Wish I had neighbors like this....

[Daytr8er]

Interesting story and a good debate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3517564

[Cheeze_IZ_G00d]

Interesting question. From my perspective, he overstepped his bounds. Basically, he gave these guys the death penalty over what was probably simple burglary and grand theft. Had a prosecutor sought this penalty for these crimes in a court of law, he would be laughed out of his profession. Horn is probably going to get hit with an indictment, but he will plea out because of the intense support and media coverage. I doubt if he will do too much jail time.

[I Slap Fat Kids]

Well, the new law didn't specify exactly who's being, uh burgled?, to use lethal force. And if they were less that 15 feet away, then they might have been in his yard. And the guy was in his sixties, who knows what he was thinking,"The Commies are attacking my neighbor's house, and this retarded police officer wants to let them get away?" And one last thing, it was in Texas, so what do you expect?

[Ganef]

This guy is probably screwed, however if he can prove that the burglars approached him with the intent to harm  and his shooting was in self defense, then he is in the clear.

[Salvo66US]

I say "...Way to go, Joe!!!" There need to be more people like that in this country! If all citizens were required to "carry", there would be alot less crime and murder. I'm not sure just what county it is, but I beleive in Oklahoma there is a county where citizens are required to carry a sidearm for personal protection and their crime rate had dropped to near zero...It is a subject of debate as different people feel differently about different things... If I were a criminal I think I would certainly have to have it in my mind that if the people whom I was going to commit a crime against were "carrying", I stand a pretty good chance of getting capped one way or the other, I would probably not commit the crime, unless....I were so blatantly stupid...then I should probably be put out of my misery anyways!
 Just my opinion....

[Cheeze_IZ_G00d]

I say "...Way to go, Joe!!!" There need to be more people like that in this country! If all citizens were required to "carry", there would be alot less crime and murder. I'm not sure just what county it is, but I beleive in Oklahoma there is a county where citizens are required to carry a sidearm for personal protection and their crime rate had dropped to near zero...It is a subject of debate as different people feel differently about different things... If I were a criminal I think I would certainly have to have it in my mind that if the people whom I was going to commit a crime against were "carrying", I stand a pretty good chance of getting capped one way or the other, I would probably not commit the crime, unless....I were so blatantly stupid...then I should probably be put out of my misery anyways!
 Just my opinion....

While there are arguments to be made for this line of thinking, it is not difficult to imagine the vigilatism that might arise from this type of statute. Like I said earlier, everyone in this country is presumed innocent until proven guilty, if private citizens jump in, then people are deprived of this inalienable right. This is where I take the most issue with this line of thinking. In addition, we needn't have open shootouts between criminals and civilians because of the potential danger to innocent bystanders. I know that if, in this case specifically, one of my loved ones, or my property were damaged by Mr. Horn's actions, I would be very unhappy to say the least.

[Gauge]

meh, guy did what he thought was right. Personally, if that's the law to use deadly force to protect property I kind of stand behind him. Partly only, it wasn't HIS property but yeah, I think I'd like a neighbor like him. What he should have done first was confront both of those guys, (armed if need be) and try to keep them busy until the 5-0 showed up. 7-10 minutes (est. from the report) may seem like a long time, but not as long for Horn as those bad guys looking down the business end of a 12 gauge at less than 15 feet away...

[seanm028]

On the subject of "if everyone carried, there would be far less crime" I think you are sorely mistaken.  There are a whole lot of immature people in this world, and a lot get really upset over really simple things.  I can only imagine what the distraught boyfriend who was "carrying by law" would do when he walked in on his girlfriend cheating with the mailman.  Or what about the shy guy in the office who has just been made fun of again, and decides he would rather go down in a blaze of gunfire than go through another round of teasing.

These may be extreme, but that's because there are a lot of crazies in this world.  It only takes a few to make a huge difference to those unfortunate ones in front of their barrels.

On a side note, isn't there some law in Texas about being allowed to shoot trespassers?  Maybe that's just an urban myth, but if it's true, that might come in to play.  He might not have been defending his own property but there's still a case to be made.  Or maybe they came on to his property while making the getaway.  I'm curious to find out what happens.

[Ghostsequel]

All depends on what happened while he was on his lawn.  I don't know though, most use of force laws require you to try and get away from the situation, in this case he grabbed a gun and went out to confront them.  He might have had noble ambitions, but I don't see him being able to legally justify this.  Property also isn't worth taking a life or risking your own.

[Ares]

... most use of force laws require you to try and get away from the situation...

Luckily, not in Arizona... a lot of states say that you must attempt to flee before drawing a weapon, but in AZ the people are allowed to stand their ground.

This sort of goes against what I was taught in CCW. I'm not sure if his life was being threatened or not, or if simply being on property constitutes deadly force in Texas, but it sounded like all they did was go onto his yard before he shot them. All I mean is that he may have been put away for a long time if he was found unjustified, so it was risky.

[I Slap Fat Kids]

On a side note, isn't there some law in Texas about being allowed to shoot trespassers?

Thats exactly what I was wondering.  I think I heard that on some show about repossessors in Texas (they mentioned it because they had to take the car off of someone's lawn once).  What if he had a "NO TRESPASSING VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT" sign in his yard?

[andyhinds]

I agree with the dispatcher, no possession is worth killing somebody over.  If I found somebody breaking into my house, I'd help them carry my TV to their car rather than shoot them.  He provoked the situation... and he'll pay for it, either criminally or civilly

[djmtott]

If burglars knew they had a real risk of getting shot by neighbors when they commit their crimes you'd have a lot less burglary.

You know the burglars in that town know to stay away from that guy's neighborhood now, and that's what we need more of.

[Doc Hollywood]

On the subject of "if everyone carried, there would be far less crime" I think you are sorely mistaken.  There are a whole lot of immature people in this world, and a lot get really upset over really simple things.  I can only imagine what the distraught boyfriend who was "carrying by law" would do when he walked in on his girlfriend cheating with the mailman.  Or what about the shy guy in the office who has just been made fun of again, and decides he would rather go down in a blaze of gunfire than go through another round of teasing.

I'm confident that if you took the time to research actual statistics you will find that people who lawfully carry concealed weapons are not the people going postal over cheating spouses or stress at work.

If some mental case does go postal I'm glad I have the ability to defend myself.

The reports states that "under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night. "

No matter what the legislator says NOW about his intent, statutes are interpreted based on their plain meaning and not some after thought by its writer.

I have not read the actual statute but here in Arizona we have a very similar statute.  The burded of proof used to be on the shooter to justify his act - now the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the presumption that the shooter acted justifiably should be stricken.

I don't know if Ithink this shooter was a hero or not - but its appears he acted within the bounds of the law and if I were practicing in Texas I would represent him for free.

[Doc Hollywood]

On the subject of "if everyone carried, there would be far less crime" I think you are sorely mistaken.  There are a whole lot of immature people in this world, and a lot get really upset over really simple things.  I can only imagine what the distraught boyfriend who was "carrying by law" would do when he walked in on his girlfriend cheating with the mailman.  Or what about the shy guy in the office who has just been made fun of again, and decides he would rather go down in a blaze of gunfire than go through another round of teasing.

I'm confident that if you took the time to research actual statistics you will find that people who lawfully carry concealed weapons are not the people going postal over cheating spouses or stress at work.

If some mental case does go postal I'm glad I have the ability to defend myself.

The reports states that "under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night. "

No matter what the legislator says NOW about his intent, statutes are interpreted based on their plain meaning and not some after thought by its writer.

I have not read the actual statute but here in Arizona we have a very similar statute.  The burded of proof used to be on the shooter to justify his act - now the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the presumption that the shooter acted justifiably should be stricken.

I don't know if Ithink this shooter was a hero or not - but its appears he acted within the bounds of the law and if I were practicing in Texas I would represent him for free.