Replies

You can call me all the names you want, it doesn’t change the fact that this guy escalated the event into one where two men died.

As a gun owner, I exercise my rights with tremendous appreciation of the consequences of wielding deadly force.

His neighbor was being stripped of some property. A serious crime, which has serious legal consequences. Death, however, is not one of the consequences.

Horn had an opportunity to become a star witness in a slam-dunk robbery case. Unfortunately, in his understandable frustration with the crime, he made a huge mistake. He created an unnecessary confrontation that lead not only to two dead men, but now he may go to jail.

Let me be clear, if someone is trying to kill me or my family, I will kill them first. I will not, however, go looking for that confrontation in order to protect your property, my property, or to send some sort of message.

As noble as his intent might have been, I doubt Horn’s neighbors are going to pay for his defense lawyer or feed his family while he awaits trial.

Feel free to call me a communist, canadian or lunatic if you want. The fact remains, in his zeal to be a superhero, he made a giant, fatal error.

Maybe, maybe not. And maybe his neighbors will provide some support for his family - if he goes to jail.

A hundred years ago, no one would question this. What's that you say? It's 2007. Not the wild west. Not a hundred years ago. I agree. But than my question which no one has answer - WHERE WERE THE POLICE!

You talk about him being a star witness. A star witness to what trial? If the police will not show up while a robbery is in progress, what makes you think they will spend time searching for them after the fact?

And if his neighbors ignore him and his circumstances - if he goes to jail - than they are mighty ingrateful. I hope that someone like that watches over my home and property while I'm not around or away.

Another thought. Would you provide support if you looked out the window and saw two men holding guns on the family next door? If so, why? Let them shoot the family and you can be a star witness. No need to look for trouble, is there?

His neighbor was being stripped of some property. A serious crime, which has serious legal consequences. Death, however, is not one of the consequences.

It can be, under Texas law. True, the legal penalty can not be, although the law once hung horse thieves, but under Texas Law, deadly force can be used to stop the sort of property crime these men were committing. It can also be used in self defense. The Grand Jury will decide, if the DA even bothers to take the case to the grand jury, which is still fairly likely, even if the DA feels there is no real reason to prosecute the defender. Think of it as tying up loose ends. A "No Bill" from the Grand Jury can help with any resulting civil case, which given the involvement of "activists", and the existence of a wife and young child for one the burglars, there is likely to be.

Esecalated an event???

He confronted criminals, they escalated it when they decided to go after him.. THey are dead by their own poor actions.. your attempt to blame him is nonsense.

Death indeed is a consequence for these two, because they decided no only to steal, but to go after the person who rightfully tried to stop them... they are dead and society is better off for it.

What cowards our nation has become if we as a people sit here and call the one standing up for his own life and halting a criminal act is the one in the wrong.

His neighbor was being stripped of some property. A serious crime, which has serious legal consequences. Death, however, is not one of the consequences.

There are some good reasons not to have the state impose the death penalty on thieves. A few of them:

The accused may have had reason to believe that the item he possessed was legitimately his, that it was abandoned, or that the owner would have willingly given the item, but would likely have preferred having him take it to having him ask (e.g. if someone regularly buys food at a restaurant and eats it at the office, taking some extra ketchup packets and stashing them at the office may technically be 'stealing', but if such use is kept within reasonable limits I suspect the staff would just as soon not have to field requests). Of course, particularly in the latter case, some people's perceptions of what is reasonable might be sufficiently far off as to merit punishment, but would not demonstrate a complete inability to live in society.
The accused might have been falsely identified, and in fact have nothing whatsoever to do with the stolen item.
If someone knows that prosecution for a crime means death, then once they've committed the crime they'll have nothing to lose by any action which would reduce the odds of such prosecution.
At least in theory, a live crook, once caught, might be forced to provide more restitution than a dead one could provide.

There is a big difference between telling a thief, after he has committed a crime, that further actions could get him in bigger trouble (implying that he's not already in so much trouble that he's marked for death), and telling a prospective thief that there is any upper bound on what his crime might cost him (including his life). The former message might discourage a thief from committing further crimes; the latter would, if anything, encourage him.