Oh you're from Texas that explains it. Maybe you just don't know anybody who is an officer or a trooper but they NEVER shoot to kill unless they are being threatened. They shoot for the legs and take them down. This guy wanted to kill and should be prosecuted. This is a typical example of some guy just wanting to kill when he could of taken them down or just waited for the police.

Now don't you have an execution to witness or whatever else you do in that forsaken state?

Explains what? My ability to recognize that you don't know what you're talking about? Nah - that's got nothing to do with living in Texas.
I know quite a few cops, and am quite aware they do not shoot unless they believe they are threatened...most of the time.

Police officers though are held to a completely different standard than a private citizen. In Texas, an individual may use lethal force to protect PROPERTY as well as life. The thief need not be armed or threatening. That's a fact my friend.

In this particular case, what a lot of people seem to not be aware of is these miscreants WERE armed. At least one of them had a crowbar. When they were told to stop, they didn't, but instead advanced towards Horn.

I would call that a threat.


That statement merely proves you do not know what you're talking about.

There is not a single law enforcement agency in the world which teaches their officers to shoot for the legs, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the leg is a VERY small target. To my knowledge, every law enforcement agency in the US teaches their officers to shoot for center mass - which happens to be the upper chest.
No, he wanted to stop the crime, and no, he shouldn't be prosecuted. He broke no law.

We're really happy though that you somehow have the ability to discern an individuals feelings and thoughts from one short news report. Perhaps you should seek employment as a psychic?
He DID take them down. They just happened to die in the process. One does not shoot to kill - you shoot to stop. Typically this is lethal, but not always. The intent though is NOT to kill.

Incidentally, a shot to the leg can be quite lethal - quite quickly in fact. You have two really big arteries running through your legs which, if opened, will bleed you dry in seconds. It is foolish to believe this is a non-lethal shot.

As far as waiting for the police, maybe Philadelphia is some magical place where the cops always show up just at the right time, but it doesn't work like that in the rest of the world. In this particular circumstance, there was actually a cop across the street who saw the whole thing occur - and he couldn't be bothered to get out of his car.
Forsaken state? Wow - again with the display of ignorance. Haven't actually BEEN here have you?

Perhaps, rather than displaying your stunning lack of knowledge of the case and Texas, you could offer something substantial to the conversation?

Do you believe the creatures committing the crime should have been allowed to simply walk away? Tell us all why we should simply let criminals have whatever they want. Why should the law abiding respect the lawless?

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

Hey Tex,

No I have not been to Texas. I have family that moved there and they love it. They send me racist e-mails about Obama and how horrible liberals are and blah, blah. They said they wished they moved there years ago.

Anyway to answer some of your points:

I know that the law is held to a different standard but MOST people that I know who own guns all tell me what great shots they are. That was the point I was making. A crowbar is not a gun. If he would have fired a warning shot in their direction they would have shit themselves and ran.

As far as knowing what the man felt, you heard the 911 call. Be honest did that sound like somebody just itching to shoot somebody? The call was almost laughable.

You have every right to protect you and your family Tex. If somebody is in my house I am shooting to kill. If somebody is stealing from a neighbor I call the police. If it is a good friend/neighbor I get my gun out and scare the shit out of them. Are you telling me if somebody starts shooting at you, that you keep advancing? You run your ass off and that is what would of happened in this situation in my opinion..

Stealing is wrong but should not equal death. In all honesty if I did not hear the 911 call I would probably be on your side. The call was clear what he wanted to do. The dispatcher told him not to do anything.

Philadelphia has its issues but we have off duty officers doing heroic things quite often. I have no idea why the same did not happen in this situation.

The name is Eric, not Tex.
No kidding?
Most people who move here do.
Sounds like your problem is with your family members. Do not assume the rest of us are that way. I mean, Obama has about a snowball's chance of winning our electors, but not because he's black.
What does one have to do with the other?

Of course they tell you what great shots they are. Few people are going to admit they suck. Think about it. Hell, 70% of the country thinks they drive better than average.

There is also a VERY big difference between shooting at the range and shooting for real. Adrenaline does some amazing things, but it also utterly destroys fine motor control.
What your friends tell you about their skills has no bearing on this issue.
Then i missed it cause i didnt see a point.
No it isn't, but i can kill you just as dead with one. Inside of ~21' it is just as much of a threat as a gun, by the way.
That would be incredibly stupid for a number of reasons:
1) One of the primary rules of gun safety is to be aware of your target and what is behind it. When you fire a random "warning shot" you are endangering anyone downrange - and that can be quite a long way. This was in a suburban neighborhood. A warning shot could have entered an occupied home.
2) There is no reason to believe they would "shit themselves and run".
3) In the time he is firing that "warning shot" the man with the crowbar has dramatically shortened the distance between them and is probably in striking range.
4) By firing a warning shot, you send the message that you are NOT willing to shoot the person. At this point, you may as well put the muzzle in your mouth, because you're as good as dead. Being unwilling to carry through on a threat you have just made is VERY VERY stupid.
I heard it, as did the jury. I also heard a bit more of it than i suspect you did, and no it didn't sound like someone itching to shoot someone. It sounded like a man who has absolutely had it with criminals and non-responsive police departments.
Again, the name is Eric. I will not correct you again. You are violating the forum rules, and frankly being rather childish.
Really? How are you going to do that, seeing as how you obviously don't own guns? All sarcasm aside, I would be shooting to stop the threat. If he dies in the process - too bad for him.
Good for you. Some of us take it a step further and believe in protecting our neighbor's stuff too - after all, he may do the same for you one day.
Just scare them? Then you're an idiot. Guns are not tools to be used purely to instill fear. If you're not willing to pull that trigger and shoot the person, then you have no business pointing a gun at them.
If you are firing warning shots into the air and making clear that you know nothing of firearms and their proper use, I'm definitely going to advance, close the distance and reduce the threat to myself - either by taking your gun or beating you unconscious.
Never make the mistake of assuming another person will react the same way you would. Just because you would wet your pants and run like a scared little girl doesn't mean I would do the same.
Matter of opinion. The criminal is betting his life that your stuff is worth taking. Sometimes they lose the bet. If you do not believe property is worth defending, then please, PM me your address - I'm sure you've got SOMETHING I want.
Yes it was - he wanted the crime to stop.
So what? That carries no legal weight in ANY state. If the dispatcher told him to shoot them, would that have relieved him of all responsibility? Why not?
Totally unrelated, unless you incorrectly believe the officer who witnessed the whole thing was off duty and the only possible respondent.

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

Hey, Eric, I'm still waiting for the list of facts that I refuse 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

Pram, I'm done discussing any of this with you. Its like talking to a brick wall or mudwrestling a pig.

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

So, you're saying that you've got none.

Oh, well.

__________________
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

Do you not see the juxtaposition between what you have stated, and the laws the citizens of the state of Texas have reserved for themselves?

Dude, the cop that was on the scene says the burglers did indeed enter his property, and when he challenged them, they turned and started towards him. Once he brought the shotgun up and began to fire, they turned away, and ran for the street.

Once again, let us point out in the links that were posted, and undercover cop, present at the scene, says the criminals did enter his property, and start towards him.

A police officer said that, under sworn testimony. Now, just to be fair, cops have been known to lie under testimony for sure.

Wrong. Once again, the police officer present states Horn fired his first shot while they were on his property, approaching him. Not until the shots started being fired did they attempt to turn and run away.

This is one of the most fantastically ignorant statements I have ever seen.

Police officers do not shoot for the legs, they are trained to shoot center mass.

You are right in one aspect though, they do not shoot to kill. They shoot to force the perpetrator to stop his illegal act. It just so happens that shooting center mass almost always makes you stop your criminal act.

Here is another reason why you are wrong.. people intent on doing things rarely back down.

I have seen this countless times, in situations where the aggressors lost their life.

Even presented with overwhelming odds, people truly intent on making something