B) Nor do I believe it is appropriate to prosecute someone who uses deadly force to protect himself or his neighbor's property.
Mr Horn should be fined for reckless discharge of a firearm inside city limits.
Further there is a ripple effect. Unknown to us, but with out doubt, fellow running mates of these men, and men like them are thinking twice about doing this. This is a benefit. As an example this is why homes of known members of the Hell’s Angles are rarely robbed. Robbers feel it is not worth the risk. If the risk is such everywhere, there will be few robberies.
We need more of this, not less.
“Reckless discharge” is when you miss.
reckless ??? I hope you got asbestos undies and an ABC extinguisher...
What was reckless about it? There's been no reports of "collateral damage". A shotgun is the very best for avoiding that. Inside, you may blow a big hole in your own wall, but outside, it's not likely that you'll do more than scratch the paint or a chip a window on a neighbor's house or vehicle. Especially true if you load something lighter than 00 buck, or any buck at all. Even bird shot would be devastating at 15 feet, but nearly harmless at 100 yards. (Instant hamburger).
It wasn't reckless.
I am somewhat perplexed by your post.
You wrote, “Mr Horn should be fined for reckless discharge of a firearm inside city limits.”
What was reckless about using his shotgun as he so did was reckless?
Doesn’t prevention of a felony qualify as a lawful activity? If so, the discharge was legal, IMHO.