The article said that he shot the robbers out of fear for his life. But then it says that the 911 operator told him to stay in the house and he said that wouldn’t be right. He said “Here it goes buddy!" then you heard him load his shot gun and blow them away. So, I don’t see how he was afraid for his life, but I gotta say if I was on the jury I would of acquitted him of all charges to. Cool story.

I'm in a state of dissonance over this issue.

Is $2000 worth two lives? They were shot in the back so how was his life in danger?


This type of situation always brings the tragic character Jean Val Jean to mind.

No, I agree with you on that. He definitely should have shot them in the legs.

Agreed. They didn't need to be killed, just stopped.

And that's why I hate juries.

Laymen should never be in the position of the law.

lol at that....

you are joking, right?

no one is infallible (regardless of how one feels about this situation)...but who would you have in "the position of the law"?

I think you should consider why allowing 'laymen' to participate was considered a good idea in the first place. I certainly don't want some landed, overstuffed "king of his little world" calling ALL of the shots.

Here is the problem with this particular situation. The general public is led to believe that private property is in fact theirs and should be protected and is their right. They work hard for what they have, most of which they feel they deserve. They will rarely be convinced that simply allowing the criminals to walk is the best solution. It can be far more effective for individuals to protect their property than to rely on police services. There seems, however, to be a strong desire on the part of the state to prevent the sort of empowerment exhibited by this man (however crudely it was employed). The state desires, innately, a monopoly of power and punishment. It is a case of manifest paternalism at its finest. The state must prevent the public from believing that there is an alternative to state protection.

It is hard not to sympathize with this guy.
I hate thieves, unless they are stealing from the truly wealthy. I would love to shoot someone who was trying to steal my things from my home; I would have loved being able to retaliate against those that have stolen things from me.

You sure he didn't slap them with a flat stick? He looks like a Punch puppet to me.

Just because someones back is to you does not mean they aren't a threat. While you're busy waiting for them to become an <obvious> threat (which is what you guys are really implying) they could turn and shoot you so fast you can't react. Or turn and disarm you and shoot you with your own gun.

Shotguns are a wee bit messier than that. Turn a burglar's thighs into hamburger(hamburglar?) and now he gets to bleed out through his femoral arteries while suffering excruciating pain. At best, he will lose his legs.

The article wrongly infers that Mr. Horn's criminal defence was that he was acting in self defence.

In actuality Texas law permits the use of deadly force in "Protection of third persons property" 9.42....and this was actually his defence.

people that don't like that should change the law or don't live in Texas...As for me, I'm loving Texas...thinking more and more about moving there.

I've got no problem with this decision. I never understood why we protect criminals when they are in the act of committing a crime.

Doesn't have to be. You can have multiple judges. They then act as a jury, AND they are not laymen. I rather have several respectable persons that studied the law, then a bunch of chosen people who have not.

Really, you think you property is worth more then someones life ? Then you are nothing better then a thief that murders to get property.
Eye for an eye is one thing, but a eye for a toenail just goes too far.

this does not deal with the problem raised by the very strong possibility of general corruption and groupthink, among other things.


not what i said at all....i was trying to point out the conundrum that is at the heart of the situation...that being...
a general population that is often overworked/underpaid for what they have (this itself breeds poverty which often leads to crime) vs. the state's desire to monopolize the use of violence and control, which requires compelling citizens to submit to state enforcement and forfeit their own will.

I cannot fathom how I am analogous to a "thief that murders to get property". Seriously. You are so far off base here that it is comical.

I share your perspective that property is overvalued. I would still shoot someone in my home...why? Because if that dude is in my house, he is a threat to my family. It is not about property.

Re: the original scenario, however, I do feel that citizens have the right to defend their property, given what must be done to acquire it. Criminals should not be abetted simply because they possess life, despite its superior value. If you want my opinion, I believe most of our nation's executives and CEOs should be dispatched as well. They are much greater thieves that the two guys above, but are beyond reproach.

Further, our law enforcement agencies have proven inadequate in every facet of their job. They are more concerned with petty dope-slangers and hookers than anything else. Really...how hard is it (and how worthwhile) to arrest a hooker?

If you ever have the missfortune of having to shot someone, then shoot to kill. If you don't kill them, then you will most likely be sued by them.
So I say, empty the gun on them!