Further Proof That Texans Are Some Trigger-Happy Crackers

I know you guys are going to jump all over me for saying this.

But seriously. There's this thing called home owners insurance. If I were watching my neighbors getting robbed, I'd have a fucking camera and I'd not risk my own life by taking pictures of them through my window. I'd take a few pictures, make sure I got some pretty good shots, and then tell the neighbors about my pictures when I got home.

Really. It's only a bunch of STUFF. They were shot over material goods which would have been covered by home owner's insurance. It was an overreaction to KILL them. The least he could have done was shoot them in the KNEECAP or something.

Fuck that murder over robbery shit. It's not right. Self-defense my ass. The guy was considered a "loose cannon." And I believe it.

If the spics were next door raping and killing the neighbors, I'd say their deaths were justified. But robbing a house? Give me a fucking break. The Texan just wanted a chance to use the gun for something other than shooting deer.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think it's particularly telling that he told the 911 operator beforehand that he intended to kill them. KILL them, not just shoot to disable until the authorities showed up.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Don't most homeowners insurance policies come with some sort of deductible? In which case it may not have actually covered any of the stolen goods?

I am pretty sure there is a deductible, but provided you have theft coverage, you should be fine on anything that is stolen from your property - including your vehicle, if parked on the premises at the time of theft. I don't know that there is a deductible for theft. I don't own a home, so I couldn't tell you. I will go research, though! It's useful to know!

Again, depends on your policy. The deductible is worth it, provided that the policy would certainly cover what was stolen. There are also little tidbits in there which you may need to prove. Like, you know, if someone stole your brand new 40 inch LCD TV, new sound system, shit like that - you'd need to prove it's worth if you intend to get a good amount back. Otherwise, you settle with shitty insurance decisions on actual cost of goods. (Shop smart, guys~)

As far as I know anyways. I'm not an expert - I only speak from the experiences I have had and experiences others I know have had.

At the same time, none of this actually warrants two deaths.

EDIT: Looks like in the state of Texas, home owner's insurance deductibles start at around $250. The higher you make the deductible, the more discount you get on the premium. THEFT is generally covered without deductibles, from what I can tell. Other things are not.

Also, some deductibles (including theft in most cases) are tax write-offs. =D

Most amazing jew boots

I just listened/watched the YouTube video. I am even more astonished at some of the reactions here.

It seems that he is calling from his home. Horn says "I will go out there and shoot them." He mentions how he shouldn't have to risk his life - then why does he. YOU KNOW two people, possibly armed, are breaking in next door. And you go out there to confront them with a shotgun. He is INDOORS when he makes the call: "If I go out there..." The guy is INSIDE when he makes the call and DECIDED to go out and shoot these two guys.

He also thinks something bad happened on "September the first." What the fuck.

He took it upon himself to go outside and take "justice" into his own goddamn hands and SHOT the two men. Murdered them. Over theft.

That's so unheard of to me. You people think the appropriate penalty to two thieves is death by a shotgun.

It's even more startling when you hear it in the audio.

"They came in the front yard with me. I had no CHOICE!"

HE PROVOKED THEM. Fucking MORON. He went out with the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of confronting them. And the cops reacted pretty badly to what he did, too.

I can't believe some of you people. I really, really can't.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Tails

You sure you were listening clearly Sass? He said he had a right to defend him self prior to certain laws changing back on 9/11. For all the criticism you guys are giving those of us who felt he was in the wrong, you people certainly aren't paying any fucking attention.

I wasn't the only one who heard "September the first." But I wrote a lot more in that post. It was just an aside. You aren't really addressing those points, so

Yes, Devo. The Mexicans always provoke the whites in Texas! It is fact of life! (I'm joking. I am pretty sure you were too. I hope.)

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

Sass, you're all for battered women taking responsibility for shit and doing something about it. You're advocating this guy just sit there and watch a theft take place without doing something to stop it, when he's had no clear reassurance from the authorities they'll be able to do anything? All he's got after 8 minutes on the phone is "Officers are on the way just stay inside."

You look at how critical people have been about officials and their management of crises, and you honestly expect this particular person to be reassured by something as vague as that?

I can't believe some of you people. You're encouraging us to allow ourselves to be victimized.

Yes, "victimized." When the proper thing is to KILL! We all should know better. When someone steals your shit, you murder them.

I thought *I* had anger issues.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

And Sass, we're running into differing paradigms again. I'm saying he didn't go out there expressly to kill. He went out there to stop a theft, and since they didn't stand still when he asked, and in fact may not have even run away but rather toward him, he didn't have many other options.

You're saying he went out there to kill them because they stole shit. Two different scenarios, with completely different ethical implications.

He expressed to the operator that he had a shot gun and "would kill them."

Originally Posted by From the Article in the OP

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

He went out there with intent to kill. And he did.

He could have said "I am going to shoot them in the knee/arm/foot/other extremity to deter them until the police arrive." But he didn't. He said he'd kill them, and he did.

Look. I don't deny the guy was trying to do the right thing, and that the thieves were complete scumbags - you don't break and enter and steal peoples' shit. But you also don't die for it at the hands of some vigilante asshole with a shotgun. Both parties were wrong.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Actually there was a law passed in Texas on September first that extended the rights of people to protect their own and their neighbor's property.

So, umm, yeah, good job on giving this guy a civics lesson.

I don't live in Texas. How should I know.

(So he DID say September the FIRST. Thanks for that proof. =D)

But I thought the law worked only if the neighbor asked to have their property guarded. He said he didn't know those particular neighbors well. Not that I am making an argument of that. It's trivial.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Gumby

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.

How ya doing, buddy?