posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86
Well, while it does seem as though the man had the intent of shooting the perps, he may have just spoken hastily in the heat of the moment when
talking to the 911 operator prior to the incident. He may have had the intention of holding the men at gunpoint or something similar. The thing is we
don't know what transpired other than the end result after he left his house. Perhaps the criminals posited a threat that the man deemed life
threatening and he acted accordingly?
I was amazed to see the Texas law as posted above that extended the use of deadly force to protecting the moveable property of a third party. Where I
live, Taxachussetts, the law is entirely on the side of the criminal. In my state you pretty much have to jump through flaming hoops doing backflips
and stick the landing to get a license to carry a handgun. Having a firearm in my state is a huge responsibility and a huge burden almost, but as
mentioned previously, the police force is merely reactionary, they won't be there to defend me in a dire situation so I have to assume that
responsibility myself. The fact is, in Massachusetts in order to have a justified shooting, you basically have to exhaust all avenues of escape - they
encourage fleeing at all costs, they basically want you to tuck tail and run. I'm pretty sure you have to actually be shot, not just shot at, in
order to return fire, and unfortunately like others have posted, if you shoot - it better be a double tap to make sure of the kill, otherwise the
criminal can take you to court and sue you for everything you've got, or worse take everything you've got AND get you in prison for
assault/attempted murder. Even if it is a justifiable shooting it will still cost you about a million dollars in defense just to clear your name. I am
a proud gun owner, and I hope that I never have to use them on anybody, not because I don't think I could, but it just has so many negative
repercussions, especially in my state.
I have to admit that I would never have willingly placed myself in a position where I would have to use the measure of force that this man did, but
according to Texas law he was within legal bounds; and personally I think the world would be a better place if the laws were like that everywhere -
not to say we should shoot people for petty theft, but it would certainly be a major deterrent if you knew you could be killed for it. Criminals
prefer unarmed victims and they don't like to take unnecessary risks. It's far safer to rob an unarmed person especially when they know full well
their victim can do nothing to stop you even if they were armed. In this respect the laws of my state favor the criminals and make it easier on them.
I would think there would be a whole lot less crime if there was a perception that everyone had a weapon and could use it freely to defend their lives
or any aspect of theirs or their neighbors property. It would be nice if the laws everywhere would actually work to serve law abiding citizens instead
of aiding criminals.
After reading the article above I'm not sure Horn acted accordingly. Given, the two men WERE clearly morally bankrupt and classic no-good-nicks, and
he probably did the world a service - I can't really condone shooting a man in the back unless he's stepping over the body of my murdered family
while he's fleeing. Perhaps the real issue here is why the Gov't is doing nothing noteworthy to stem the flow of career criminal illegal Mexican
refuse innundating Texas.
[edit on 26-1-2008 by Grizzly Bear]