A right that wasn't being violated. He LEFT his house to confront them. You can't just walk on your lawn and shoot random tresspassers.Afraid you're mistaken there. We're a nation under the rule of law and we have systems for these things, not vigilante justice. That's anarchy.Completely irrelevant and there's no reason for Capo to answer that question.And it's a shame you can't grasp that you're just a bitter little bitch who doesn't care about anyone else.Your own damn fault for not having off-site backups. What if your apartment caught fire? Just burn a few damn DVDs and store them at a friend or relative's house.

Just because the ends justify the means doesn't mean that the means you use to get to that end do not have consequences.

And I'll rhyme circles around practically any emcee you can bring my way, kid.

So has anyone established yet where on their body this old dude shot the two guys?

Those two men were probably desperate and reckless, but it's terrible that they died. Definitely don't think any kind of theft warrants a death penalty. I wonder if these two particular thieves knew what they were getting into; did they even stop to think that they might've died?

In Colorado (and Oklahoma I think), there's this law called "Make My Day", no joke. Don't know if this is the law that Texas uses too, but it petty much states that someone can use deadly force if their home/property is in danger. (and it's named after a line Clint Eastwood said D': )

Anyway, the article says that it was a neighbor's house that was being burglarized but, when Horn saw the two men near his own home, thought that his property was in danger too? (kinda half-assed question, since he DID say that he was going to kill 'em)

Also, a lot of people are saying after Horn told the thieves "move, you're dead", they provoked him, but isn't it possible that he was just a little trigger happy/jumpy? (maybe one of them coughed a bit...)

I mean, he shot the shotgun THREE TIMES.

For two men, ten or twelve feet away from the shooter, seems a bit excessive, doesn't it?

Actually, it's not titled the "Make My Day" law, it's just earned that nickname, and it's not exactly new. That particular statute became effective in Colorado in 1986, and it's pretty much just the Castle Doctrine on crack. It "provides homeowners with immunity from prosecution for force used against a person making an unlawful entry into the home."

And, again, it has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

I think it'd be cute to get someone who actually studies law to come in here and explain what the hell happened. (cough, bluemikey, cough)

Of course my argument is full of holes. I can't argue for the hell of it and always be right.

All in all, I think Horn's actions were wrong and illegal. But the deaths of the two men were not justified, but certainly not wrong. Fuck them.

Kinda funny to hear you quote Lenin. =j

I agree with you that that are committing a crime and should be punished for it, but like the 911 guy said no property is worth shooting someone over, much less taking their lives. I mean this COULD have been a whole other story if he hadn't shot them. True it could mean that the burglers get away and his neighbors lose some heirlooms and what not, but it could also mean that they get caught. Since they're Mexican and they're in Texas there's a pretty good chance they'll get locked up for a real long time. I mean the man lives in a white neighborhood and any minority will know that the police will be there in like 5 minutes tops. There's a really good chance they would have been caught.

Awfully nice of you to pull a 180 turnaround regarding the legality and justification of Mr. Horn's actions.

So wait a second, I'm a bit confused on this subject.

Since when was it all kosher to allow criminals to break in, steal, and get away with it? Granted, dying in the end is extreme no matter which way you cut it, but the simple fact remains that if no one would have done anything, they would have went on to do it again, and again. Petty theft isn't important in society anymore...fuck homicide isn't, it's all about DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS. At least where I live.

I don't support the man killing the two assholes that were stealing shit, but I'd rather see that happen as opposed to live in fear that my house would be targeted next, or my family's safety as well.

One thing is for sure though, ain't no body going to try and steal from that neighborhood again.

Nobody. Certainly not me. I'm not about to get my brain splattered over an ipod. Not even a PS3. What good is shit if I can't use it or sell it. Amen.

You're confused because you're not bothering to read. The police had been notified and were on their way. If you listened to the phone call and paid attention you'd see that barely a minute after Mr. Horn shot and killed the two victims he himself was laying face down on the ground, as ordered by the officers that had arrived on the scene.

There's nothing that suggests the two victims would have gotten away with robbery, nothing at all. It's just a straw man being held up by those who would have you believe the death of the two victims is somehow justifiable.

And there is nothing to suggest that the cops wouldn't have arrived on the scene thirty minutes after the hoodlums made out with all the belongings that they planned on taking.

And also LOL at the two robbers being victims...that's priceless. I can see it on the news, the widower would be like "HE WAS JUST TRYING TO STEAL A TV! WHY DID HE HAVE TO GET SHOT BECAUSE HE WAS PERFORMING A CRIME?!"

Whether or not the cops could have caught them is immaterial to the issue at hand. The fact is that they didn't represent a threat to the shooter's property or person. Therefore he was putting himself in danger, and can't claim a legitimate cause for use of deadly force.

He confronted them and initiated force. He came out with a loaded weapon and escalated the situation. The responsibility for the deaths of the robbers rest squarely on the shooter, and I don't see how that's not murder.

People don't get away with manslaughter and that's accidental. The shooter intentionally made things more dangerous for everybody. Absolving him of any wrongdoing is mind boggling.

"Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Americas finest working for 911.

Your name and that sentence combined is worth a prop.

You do not shoot at someone’s knees or legs. Not only is that stupid from a practicality standpoint (smaller target) it shows that you were not fearful for your life. Never point a weapon at another human being unless you are willing to end their life. No one who is afraid someone is going to kill them aims and shoots for the foot, knee, or leg? Stop suggesting that is what people should do.

If the ranges stated in the article are true you would see almost no pellet dispersion from a 12 gauge shotgun. You’d basically hit the target with a large wad of pellets still likely to be in their plastic case. You can not just shoot in the general direction of the assailant and expect to scatter shot his legs at that close of range. If you actually managed to him in the leg it would still possibly be a fatal wound from such a large wound.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the police would have done in a situation similar to this one?

No. I've never heard of police officers being taught to shoot at the legs. It is my understanding they are taught to shoot center mass like the rest of us.

So they are taught to shoot to kill, no matter the situation, indirectly by-passing the justice system. (Not that shooting at a "center mass" would necessary equate to a lethal shot. But you see where I am going.) ESPECIALLY in the case of a home burglary.

That's why tazers, stun guns, and bean bag guns exist. To kill.

What country do you live in, exactly.

Well it makes sense though, Sass. Police officers - non-crooked ones anyway - are taught to only use their weapons if they or another person has their lives threatened. That's why they have tazers and pepper spray and police sticks, in case they gotta lay down some law without killing a man.

That's why I'm against this dude and other dudes practicing vigilante justice, because I trust in the legal system to punish people fairly and I trust in law enforcement's training and expertise to know when to blow the shit out of someone and when not to.

fuck you Grandpa Shoot'em'up.

HEY DUMBASS, TRY READING

I think he was rather suggesting that the shooter had no way of knowing they would arrive so promptly.

The point stands, as either way he's blatantly disregarding the audio tapes and all other evidence regarding the actions of the police.

Additional Spam:
Which seems to be the common thread of those who support Mr. Horn. Let's ignore everything else except for the fact the two dead men were robbing a house. NOTHING ELSE TO SEE HERE GO ON ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS HURR HURR

Not that it's any real connection, but the next time someone breaks in your home to rob you, holds you at gunpoint while your wife is raped with a gun in her mouth...we'll make sure that we give him the congressional medal of honor, since you'd be all for defending his acts against you and your home *thumbs up*

While that situation is quite extreme, it still yeilds the same results. The neighbors in the house would still feel victimized, they still wouldn't feel safe. They'd spend thousands on a shitty home security system, dogs, guns or whatnot to feel safe again. Wow, cops caught two bastards breaking in and stealing shit...good job...now more and more people will get the idea to come stealing in that neighborhood, but will be a lot more careful about it.

Though, now, knowing there is a gun totting maniac living nearby, chances are they won't fuck with em again. Neighborhood watch ftw!