A higher standard than the average Joe too. Which is why it's usually better left to the police.Too many variables here to agree or disagree, or to compare to this situation. And wasn't it YOU who was criticizing my "wild theories" and "crazy scenarios"?


Now that I think about it, since you have me yelling "freeze" at the guy on my lawn, I wonder if those burglars spoke any english?

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

You think the burden lays with the home owner for the intruder to be able to understand a fore-warning he (the home owner) is not even obliged to give?

Huh? I'm not giving you any wild or crazy scenarios to ponder; i'm asking you why you think this law is more likely to lead to more accidental/mistaken identity deaths than any other self defense law that doesn't allow for third party defense of life or property...so, why?

Which was the conclusion of the grand jury, and the reason WHY is sealed. That's still not enough for me to change my position, or yours for that matter, if we are using that as a point of argument.
And I have a problem with grand juries on principle anyway. I think it likely that you do too when you a grand jury indict someone you think is innocent.Again, we don't know enough about WHY the state or the feds didn't want to touch it. They might have just gone with the GJs conclusion and washed their hands of it.By my own experience, I think those people would oppose it. I said nothing else.Essentially I'm arguing my belief that the actions in this case, and the law's supposed permissions are wrong. I've said WHY I think that many times already.Do you really think my views are that easily swayed?
In any event, by the numbers, how many people in Texas DO support this law?No, I don't. What I find unlikely is what Horn did to begin with. Most people would have done what he did and called 911, but would have left it at that and let the cops take care of it. Generally, burglars are not armed, but not always and I think most people would value their lives more than the $2,000 worth of stuff they took out of the house.And once again, I don't feel it's proper for untrained, nervous and frightened people to play cop. Even if he hadn't already told the dispatcher he was going to shoot them the likelihood of that happening anyway would be pretty high. Cops know how to deal with these situations. Nervous old men with guns would seem to be less prepared for that.It doesn't matter if we agree or not. The point is to present each side and defend it. I believe I have done that. Whether anyone agrees with me is of no consequence. I don't think YOU are hung up on whether anyone agrees or not either, right

It would, of course be nice if you DID, but it isn't required and I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

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

If they turned and ran to get off of Horn's property, then it is rather clear that they were doing they best to stop breaking the law and diffuse the situation. Horn shot someone in the back while they were LEAVING (or at least running AWAY from Horn) his property.They both have no force of law.He can give whatever he wants, but it has no force of law, unless you wish to argue that I have the right to ask a trespassing jogger to stop, and then shoot them in the back because instead of becoming my prisoner, they decided to simply leave my property. I'm not sure why it's important to point out that Horn had the "moral and legal authority" to do something like say "stop," do a headstand or fart.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I was referring to your comment about my quite plausible possible scenarios being crazy, and you came up with a friend of my Wife's coming onto my property causing me to shoot him.

I've explained why I can see the probability of a nervous, gun-toting neighbor shooting somebody by mistake, especially if he thinks the law is on his side.
One more wild and impossible scenario: You tell your cousin Frank it's okay to borrow your guitar and amp, and you let him have the key.
Your neighbor, being the friend he is has never met Frank nor did he see him enter the house with the key. What follows is the same as the Horn case. But this time he yells freeze and Frank, not seeing the gun (this is at night, most likely the same as when Horn did his thing, as burglars usually work in darkness for obvious reasons) tells your neighbor to kiss his ass and the neighbor opens fire.
Even with all the potentially unlikely specifics I put in, can you tell me with any certainty this could not happen, and more than once, especially when the neighbor is sure he will not face any consequences because of the precedent Horn's case sets?

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

If you read all the way through my posts you'll see I believe the HOMEOWNER has the absolute right to blow away an intruder. I specified no conditions and if he doesn't understand english you still have the right to take him out. No conditions. Not even a forewarning if you don't want to.

But that applies to the home OWNER and when he is home (obviously if he was not home he wouldn't be ABLE to shoot the intruder). I don't want the guy down the street doing it.

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

My problem with this is he was itching to “kill” somebody. These guys all like to brag what great shots they are, so why not take out a couple of knee caps and wait for the police.

Wow - what an amazingly ignorant viewpoint.

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

Speaking of ignorant viewpoints...

__________________
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

Nah - yours isn't ignorant, its stupid. You've been educated and you ignore the facts in favor of your emotional bias.

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

Mm.

And what do you do?

__________________
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

Pointed out that you're refusing to accept facts. That isn't an emotional bias, that is simply reality.

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

Mm.

What "facts" am I refusing to accept?

__________________
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

Okay so you won't want it and have issues with this law, i support it.