Old redneck shoots burglars...

[Superman]

I don't give a shit about the "socio-economic factors" that make you want to steal.

While I don't necessarily agree that people should kill over property, wouldn't it be "socio-economically" bad to lock this guy up? Is he really a criminal? I think Gil honestly thinks society should pay to lock this man up. Look at the bigger picture.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So? Some lawyers also think that people should be awarded millions of dollars from restaurants because coffee is served hot.

That case was decided as it ought to have been; McDonald's was negligent.

[Gil Hamilton]

And do you have anything other than your conspiracy theory driven imagination to support that?

You mean the damn news report when this happened where they specifically stated that that DA was hesitant to press charges due to the large vocal support Horn had over his actions?

Or from your own damn article:

Prosecuting Horn could prove difficult in Texas, where few people sympathize with criminals and many have an almost religious belief in the right to self-defense. The case could test the state's self-defense laws, which allow people to use deadly force in certain situations to protect themselves, their property and their neighbors' property.

Here's what happened. A district attorney looked at the situation and decided that the evidence says he shot these assholes in self defense. His admission of "I'm going to shoot them" doesn't necessarily amount to a plan of murder, especially from a legal standpoint. Look at the bigger picture here. He was nervous and exited, armed himself, and called the police. When the confrontation occurred, he's still protected under the law and has a right to defend himself. It's a matter of who attacked whom first. Who the hell do you think a judge is going to side with in a situation like this?

Wrong, they haven't charged him yet. Last I heard, they were in the process of deciding what to do with him. Check your own damn article. They haven't decided if they are going to prosecute him or not. I know you have trouble reading, but try to follow, cretin.

And bullshit it doesn't amount to intent to kill. He directly states that he intends to kill on the tape, grabs his gun, steps outside and immediately starts opening fire on them. If it weren't for the fact that you are a complete moron who can't understand what "I'm going to kill them" means, you'd see that.

quote]Stop raving and get some evidence to support your rant.[/quote]
Is did you learn English from a damn Port Authority guidebook or something, you moron. He directly states on the tape that he's going to go outside and kill them, grabs his gun, and proceeds to do so.

Look dumb ass, legally, that's not the same as an intent to commit murder. You seem to think that this is a black and white issue, and it's not. A judge or DA would look at the entire situation as a basis of a ruling. Again, the circumstance was a crazed old redneck guy watching a crime taking place. His threats toward them on the phone, most likely, aren't going to be viewed as an admission of a plan of murder. And they weren't. Go figure.

Looks like the steroids have gone to your brain, jackass. If saying that you are going to kill someone on record, grabbing your gun, and then going after them and shooting them isn't an intent to commit murder, what the fuck is?

The fact of the matter is that is a crazed redneck who deliberately set out to kill two people and stated before hand his intent to do it.

I know you are too stupid and braindamaged to understand what ""You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."" and ""Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."", so I'll translate it to a language you can get "Oook oook oook oook oook!" Got that, moron?

Banging my head So? Some lawyers also think that people should be awarded millions of dollars from restaurants because coffee is served hot. And yes, this is a homicide. The term in itself is neutral. The issue is whether it's a criminal or non criminal homicide, and it seems that the DA doesn't agree with you.

The DA hasn't decided yet if they are going to prosecute him or not. If you can't listen to plain damn English or follow the menagerie of legals they have all over this case, then you are a hopeless moron.

[Gil Hamilton]

While I don't necessarily agree that people should kill over property, wouldn't it be "socio-economically" bad to lock this guy up? Is he really a criminal? I think Gil honestly thinks society should pay to lock this man up. Look at the bigger picture.

As a matter of fact, I do think he should be prosecuted, given he was the aggressive party in a double homocide. Going out of your way to deliberately kill two people is a pretty heinous crime, even if those people were scumbags. They were thieves, but Horn is a murderer.

Even if he was "excited" and all that as Superman claims and thus was in the heat of the moment, what he did was STILL a crime, i.e. voluntary manslaughter. However, voluntary manslaughter would be a hard sell, given that he repeatedly states his intent before hand on the phone.

[Superman]

Prosecuting Horn could prove difficult in Texas, where few people sympathize with criminals and many have an almost religious belief in the right to self-defense. The case could test the state's self-defense laws, which allow people to use deadly force in certain situations to protect themselves, their property and their neighbors' property.

I'm arguing that, under the law, he won't be charged. You said it was due to the locals who are rallying behind him, yet your clip you just posted as evidence against my position says he won't be charged due to the state's self defense laws. Thanks for proving my point.

Wrong, they haven't charged him yet. Last I heard, they were in the process of deciding what to do with him. Check your own damn article. They haven't decided if they are going to prosecute him or not. I know you have trouble reading, but try to follow, cretin.

By all means, enlighten me you little geek.

And bullshit it doesn't amount to intent to kill. He directly states that he intends to kill on the tape, grabs his gun, steps outside and immediately starts opening fire on them. If it weren't for the fact that you are a complete moron who can't understand what "I'm going to kill them" means, you'd see that.

I said it doesn't necessarily amount to an admission of a plan to commit murder, and it doesn't. It takes a court to decide that. If you knew half as much as you think you do about the criminal court system, you would too. You can argue your point until you're blue in the face, but it changes nothing.

Is did you learn English from a damn Port Authority guidebook or something, you moron. He directly states on the tape that he's going to go outside and kill them, grabs his gun, and proceeds to do so.

As a matter of fact, I did.

I guess when you do nothing but masturbate to anime, you have lots of time to improve your English, eh? Congratulations.

Looks like the steroids have gone to your brain, jackass. If saying that you are going to kill someone on record, grabbing your gun, and then going after them and shooting them isn't an intent to commit murder, what the fuck is?

From legal dictionary.com:

extenuating circumstances n. surrounding factors (sometimes called mitigation) which make a crime appear less serious, less aggravated, or without criminal intent, and thus warranting a more lenient punishment or lesser charge (manslaughter rather than murder, for example).

If a judge rules that this is a homicide with extenuating circumstances, it's not a crime.

Is it clear now, you little asshole? Legal cases are rarely black and white. Laws are written this way on purpose.

[Superman]

Correction: I meant to say it's not

murder.

[Flagg]

I don't have sympathy for any of them. The 2 burglars gambled and lost, and the old man is a fucking murderer.

Texas laws (as fucked up as they are on this issue) probably don't agree with me, but since I don't give a flying fuck what Texas thinks I don't give a rats ass. The guy flat out states that he's going to go outside and shoot them despite being told by a 911 dispatcher that police are on the way and he needs to stay inside, then goes outside and kills them. That's murder.

[CJvR]

What is the world coming to when not even criminals are gunned down on the job?

The old bastard had better hope the forensics support his his side of the story after he got caught on the 911 tape.

[CJvR]

that not should not be there...

[Justforfun000]

One part of me has the same reaction I would get to him shooting the criminals if it was part of a movie. "YEAH! Right on. Serves them right".

Real life....ack..Can't quite justify the emotional reaction as being correct. There is a reason we have laws against being a vigilante. As galling as it may be to watch someone commit a crime by stealing your neighbours possessions, that should not be a green light for killing another human being.

Now IF these two truly lunged towards him on his property, different story. Anyone making an aggressive move towards you, ESPECIALLY when you are carrying a gun, is making a statement that they intend to cause you serious harm.

Now the problem in this case is how they are going to interpret the evidence.

He could have been all gung ho on the phone but never have actually shot them if they hadn't attacked him and in that case, he'd still be "morally" ok as self-defence, but his words to the 911 operator imply he was going to shoot them regardless. Bitch of a case.

[K. A. Pital]

He defied the 911 operator's advice. Why the hell did he come out with a gun, after being explicitly told not to do so? To breathe fresh air?

[brianeyci]

Because he's a libertarian. Or at least he shares the same core belief.

Come on libertarians. Come here and disavow your association with this guy. I dare you. And just what would happen if this guy says he is a libertarian? That's right, it's no-true-scotsman staring you libertarians in the face.

Don't like it: it's the logical consequence of valuing property as much as human life. That guy was stealing the fruits of a man's labor which is the greatest crime there is to humanity because human life is property and nobody should ever be forced to give anybody anything else, ever and such is the greatest crime imaginable and requires the most lethal response should it be violated. Amen.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, you must indeed wonder why people frown at the vigilantism of a certain Kaloev, who has been discussed just recently, when he retaliated for the loss of human life, but are apparently okay with someone murdering those who steal property. Some sort of perception twist?

Vigilantism is extremely bad for society, since it greatly undermines authority of both the law and the state police, giving people the right to exert violent judgement on their own. And we've seen how well that "self-policing" works.

[White Haven]

Here's the thorny point that many of you are dancing around...if he grabbed a gun and went outside with the intent to go over and kill the two guys and then found the two guys on his lawn already, and they attacked him, would you still consider it murder? In that scenario, he had intent to kill, but was also attacked and defended himself; the two are not mutually exclusive, and none of the evidence we've seen so far would contradict that possible scenario.

[Molyneux]

Here's the thorny point that many of you are dancing around...if he grabbed a gun and went outside with the intent to go over and kill the two guys and then found the two guys on his lawn already, and they attacked him, would you still consider it murder? In that scenario, he had intent to kill, but was also attacked and defended himself; the two are not mutually exclusive, and none of the evidence we've seen so far would contradict that possible scenario.

Manslaughter, possibly.

My initial reaction really was to cheer the guy on...but after reading the posts in the thread, I just don't know. I can't sympathize with the burglars, but he doesn't sound like he was in the right, either. Saying "I'm going to hold them 'til the police gets here", or even "I'll keep them here...might get messy if they attack me" would be much more defensible than "Don't move! You're dead!"

Were they even armed?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Here's the thorny point that many of you are dancing around...if he grabbed a gun and went outside with the intent to go over and kill the two guys and then found the two guys on his lawn already, and they attacked him, would you still consider it murder? In that scenario, he had intent to kill, but was also attacked and defended himself; the two are not mutually exclusive, and none of the evidence we've seen so far would contradict that possible scenario.

From the article, it seems pretty obvious that the person in question went outside looking for trouble. He's on tape stating that he intends to go outside and kill the burglars. That isn't self-defense, it's vigilantism and pre-meditated murder. Not first degree murder, mind you, since it could be successfully argued that he made this decision in the heat of the moment. And while we have statements that the man acted in self-defense when he claimed the burglars lunged at him . . . these statements are coming from the man's lawyer.

Now I feel little sympathy for the burglars, but it's absolutely obvious the gunman went outside loaded for bear and looking for trouble. To nobody's surprise, he found it . . . so my sympathy for the old redneck is also reading zero, and frankly, if the forensics and the police investigation don't conclusively support the premise the two men lunged at the old man; I hope the DA throws the book at him. He didn't need to go out and look for trouble, and since he was watching the whole burglary, and had the authorities on the line the whole time, it would've been absurdly easy for the police to catch up with the burglars. About the only way the man would've been legally justified in shooting them is if they broke into his house next.

I'm an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, but it's gung-ho bozos like the redneck in the story that provide the other side with compelling arguments for gun control and ultimately make things that much harder for the rest of us law-abiding gun owners.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I'm glad to see the Internet Tough Guys are so intent on backing this psycho up. Boy you sure showed everyone how HUGE your e-dicks are.

Vigilantes are the scum of the fucking Earth as far as i'm concerned, they pervert our system of justice, laugh at the law that is written to protect everyone, and then they get some huge groundswell of support from other brainless wonders wanting to prove how biiiig, haaaard and loooong their dicks are.

And before anyone brings up that he shot criminals, i dont fucking care, we have a justice system. And i do so hope he gets the full brunt of it shoved down his throat and spends some years in prison for murder. But i know he wont because, you know, he killed some robbers so he's a "hero".

[Zor]

I can't see how anyone can defend this bastard and his actions. People don't have the right to execute each other for crimes that don't carry the death penalty in any modern society, and self defense does not cut the shit here.

Zor

[White Haven]

I'm not defending his action of going outside looking for trouble. He shouldn't have done that, and that's simple. I'm defending the possibility that, although he put himself in a position he shouldn't have been in in the first place, it's possible that the actual attack was self-defense. I'm not saying that he was an innocent in this; it's very clear that he was not, but simply that if you're attacked when you're planning to commit an aggressive act and attacked before you get the chance to commit it (IF that's what happened, I know it's just the lawyer's statement at this point), then that muddies the waters.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Because he's a libertarian. Or at least he shares the same core belief.

Come on libertarians. Come here and disavow your association with this guy. I dare you. And just what would happen if this guy says he is a libertarian? That's right, it's no-true-scotsman staring you libertarians in the face.

Don't like it: it's the logical consequence of valuing property as much as human life. That guy was stealing the fruits of a man's labor which is the greatest crime there is to humanity because human life is property and nobody should ever be forced to give anybody anything else, ever and such is the greatest crime imaginable and requires the most lethal response should it be violated. Amen.

You know, not everyone who takes the "dont charge him" position holds that position. It would be good if you

A) Did not use this just to attack your political rivals
B) Did not commit such a massive strawman of everyone your disagree with

Thanks

[18-Till-I-Die]

I'm not defending his action of going outside looking for trouble. He shouldn't have done that, and that's simple. I'm defending the possibility that, although he put himself in a position he shouldn't have been in in the first place, it's possible that the actual attack was self-defense. I'm not saying that he was an innocent in this; it's very clear that he was not, but simply that if you're attacked when you're planning to commit an aggressive act and attacked before you get the chance to commit it (IF that's what happened, I know it's just the lawyer's statement at this point), then that muddies the waters.

I can see where you're coming from.

Though i dont think it muddies the waters sufficiently to overlook the fact he actually stated he was intent on killing them.

However i can see how that may be a "wiggle room" point, though somewhat of a nitpick considering the evidence against him is fairly ironclad.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm not defending his action of going outside looking for trouble. He shouldn't have done that, and that's simple. I'm defending the possibility that, although he put himself in a position he shouldn't have been in in the first place, it's possible that the actual attack was self-defense. I'm not saying that he was an innocent in this; it's very clear that he was not, but simply that if you're attacked when you're planning to commit an aggressive act and attacked before you get the chance to commit it (IF that's what happened, I know it's just the lawyer's statement at this point), then that muddies the waters.

I can see where you're coming from.

Though i dont think it muddies the waters sufficiently to overlook the fact he actually stated he was intent on killing them.

However i can see how that may be a "wiggle room" point, though somewhat of a nitpick considering the evidence against him is fairly ironclad.

How many times have you said "I am going to kill him" in anger without actually intending the death of the individual?

Not saying he DIDNT intend the death, just saying that it is part of our vernacular and thus there is reasonable doubt that he initially intended it that way.

It is worth noting that Felony Murder statutes exist. They were commiting a felony and legally are responsible for any deaths that occur in the commission of said felony. Not sure if that removes his culpability or not, probably not... but still

[brianeyci]

Because he's a libertarian. Or at least he shares the same core belief.

Come on libertarians. Come here and disavow your association with this guy. I dare you. And just what would happen if this guy says he is a libertarian? That's right, it's no-true-scotsman staring you libertarians in the face.


Don't like it: it's the logical consequence of valuing property as much as human life. That guy was stealing the fruits of a man's labor which is the greatest crime there is to humanity because human life is property and nobody should ever be forced to give anybody anything else, ever and such is the greatest crime imaginable and requires the most lethal response should it be violated. Amen.

You know, not everyone who takes the "dont charge him" position holds that position. It would be good if you

A) Did not use this just to attack your political rivals
B) Did not commit such a massive strawman of everyone your disagree with

Thanks

Why shouldn't I use this to attack my political rivals? Ohhhhhhhhhhh this story is so sacred, it can't be used. Bite me man. They deliberately avoid dilemmas such as this because they know it makes them lose. They deliberately shut their eyes to the consequences of their beliefs, so it's time to, how shall I put it, ram stories like this down their throats.

Who said everybody who says don't charge him holds this position? Do you see the big words? I certianly didn't say that: it is an open challenge to people who are not in this thread to come in, so it's no knock on anybody in this thread, yet. No duh.

Too fucking bad that libertarians don't know the logical consequences of their beliefs, and this guy shares the same, from all the evidence here. It's the same as bible thumpers who say they believe abortion is murder but arbitrarily decide killing doctors is wrong: they're logically inconsistent and should be challenged at every turn.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Oh come on.

All of this bending over backwards because we're not supposed to "like" the victims (yes, victims) or something is retarded.

What is SO FUCKING WRONG about treating vigilantes like other murderers? Why is it so many people defend them? Do these people feel THAT powerless that they have to protect this worthless hick?

No i dont believe he meant it that way, because he said it more than once, and was loading his gun, and if i recall the recording actually said it several times after being told to stay in his house.

He's some loser hick who killed to people. I honestly dont see why anyone would defend him for any reason.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why shouldn't I use this to attack my political rivals? Ohhhhhhhhhhh this story is so sacred, it can't be used. Bite me man. They deliberately avoid dilemmas such as this because they know it makes them lose. They deliberately shut their eyes to the consequences of their beliefs, so it's time to, how shall I put it, ram stories like this down their throats.

Because it is meaningless chest thumping. There are not very many libertarians on this board, and those that are here A) may not have read the thread and as such cannot answer your challenge and B) Even if they had checked the thread, probably rolled their eyes and left on the first page and thus did not read your challenge.

As for biting you, I am not into that....

Who said everybody who says don't charge him holds this position? Do you see the big words? I certianly didn't say that: it is an open challenge to people who are not in this thread to come in, so it's no knock on anybody in this thread, yet. No duh.

Fair enough. I misunderstood your intent

Too fucking bad that libertarians don't know the logical consequences of their beliefs, and this guy shares the same, from all the evidence here. It's the same as bible thumpers who say they believe abortion is murder but arbitrarily decide killing doctors is wrong: they're logically inconsistent and should be challenged at every turn.

Actually it seems perfectly consistent to me if you believe that property has the same value as life to kill over property. The premises are probably flawed, but the actions seem consistent.

Though there are a few different ways that one CAN come to the conclusion that the people robbing your neighbors must die. And additionally, from what was heard on the tape, he didnt shoot them outright. He confronted them at gunpoint and told them to cease their action. They did not. What happened after that, whether they came at him or not, is not actually clear.