoot those guys BEFORE he left his house and properly assess the situation. A trained cop wouldn't do that.

And yes, he was "defending" property, which was not his to defend. He wasn't defending propertIES because his stuff was NEVER in danger as proven by his not telling the dispatcher that.I don't know about your neck of the woods, but if a pissed off old man, or anyone else who isn't a cop comes out of his house and yells "freeze" NOBODY is obligated to obey his order, and that doesn't give him permission to kill them if they don't.
By defending him you advocate a lawless society where civilians can assume the rightful role of the police, regardless of their qualifications to do so.As I said, defending a man who assumes the role of cop when he is in no danger, and who decided he was going to kill someone even before he left the house to make SURE what he saw was right is just crazy in my book. Do I think it's nuts to applaud actions that indicate a completely lawless society with no guarantees of a trial or a disregard of the accepted legal procedures the rest of the country holds sacred. Yes.
A trained and LEGALLY appointed police officer doesn't decide to kill someone, EVER. He might do that as a final option, and even then try to immobilize them first with pepper spray or his baton, but that is his LAST option and only if his life or the life of another is in danger. Your boy Horn saw shooting them as his first and ONLY option, as he told the dispatcher.
Did Horn try to immobilize, or disable them? No. Did these people have the chance to be tried? No.No, it's not the whole idea. That is a very simplistic and inaccurate position to take. If there are no cops around, you CANNOT do any damned thing you want.
Or can I assume one of the most precious parts of our judicial system, "innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law", doesn't apply to Texas? It sure didn't seem to have entered Horn's mind.
It's funny, but the OTHER 49 states think it's pretty damned important.

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

There would be no need to grant the citizens any authority - we already HAVE it. We granted it to the police departments, but this does not mean we gave it up individually.