General Gun Discussion

[Xasthur]

if he didn't shoot, they most likely would've gotten away. if not they'd have beend eported eventually. they most certianly would've come back into the country. the next time they did something they most likely would've had a better weapon than a crowbar. they very likely would kill someone in their next robbery. that sounds like a threat i think.

You have absolutely no information to base that conclusion upon. Don't be silly.

xastur and you seem to short sighted on this.

You guys seem to be saying that all burglars are just that..  crooks looking to steal some stuff and sneak off into the night.

That is not the case all the time..

I've already said that deadly force would be more than justified had the guys broken into his house. I'm not some hippy trying to protect human life, thieves are vermin and I understand that you guys have serious problems with scum like the two who got killed. If your personal safety is threatened, have at it and paint the walls with them.... I'm fine with that. The criminal has already waved their 'right' to fair treatment by threatening another person.

The crux of this issue is that these two rats didn't threaten another person. They broke into an empty house and confronted no one. The 911 operator said it perfectly "There ain't no property worth killing for".

My point all along has had nothing to do with using deadly force when threatened it has only been to do with average citizens taking the law into their own hands and killing over property theft without threat to a person. Execution for stealing someone's jewellery is not warranted and cannot be allowed. Surely everyone can see the pandemonium that would unfold should this sort of behaviour be allowed?

[Jackal1]

Charon points out osamabamas posititons and they are all the most restrictive we have ever seen... worse than the brady bunch comes up with.

lazs

..............and that`s saying something.

[Toad]

Laz, simple situation:

You see 2 clowns break into your neighbor's unoccupied house, grab the plasma TV and head off down the street. Do you shotgun them in the back if they refuse to stop on your "halt" command?

Of course not.

There needs to be an imminent threat to yourself or to others to justify the use of deadly force in my set of morals.

I'm not killing someone over minor property that is easily replaced.

Dear Cod, I've seen some on here sounding like they'd shoot someone for stealing a cooling cherry pie off their window sill. There has to be some common sense here.

I'm as pro-gun as anyone and you know it. But some of the comments here are crazy.

[Xasthur]

Well said, mate.

[lazs2]

exactly.. again.. it is gobbly gook....

osamabama doesn't make me as a gun owner feel that he is on my side..  I can tell you all that I am for a womans right to "choose".... with some restrictions....

You then vote for me based on my abortion stand and then I pass a bill that says that these "restrictions" include the one that says no woman under the age of 65 should be allowed to have an abortion unless she is in congress or the the house or a high ranking official.

osamabama believes in the right to keep and bear arms but he wants to keep em out of the wrong hands...

guess what?   you have the wrong hands.

lazs

[lazs2]

Toad...  I would not go to a house that was being broke into without being armed.

I would not shoot someone in the back in said house if they were running away and I felt that they were no threat to me.

If I did feel that they were a threat I would shoot em... front back or sideways.

I cant make it any more simple than that.  I can't second guess what went on at the house in question.  there is only one witness.

lazs

[Jackal1]

I think a few here may have missed this........................
"and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn defended himself"

You buy the ticket, you get the ride.

[Sox62]

Would I shoot someone breaking into my house? Yes.

Would I shoot some stealing from my neighbors house while they were away? No.

Do I feel one bit of pity for the two that did get shot for doing so? Not one bit.

[CAP1]

You have absolutely no information to base that conclusion upon. Don't be silly.


the one guy was deported in 1999. he came back.

other than that, i'm doing the same as others...and playing the ""what if"" game. i think it also said they came into his yard. could it be possible that they were going to attack him because he hadn't raised his gun....and they thought he wouldn't.......then when he did, they turned to run(but too late). they had no rights anyway.

[Toad]

There is a real time recording of the event made from the shooter's telephone.

Horn: He�s coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I�m sorry, but he�s coming out the window.
Dispatcher: Don�t, don�t � don�t go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?
Horn: They just stole something. I�m going after them, I�m sorry.
Dispatcher: Don�t go outside.
Horn: I ain�t letting them get away with this s--t. They stole something. They got a bag of something.
Dispatcher: Don�t go outside the house.
Horn: I�m doing this.
Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.
Horn: I�m sorry. This ain�t right, buddy.
Dispatcher: You�re going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don�t care what you think.
Horn: You want to make a bet?
Dispatcher: OK? Stay in the house.
Horn: They�re getting away!
Dispatcher: That�s all right. Property�s not worth killing someone over, OK?
Horn: [curses]
Dispatcher: Don�t go out the house. Don�t be shooting nobody. I know you�re pissed and you�re frustrated, but don�t do it.
Horn: They got a bag of loot.
Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag ... which way are they going?
Horn: I�m going outside. I�ll find out.
Dispatcher: I don�t want you going outside, Mr. Horn.
Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I�m going.
Dispatcher: Don�t go outside.
Horn: [yelling] Move, you�re dead!
[Sound of shots being fired]

What imminent danger to himself or others justified him leaving his home and going out to confront these guys?

[slipknot]

I think that's its high time that some civilians got a piece of the 'people blasting' pie.

Cops are professional killers (yes, they protect and serve, and we love them for it, but let's face it, one of the ways in which they protect and serve is by blasting people in various parts of their anatomy--including the head!), and citizens are not, and this makes the citizen an underdog in the people-blasting business.

Here's a scenario:

A cop comes home to his wife:

"How was work?" She asks
"Same old same old... Blasted some people" He responds
And they have dinner with no further discussion

A citizen comes home to his wife, having, unbeknownst to her, blasted a person that day.
"How as work?" She asks
"Not bad... Blasted a guy, though. That was a change of pace."
"Wow!" She exclaims, and proceeds to make out with him aggressively.

See the difference?

Cops can blast people all day every day, but let the citizens have a piece of the pie too. Heck, if a cop wants, he can sit around and manage IT guys for a day if he wants.

[Toad]

I think a few here may have missed this........................
"and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn defended himself"

You buy the ticket, you get the ride.

From the actual tape, it sounds like Mr. Horn went out of his house and threatened the two thieves as they entered his yard after exiting the neighbor's house.

If he had stayed in his house and shot them had they entered HIS house, I'd have no problem with it at all.

Is there any evidence that they posed an imminent danger to him as they entered his yard? Were any weapons found on the bodies? None of us has all the information but it seems reasonable to me that had Horn stayed in his house they'd either have gone on and left or died entering his home. Either situation is better than what did happen.

I think incidents like this are fodder for the antis simply because it is NOT a clear cut case of imminent danger. It provides "proof" of their claims that CCW will turn the US into the Wild West for many of the sheeple that listen to Handgun Control or the Brady Bunch.

It was not a righteous shoot. It is questionable at the very best. That is not what we should be supporting as gun owners.

[Xasthur]

the one guy was deported in 1999. he came back.

That provides no link to coming back with weapons to kill. I'm not calling you out to be a bastid or anything, I'm just saying that you're talking baseless watermelon at the moment.  

Toad nailed it. Even if the guys did approach him they certainly changed their mind and tried to high-tail it.  They were shot in the back, he didn't shoot them as they tried to attack him.

In fact,the information available states that the third shot you hear on the call was the kill shot on the second rat as he ran away. That's execution, not self-defense, however you look at it.

[culero]

There is a real time recording of the event made from the shooter's telephone.


What imminent danger to himself or others justified him leaving his home and going out to confront these guys?

Texas law allows him to use force to stop the burglars, and deadly force if he believes using lesser force exposes himself to possible harm. Applicable statutes (see 9.42 2, 3, 9.43 2B):


SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

   � 9.41.  PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.  (a)  A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
   (b)  A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
      (1)  the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;  or
      (2)  the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, � 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, � 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


   � 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
      (1)  if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41;  and
      (2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
         (A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
         (B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;  and
      (3)  he reasonably believes that:                                             
         (A)  the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means;  or
         (B)  the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, � 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, � 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


   � 9.43.  PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.  A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
      (1)  the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;  or
      (2)  the actor reasonably believes that:                                     
         (A)  the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
         (B)  he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property;  or
         (C)  the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, � 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, � 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[culero]

snip
It was not a righteous shoot. It is questionable at the very best. That is not what we should be supporting as gun owners.

Speak for yourself. Texans have decided otherwise (and lots of us are gun owners )