Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Thinking about it, if you put a badge on this guy and then put him Vancouver or the GTA it wouldn't have made the news at all.

   

Or law and order would ensue as the criminals would realize it was no longer safe for them to conduct their 'business'.

This is the case in Israel where gun laws were severely relaxed in the 1980's to address terrorism and the side benefit was that violent crime dropped off precipitously as it became legal for Israeli citizens to shoot virtually any lawbreaker.

As a result very few people commit crimes in Israel and very few people get shot while committing crimes.

An armed society is a polite society.

   

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here. In Canada the police may only use deadly force IF theirs or someone else's life is in jeopardy ( the criminal must exhibit the intent to use deadly force ).

   

What's the problem. There are positives and negatives in everything.

The positives here are:

Two less criminals robbing people = lower crime rate;
One less house robbed = lower insurance rates;
The state of Texas doesn't have to pay to incarcerate these two assholes = lower taxes;
The man in question got to do some live fire training = higher standard of gun safety and finally;
There is one less gun toting neighbor scaring the crap out of the neighborhood.

The negatives:

I can't really seem to see any.

   

As 'open minded' as I am about such matters, this guy crossed the line. He was safe in his own house and it wasn't HIS property that he was protecting. By going outside, AGAINST instructions not to do so, he put himself in peril.
All I know about gun laws in Texas is that the only people who get shot, deserved it! In Canada,a person must be inside the dwelling and have reason to believe that the 'intruder' poses a very real threat to their life or well being in order to justify 'deadly force'.Also, as one member of the RCMP told me, 'If the guy 'happens' to 'fall outside AFTER you shoot him, drag him inside and clean up the blood on the outside'before you call us'!

   

[web]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5346606.html[/web]

   

Such a judgemet , based on the whimsy of the news, rather tha the courts? Unusual for such a bleeding heart such as yourself, Lily.
Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty...

..unless of course the person isn't a thug or criminal.

   

I'm curious as to how many of you have actually listened to the 911 tape. Perhaps I missed something. The whole thing is very troubling to hear so I won't rule out that possibility. However, I don't remember him saying anything about the robbers coming towards him. He goes out after being told not to go out. He says something like "Bang, you're dead" then he shots. Forgive me for wondering who may have been doing what in self defense. He was in his house, talking to 911. He was told to stay inside as police were on the way. He was told it isn't worth it to kill someone over property. You can hear him psyching himself up to go out there with his gun. He comments several times that he's got his gun and he's ready to use it. The operator is less than calm when he's imploring him to put his gun down after the shooting because "I have plainclothes cops out there". So if it was the burglers' fault they were shot, whose fault would it have been if a plainclothes cop had popped over the fence and been shot? Whose fault would it have been if the other cops had shot the old man? The cops, I guess. It couldn't be the crooks fault because they were already dead. And the not helpless old man appears to be blameless in many people's eyes.
If the crooks were in his house or trying to break into his house when he killed them, more power to him. But they weren't.
It's kind of funny. I don't hunt so I see no purpose to owning a gun. Even the fact that periodically members of the Crew live in my neighbourhood doesn't make me want one. However, every time I hear how gun happy our neighbours to the south are, I stop and reconsider.

   

It's just a different world. And I agree with Bart, this probably will be argued down to a misdemeanor. I'm just dreading the lack of parking when this case really goes to trial as the Juvenile Justice Center (where I work now) is just across the street from both the civil and criminal court houses here in Houston.

Media rush, good-ole'-boys and panthers protesting, parking hassles... grrr....

   

Sounds like a good day to walk to work.

   

That were charging him! If anything, this is self-defence.

And for the record guys, don't try to steal anything from my house because I will shoot to kill.

I love Texas, but it's too bad they don't allow traps. That would be humane because we wouldn't have to kill the crooks, just humilate them.

   

You don't walk to work in Houston.

   

Not watching the news much lately, are you?

The poor schmuck who got electrofired to death in Vancouver would argue with you himself but he's slightly dead right now.

   

Ummm you have me there, no I haven't been

   

Not at all. 1st degree murder would require him to premeditate the action as an unprovoked assault. In this case he was responding to the illegal actions of the two men he shot as they approached him.

Regardless of what he said on the phone what the case will come down to is did the two men approach Horn after he instructed them to stop? If it is determined that they closed on Horn after he told them to stop then under Texas' Castle Doctrine law Horn had no legal obligation whatsoever to retreat from the criminals and he had every right to defend himself from them.

If he shot them as they retreated from him or simply held their ground then this will be a different matter.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next