Criminals get killed without proper, civilized procedures of law and justice. Innocent people (yes, there have been cases of this) get killed for absolutely no reason other than setting foot on some crazy coot's lawn and getting shot for being "different looking."

America is the wild wild west and that is NOT something to be proud of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No it is not a beautiful thing. Horn should be in jail for a double homicide. He was not in danger. It was not his property.

Horn will become the reason for more anti-gun crusades because of his stupidity and brutality.

When will gun owners wise up to the fact that, even though we have the right to own fire arms, the 2nd amendment does not give anyone the right to kill. If we lose those rights it will be because of people like Horn who go out on a limb to prove how stupid some people can be when they have a gun.

Owning a gun comes with responsibility. Horn and people like him fail the test...those are the very people who should never own a gun because it puts in jeopardy, that right for everyone else.

Gun owners should be up in arms that Horn was not tried for murder

Yes I am a democrat...yes I am a gun owner and support that right and never listen to NRA crap that we don't support gun ownership. That right does not include the right to commit murder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Honky the Nihilist, your pen name was well-chosen.

Since you are so concerned about people getting away with crimes commited, how would you feel about someone walking up to a Wall Street banker, who had just been paid $400 million in bonuses after steering his institution into a financial ditch only to be bailed out by the taxpayers, and shooting him in the back right there on the sidewalk in front of Starbucks? Or is it only the crimes of the drug addict or destitute that get your dander up?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As in most other "shoot-first" situations, he really didn't know what those men were doing or why.

I remember an ad that showed a series of shots:

- young black man running along a street
- as he passes, another person turns and then looks horrified
- runner throws himself at an old lady, pushing her up against a wall and terrifying her

and finally -

- a heavy load from a breaking crane cable falls right where she was just standing

You may THINK it's obvious what someone is doing, and you may be WRONG.

And that's quite apart from whether you believe theft should carry an automatic death penalty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What would have happened to Mr. Horn if another neighbor saw him running across the lawn with a shotgun?

Would he have been within his rights to shoot Horn in the back?

...and if a third trigger-happy neighbor had seen the shooting?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We should all wear a gun on our hip, if only to intimidate would-be criminals, and it looks cool. As it is now, the criminal has more rights than the victim. Killing them in the act saves much time and money wasted on useless trials and endless appeals. Vigilantes are my heroes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you advocating assassination of Bush administration officials?

I don't like what W's crew is doing, but I more strongly don't like what you seem to be advocating.

Your thinking, honky, leads to nowhere I want to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be afraid scumbags. The next house you break into might be your last.

Exactly right.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anything law enforcement is allowed to do to protect others or property should be an option for the lay person too (preferably with state provided unbiased screening, licensing and training on related issues including (reasonable) conflict avoidance). There are many people who will not venture into some parts of town at night, because of perceived threats to personal safety. People should also be empowered to stop intimidation. If the people do not have the willingness and power to do what it takes to create a sense of security, then the freedom to be in the perceived unsafe places is lost. People should be allowed to use the necessary force to prevent any wrongful action. Any use of deadly (or otherwise significant) force should be subject to an investigation. I can understand that some people believe that property theft is not worth killing someone over. Any (desirable) redistribution of wealth should be done by the state in a more organized fashion (or by people in emergency situations). We have decided that "stealing" is against the law. Unreasonable and unchecked taking away of items from others is not in the best interests of societies, and people should be empowered to stop such actions. The key should be to allow stopping any wrongful action with the necessary force. Excessive force should subject anyone to possible criminal and civil action. There will be uncertainty as to the intent and motives of those who engage in apparent excessive force (whether or not they are law enforcement), and as a society we should lean towards proving wrongful actions beyond reasonable doubt before deeming the use of force as criminal behavior.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i personally don't like guns. i have (BIG)dogs and a cast-iron skillet. and i did break the jaw of someone who broke into my house when my son was a baby. he was 6'4. i'm 5' if he'd been shorter, it would've killed him. but i didn't have the dogs then, either. big, black barking dogs are a WONDERFUL deterrent to any criminal. also great for getting rid of solicitors. they need a lot more care, however than a piece of metal. but the more dead criminals, the better, imo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a concealed carry permit, and I rarely leave my house without a Glock 29. In most states, including mine, that 911 recording would have put Joe Horn in prison for first-degree murder.
Bottom line, however, is this: there are 200+ million firearms in the USA, and millions of carry permits issued in 39 states, and that fact combined with recent "Castle Law" modifications will result in a dozen additional deaths per year... ten of which would have been legal before the laws were changed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Honky, it is your cheerful eagerness to shoot people that gives me pause. Sure, if someone is climbing into your window in the middle of the night, blaze away. But I suspect you're the kind of guy who'd drive down the street popping off at anyone who looked suspicious (ie: Black or brown). Rein it in there, bud. Guns are not toys and should only be owned by responsible adults.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To Honky in answer to "Is that a bad thing?": Yes, when the shooter is an untrained, chronically frightened, impulsive, perhaps racially biased, and not-necessarily-intelligent person. Let us remember the homeowner who shot a Japanese high school exchange student dead for knocking on the door in Hallowe'en costume, en route to a party and mistaking the house. A trained police officer must be able to justify a shooting at much higher standards than a "Shoot-First" citizen with no training and God knows what kind of mental health problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And a cowardly worm at that.
There is only one way a gun can solve all the problems of society as you seem to think.
Turn it on yourself.
Seriously.
Thank you, and good night.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't see a problem with laws that allow us to shoot intruders without fear of legal consequences. If these folks don't want to be shot, they should stay out of other people's houses.

If a man breaks into my home, how am I supposed to know if he's 'just a burglar' or if he's going to rape and murder me? Shoot first and ask questions later makes a lot of sense to me.

I think Mr. Horn was probably in the wrong - it wasn't his house, he had no reasonable fear that his life or even his property may have been threatened. He would have been better off 'shooting' them with a camera to aid the police in later identifying the thieves. But one bad example doesn't negate the principle of the law - that we have the right to be safe and secure in our own homes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These illegal immigration criminals were coming out of a house with a bag of loot. World is better of without them. Sorry, if I catch someone in my house and I get my gun, they better fall to the ground and wait for the police or they are dead. I can get new carpet

Rod

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I lived in Ohio for many years, I had a friend of mine prosecuted and sued when he shot a man that had broken into his house.

That was when I decided to leave Ohio and move to a state that allows home owners to protect their homes against criminals.

It is better to kill a criminal that has broken into your home than to allow that criminal to Kill You.

I am a Democrat, left wing liberal that believes in the 2nd Amendment and the right to protect your home with deadly force.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm stunned by some of the comments already. I thought progressives were supposed to be passive......talk first.....dialogue before action..... diplomacy before violence.

As a Republican....am I really the only one on a so far that thinks this guy with the gun is a NUTJOB!?

His own life a wasn't in any danger....he went looking for trouble. It's like he couldn't wait to fire that thing. IDIOT.

Believe me, I know what it's like to have someone on your property that shouldn't be on your property. My wife and I live in a nice neighborhood, but over the last few summers, we've had, not only our cars broken into, but we had someone IN OUR HOUSE while we were home.
Mostly poor kids from bad areas.....looking for quick change.

The only thing this guy should have been shooting, is a camera.






Allstar Cookie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

methinks Honky is a Lou Dobbs wannabe, without the salary or fame.

btw, Canadians have a lot of guns and lots of Americans crossing the border and living here illegally (mostly soldiers) - should they be shot? Do the border guards aim for the white ones or the brown ones?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First these two break the law by being in this country illegally, then they break into this guys house and steal his stuff. That said, no, that doesn't give Horn the right to kill them, but for far too long the criminals in this country have had more rights than the law abiding citizens. Maybe, just maybe if the Bad Guys get the idea that We Are NOT going to take It Any More, the crime rate Might drop. If not, then the population of criminals will drop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Several years ago burglars broke into my house when I was out of town. My neighbor across the street witnessed this and called the police, who arrived in time to stop the burglars as they were driving away with my property. They were tried, convicted, sentenced. Justice done.

I would have been devastated had my neighbors shot these burglars dead. My property is not worth that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If one can defend their own neighborhood against burglars; shouldn't we marching on the Federal Reserve, Wall Street and the Treasury to stop the broad day light burglaries being done by the above?

And you fools voted the same people back into power with the dream/hope that they will correct the problem.

You are delusional and cowards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even liberals will need their guns when the revolution comes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just loved the irony! Under "Castle" law, we could extend it to include our country! And, if law enforcment has been corrupted (politicized) this would mean any citizen then has the right to use deadly force against those taking away our rights of habeas, spying on us, lying to us, generating an illegal war or two, and so on. And, anytime one of those criminals comes to your city, town or village, we should try and apprehend them using deadly force?
How about the thieves of "Wall Street"? Or, the Federal Reserve Bank?
Maybe we could get Sarah Palin to hype up ole Horn to go on a rampage?
Congress won't impeach, so we just get ole Horn to grab his shotgun and meet ole Cheney in the middle of Main Street?
We all know the legal system in this country has been,,, compromised, when the executive branch breaks laws and then hides behind "national security" and "wartime". Congress then refuses to impeach while the Pres. pardons criminals protecting himself from prosecution.
Maybe we should just allow the world court to try them as war criminals? Or, turn the Horns of the world loose on them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 2nd Amendment is a right, do you get it yet? Most free people would consider it not just a right of American citizens, but a human right to self-defense.

Alternet has a long history of being anti-firearm and anti-hunting and anti-anything that involves weapons. I am pleased to see more and more commenters calling them out on their bullshit. The case cited in this one is a bit of a grey area and the article did not present all of the facts so I won't pass judgement on whether or not he acted prudently in shooting those two men. I'd wager that Alternet was very selective about which parts of the case they presented so any debate about whether he was justified or not is meaningless until we know all the facts.

Why should I, as a free citizen, be required to hold negotiations with an intruder in my home before I shoot him in the back, the chest, the head or whatever other part of him I can get a shot off at? Why should I, as a free citizen, be required to rouse my family from sleep and make an attempt to retreat from my own home instead of opening fire? Why should I, as a free citizen, be required to observe an intruder and make an accurate assessment of his potential for violence before I open fire?

There will certainly be tragic and unfortunate killings that happen as a result of these laws. These so-called "shoot first ask questions later" laws have put criminals on notice. The next person they try to terrorize might not let them get away with it. The next woman they try to rape in a parking garage might decide to shoot him in the chest instead of letting him get within 10 feet of her. The next elderly couple they try to rob might not be as infirm as they initially suspected.

A line has to be drawn somewhere but we, as a society, have to make a decision. Do we depend entirely on the government to ensure our safety or do we exercise our constitutional right to own a gun and protect ourself when needed? Obviously it will be somewhere in between but I haven't seen any evidence besides cherry-picked anecdotes that counter the mountain of evidence that arming and enabling private, law-abiding citizens reduces violent crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is shoplifting? How about littering? How about stealing cars?

Do you think we should uphold due process in this country? Or it's okay for people with guns to just decide in the moment what the crime is, who the criminal is, and do the executing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's what removes the justifiable part. If they were coming towards Mr Horn, if they had visible weapons or even issued a verbal threat, it would make more sense. But shot in the back? Two people? Not justified.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...they weren't "clearly criminals".. Last time I checked the US had a policy known as "due process", which includes "innocent until proven guilty". Mr. horn had many options that would have helped bring these two to justice. Shooting them in the back was not one fo them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But hey, in this society where the corn-fed electorate begs for shoot first ask later, what's more to expect? It's a good thing Obama and his party didn't wake the gun toters up this election season. The thing about the voters who vote exclusively on the issue of guns is this. If you don't discuss it, they won't vote. Discuss it and they'll flock to the polls like crazy. They could care less about losing their income, jobs, and even their homes or for that matter getting locked into bankruptcy. Don't feed the foam-at-the-mouth gun toters.

P.S.: When you gun toters are done foaming at the mouth standing naked with a gun and a bible, let me know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Criminals will enjoy rights that citizens do not. Equality demands that we be able to defend our lives and property from those who would take it from us. "Law enforcement" in this country is a joke, and the subject of many other Alternet columns. Outside of locally elected Sheriffs, the enforcers are only out to protect their own egos and push the agenda of of the corporate government. Keeping ourselves alive is our own responsibility. Castle doctrine and the associated second amendment are instrumental in keeping us from slavery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have a problem here, when ANYONE points a gun at someone else.

That problem is, that the person staring down the wrong end of the gun will most likely end up dead.

Without additional facts, just relying on that 911 transcript in the article, I hear something very disturbing. that is, that it seemed that there were two legal frameworks in play, simultaneously, in that situation. The shooter was in the legal position of assuring his personal safety, but he was ALSO in the legal position of meting out SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

He was apparently NOT motivated by personal safety, but was rather motivated by the desire to supplant the judiciary, and decided that a summary execution was called for.

He had the option to not engage.

When a cop is chasing a shoplifter down the street, he refrains from pulling his service weapon, because he understands, as per his training as a component of the judicial system, that no court is going to sentence the stupid perp to a death penalty, for shoplifting and resisting arrest by fleeing. There is no imminent personal threat.

This is much the same situation.

Now, when that same assailant charges that same cop with a weapon in his hand, the cop has a valid self-defense prerogative, and is most likely justifiable.

the question is, are you REALLY protecting yourself, or are you playing judge-jury-executioner? Does anyone see a problem with that?

I have this bad feeling, that if the two "illegal immigrants" had stopped dead in their tracks, and frozen, hands in the air, they would have been shot anyway by this guy Horn. He was not there to protect anything, he was there to dispense texas-style justice.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is one of those theory vs. reality questions, much like capital punishment. In theory, capital punishment, well, you know the arguments. In reality, capital punishment isn't a deterrent, it is applied haphazardly, it is imposed more often on men, minorities and the poor, and it is an irreversible act by an error prone system.

Same things apply to these Castle Laws. In theory, sure, defend your own life. In reality, you get incidents like those exchange students who got lost and shot down on some guy's doorstep. I am sure we'll see some scary-but-harmless homeless people gunned down while raving at their personal demons and teenagers killed while sneaking home after hours.

There is a popular saying among the NRA crowd: "Better judged by twelve than carried by six." Fine. People should think twice, three, ten times before pulling the trigger. We are an emotional, impulsive, irrational, xenophobic, error prone species. The idea of possible prosecution is at least a minimal restraint on some paranoid racist peering out through his curtains. Or, for that matter, on you or me, our rational minds short-circuited by the sight of a stranger in the night. If your life is really under threat, the jury will let you go, but with a gun in your hand you need the thought of that jury in the back of your mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In my country, there is a tight restriction on the ownership of guns - even the Police don't carry them, except when called out to a dangerous situation, and then we have the Armed Defenders Squad. The only guns allowed are hunting rifles.
While I have no desire to see my country go gun-crazy, I do wish that the law would allow a little more leeway for self-defense. Even carrying pepper-spray here is a big no-no.
There was a liquor store owner who injured a man who was trying to rob his shop - and now he is the one on trial.
Three months ago, a friend of mine was raped and murdered when she went to rescue a cat. I wonder what the outcome would have have been if she had been carrying pepperspray?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Horn is the very kind of person that leads to gun bans. He is living proof that some people simply cannot be trusted to own a gun.

The members of that grand jury simply add to the argument for gun bans.

He should be tried for murder. It was not self defense because he was safe inside his own home and chose to leave that safety even as police insisted he remain inside. Add to that the cowardly fact that he shot them in the back.

Let me be clear that even though I am a democrat I believe in the right to own guns. I believe we have a right to defend our own lives and the lives of our families.

I do not believe we have any right to kill just to protect property when no one is in physical danger. Not ours and not our neighbors.

Two crimes were committed that day, burglary and a double homicide. No justice was done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The two men shot were illegal immigrants; the article doesn't say what they were doing besides be there. But suppose the two Hispanic or black men had just been dropped off by a service truck two minutes ago and were standing waiting for the homeowner to detail their work assignment while he runs back into the house to answer the phone: the scene would have looked about the same. What would stop the neighbor, frightened at seeing minorities in his "safe" neighborhood, from "fearing for his life" and shooting the "intruders" dead? And getting away with it? "Shoot First" is a crazy, dangerous law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm afraid I will further disappoint my more pacifist brethren here, but I firmly believe that we have a right to use deadly force if we honestly think we ourselves or another person is in imminent danger. Horn, I believe, was over the line, at least to my ethics, because only property, not harm to a person, was involved. But please note that the DA took it to a grand jury. It was Horn's neighbors, not the legal system, that declined to prosecute. I would also say that the main trust of these laws is to protect people who use reasonable force from bullshit wrongful death lawsuits brought by the dead thug's family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps it would take some of the bleeding hearts a few assaults, burglaries, and thefts to change their attitudes, perhaps it wouldn't. But here's my story. Between my parents, brothers, and I, we've been beaten in our own home, had three vehicles stolen(also from our own homes), burglarized, and shot at more than once. A lady friend of mine made the mistake of being home for a robbery...and got raped. The person that got away was "punished" with having to live with that the rest of his life...ouch. Not a punishment.
Who here would like to defend the criminals right to fair trial, given that not a single one of these crimes went punished? Blame the police for not catching them? Come on. Crime, as it turns out, does pay. It got some fuck an mint 89 Mustang 5.0 for free, about three of my car stereos that NO, I didn't get to replace with insurance, several televisions, earned me a trip to the ER, jewelry..and I'll just stop there. Not one single event went punished, not one. Never a lead or even a call back from the police department. If I had been there with a gun, they'd all be dead, or I'd be dead...period. I don't care what they were going through, don't care if they had families or children, don't care if they were on drugs.
As bad as this country is at doling out punishment, it easily surpasses those failures in actually failing to punishing real criminals. When people get away time and time again, they well, continue to do crimes and get away time and time again.
I was just burglarized in broad daylight about two months ago in an apartment that I don't get to move out of for another year. Who do you feel for? The bastards that got my TV that isn't even paid for yet? I get to live, yes, but I'm frightened(dare I say, terrorized) everyday now that some fucks know that I'm not home between the hours of 8-5 and that they left behind much more than they took. Not like I can change my patterns, I'VE got a job, and we're only open certain hours of which I'm expected to be there. I've got a wife that's pregnant that could be home at any given time when they come back. They have pictures of her on the digital camera they stole. And all it takes for a thief to become a murderering rapist is for the resident to be home when they stop in for a shopping spree. It's actually not much of a stretch for these people. I've often said that thieves are as bad if not worse than murderers, because murderers often have some kind of reason for killing, whereas thieves just want something that doesn't belong to them and aren't willing to earn it and even worse will go as far as killing to get it.

Break into my home or try to steal my car and you're dead if I'm there. Call me fringe, call me radical, call me immoral. I'm tired of putting up with it. The police(apologies) are worthless at catching most real criminals. They are more likely to arrest me for my bong while investigating my burglary. End of story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I must confess, I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of alternet readers who seem to support the "castle doctrine" laws, etc. I'm an AZ liberal who happens to have a concealed weapons permit, and as I started reading this article I was bracing myself for a "90% against" comments section.

With that said, the man used as an example at the article's outset was the worst possible example. He is absolutely guilty of willful homicide and should spend the rest of his life in prison. Only in TX would they let him walk.

And the idea that he "felt his life was in danger," as presented by his attorney, is patently absurd. He was in his house, armed with a shotgun, on the phone with 911. The guy's a murderer and ought to have been treated as such.

No property is worth a human life. But if somebody's threatening another human life, this particular liberal will do what he must. And should that happen, the law ought to be on my side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone like Mr Horn pulls his "Dirt Harry" routine on a couple of criminals and the criminals shoot him down? It's really just a matter of time until it happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a liberal (yay Obama, gun control, no death penalty, pro-choice, etc) and I own several large caliber registered firearms with trigger-locks and extra insurance. My family and my property matter so much more to me than your right to commit a crime in my presence and survive. You can explain the unfairness of the shooting to St Peter, see if that helps you. I am not a police officer therefore do not expect the same civility and level-headedness you would get from professional law enforcement. Yes, robbing the police station is safer than trying to rob me. Threaten my property or family, or even make me feel either is threatened, and I will shoot you until you die. And I have no intention of leaving you wounded. If you do not want to be shot, I suggest that YOU mind YOUR manners when on MY property. Even if your actions are not against the actual law, MY laws differ and breaking one of MY laws will also get you killed. Cry to a lawyer up in heaven, see if that helps you. Be respectful of me and mine and I will be respectful of you and yours. Cross the line and you might die, it is that simple. The criminal is the one engaging in risky behavior and risky behavior by definition has terrible consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a very liberal woman who will shoot you as quick as anything if you come into my home and threaten me and I have no problem whatsoever with that. Nor am I going to ascertain whether you are there for me or my property before I shoot you. However, I think we need to draw a line here between protecting your person and others and protecting property. Theft of property is not a capital crime and it disturbs me how willing some people on this board are to shoot a burglar. Mr. Horn was well outside the realm of the justifiable by shooting men who were taking property. No lives were in danger and I heartily disagree with the idea that any crime is justification to kill somebody.

Lives are worth defending with deadly force. Property is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The people who think Horn was justified in what he did should remember this. Even in the Old West shooting someone in the back, no matter who he was (e.g. Jesse James), was considered cowardly and beneath contempt. Horn should be considered in the same way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Am I the only person here who sees the difference between

SHOOTING

and

KILLING?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fewer Texans

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excuse me, but why should the standard for private citizens killing people be looser than for police officers? If you choose to arm yourself, you are accepting a responsibility as a law-abiding citizen to inform yourself of your rights and obligations with regard to defending yourself with lethal force, and to carry yourself accordingly.

Let me say this plainly: Mr Horn committed premeditated murder in the first-degree, and it is a travesty of justice that he goes unpunished. His vigilante actions, while understandable, are both illegal and unethical. If you shoot someone and they go down but they don't die, it is MURDER if you finish them off. It is. It just is-- it need not be debated. When cops shoot fleeing suspects of property crime, they are punished and the city is sued, costing taxpayers millions. And yes, that IS in fact justice. Using deadly force when it is not necessary is MURDER. Vigilantes like Horn are criminals-- they just happen to be criminals that the uneducated and irrational masses refuse to convict.

Good gun magazines address this fact, and advise citizens to act appropriately and intelligently. It is very clear that a person should have the right to protect their life and liberty, with deadly force if necessary, and without penalty. However, when you go above and beyond what is strictly necessary to defend your own body or that of others, when you use force disproportionate to the situation, you are committing a crime, just the same as any other thug. If he had tased them, or shot them with rock salt or bean bags, they'd probably still be alive, and his actions would have been appropriate to the nature of the crime.

It doesn't matter if they 'might become rapists or murderers if given the opportunity'-- there is no way to know that. A person doesn't automatically give up their humanity when they steal something. Regardless of the likely absence of feelings of guilt and recrimination, willingness to commit property crime does not indicate predisposition to violence. Shooting someone as they attempt to flee the scene is the exact same as tracking down the guy who stole your TV and shooting them in the head at a later date. Unlike breaking into your house and stealing your stuff, that killing is the act of a violent individual, who not only has no respect for law and order, but also has no respect for the sanctity of life, a person who is an obvious danger to those around them, AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR ACTIONS. And those who support such action are also a danger to the community. They exist without rational thought, and are willing to kill for no ethical reason, and dare to call that 'justice'. They have become twisted, corrupted with hatred for the criminals they fear and loathe, so much so that they themselves are no better than the desperate souls they seek out their sick vengeance upon. These are the wretched creatures that have filled out lynch mobs throughout history.

Yes, Hunt is a perfect example in the case for gun control. Him and people like him are the reason countries ban private gun ownership. Personally, I am firmly against gun control, as well as absolutely for the right to defend oneself, but the responsibility that comes with controlling a deadly weapon MUST NOT BE SHIRKED.

Hunt is a murderer, regardless of whether or not he got away with it via the ill-thought sympathies of a jury in Texas. He should be punished, not by the barbaric vigilante 'justice' of a street mob or a lone gunman, as he himself meted out that day that he murdered those two immigrants, but by the measured, consistent, and collective efforts of our justice system.

I am asking that you be intelligent, informed, and responsible when it comes to gun ownership. Life is not an action movie. This is important.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What exactly is the difference between the criminal and the all to eager dispensers of justice with their vigilante shot guns? The national pastime of this country is not baseball it is fear,kept in check by greed,lying, invading,enslaving,removal of indigenous people,fucking thy neighbor and fucking up thy neighbor ,with a bang! We are obsessed with solving problems with aggression, so i ask again, what is the difference between the criminal and the vigilante? only a thin piece of paper stating "you stole my shit, so therefore i can blow you away."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess there are no pure pacifists on Alternet. Very interesting.

I think all of the energy expended on this issue should be devoted to improving taser technology to the point where everybody can own the equivalent of a phaser set to "stun". That way, nobody gets hurt or killed, but the criminals are stopped in their tracks, and stay knocked out until law enforcement picks them up.

If you can get 20/20 vision with laser surgery, the technology can't be too far off. Let's put our heads together, so that we can all live long and prosper, while the thieves rot in prison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So the kid is walking home late one night from a friends house. A vigilant citizen takes one look out the window at the kid who's carrying a bag of stuff and concludes that, a. whatever it is was stolen and, b. the kid is trouble. In an effort to prevent a serious crime, he just knows it's trouble waiting to happen, he fires 2 shots at the kid and kills him. The kid has done nothing wrong. Crisis avoided. Cops arrive, question the guy and realize that he was "fearing for his life". The kid is dead. Now somewhere not far from the scene of the murder a telephone rings. You know the rest. A family that will never be the same because some trigger happy SOB "feared for his life". People have a right to own a gun. The right to fire it at will is another matter. I don't buy all the B.S. about people suddenly living in fear. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Mr. Hord did was murder in the first degree because he was not in danger and his property was not involved, at least based on what I was told in my conceal carry class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the interest of holding an intellectually honest discussion I'd like to point out some of the facts that Alternet did not present to the reader. The following is taken from the Wikipedia article on Joe Horn.

The Joe Horn shooting controversy refers to the events of November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burglarizing his neighbor's home. Publicized recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicate that he was asked repeatedly not to interfere with the burglary, because the police would soon be on hand.[1] The shootings have resulted in debate regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of (deadly) force to prevent or stop property crimes. The illegal alien status of the burglars has been highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy.[2] On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings.

Joe Horn, 61, spotted two burglars breaking into his next-door Vietnamese-American neighbor's home in Pasadena, Texas. He called 911 to call police to the scene. While on the phone with emergency dispatch, Horn stated that he had the right to use deadly force to defend property, referencing a law (Texas Penal Code § 9.41., § 9.42., and § 9.43.) which justified the use of deadly force to protect property. He stated that he was going to go outside and confront the burglars. As the burglars were exiting his neighbor's home, and approaching Horn's home, Horn exited his home with his shotgun, while the 911 Operator tried to dissuade him from that action. On the 911 tape, he is heard confronting the suspects, saying, "Move, and you're dead",[3] immediately followed by the sound of a shotgun blast, followed by two more.[4] Following the shootings Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!" [5]

Police initially identified the dead men in Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston of Afro Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of Hernando Riascos Torres, 38.[3] They were carrying a sack with more than $2,000 cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston.[1] Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz while Torres had three identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and had been previously sent to prison for dealing cocaine and was deported in 1999.[6]

A plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car.[3] His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".[1] Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

The incident touched off protests, led by community activist Quanell X, that were met by counter-protests from Horn's supporters.[7][8][9][10]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the true story of George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi, who was going to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the shed. George opened the door to go turn off the light but saw there were people in the shed in the process of stealing things.

He immediately phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and George said no and explained the situation. Then they explained that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be there when available.

George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again.

"Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now because I've just shot them all."

Then he hung up. Within five minutes three squad cars, an Armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up. Of course, the police caught the burglars red-handed.

One of the policemen said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"

George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They both get jumped by mexicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Sacramento CA you can defend yourself from attack only if you are "worthy" in the eyes of the police. If you are a white or asian male, shooting unarmed burglers who are stealing your car from the driveway is OK. If you are a black female in a house being attacked by white gangsters, forget about it. Especially if there is LEGAL medical marijuana at the house. My daughter age 33 with no record is facing 17 years in prison and a felony strike for firing a 22 rifle into the neighbor's garage roof to try and scare off an armed gang of home invaders at 2:45 AM because one of them got wounded and she was automatically blamed. This gangster recovered and stated it was not her who shot him, but the prosecution continues. All the gangsters were given immunity by the DA to serve as prosecution witnesses and the so-called victim received an undisclosed cash settlement from the homeowners insurance company as well as taxpayer funded medical care and county victim's assistance. So things are not quite as they are portrayed in this article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Author writes: "The recent FBI study is not the first time the government has tracked the number of `justifiable homicides' committed by police alongside those committed by civilians as if they were equivalent phenomena. ... to what extent do these new laws blur the distinction between police and civilians?"

They _are_ equivalent phenomena. No law privileges policemen with a special right to use deadly force -- the law pertaining to their use of deadly force is the same law that applies to everyone. Unlike France, where gendarmes serve under martial law and are part of the military, our policemen _are_ civilians. We pay them to give full-time attention to problems that we could (but usually prefer not to) deal with ourselves. This is what it means when we say that policemen are public servants (as contrasted with those countries where police are servants of the rulers). This is what it means when we speak of practicing "self-government." This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when in the Gettysburg Address he referred to government _of_ the people, _by_ the people, and (not merely) for the people.

Anyway, if the principle of "better to free ten guilty men than to convict one innocent" applies to _any_ suspect, it most certainly applies to taxpayers defending themselves from victimization by criminals.

But if the criminals feel they are being treated too harshly, I suggest they consider going on strike.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This guy being from Texas has got to be used to the ideology of shoot-first-ask-later. The reason is the current president is from Texas and is a strong advocate of shoot first ask later especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. While Afghanistan is somewhat excusable, Iraq certainly isn't and thanks to the shoot-first-ask-later ideology, this country is in the toilet, both in terms of loss of national security and national debt. It certainly can't hurt to change the ideology for what it's worth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Horn was very clearly in the wrong. He shot two men in the back who were fleeing after robbing his neighbour's home. They weren't on his property, they weren't stealing from him, and he was in no obvious danger. The fact that he wasn't charged is a bit worrisome.

That said, I do very strongly believe in the right to defend your personal safety and personal property, by any means necessary. Criminals thrive on knowing that their victims are essentially helpless and they use that to their advantage. I'm not a gun owner and am not a member of the NRA, but I very much support "make my day" laws, gun ownership, and concealed carry permits or laws. I don't see why a mugger doesn't deserve to get shot for trying to steal someone's wallet. And a burglar who enters a house or business very well deserves to be shot, whether it is in the immediate act of protecting one's self or to recover the stolen property after immediate danger has passed. I would hope that whomever is defending themselves would only disable the criminal rather than kill them, but if the criminal gets killed while committing his crime, well, he should have considered that risk beforehand. It's a certainty that if the consequences were more severe, there'd be fewer criminals.

Again, I don't support vigilante justice and I don't think defense extends beyond you, your family, and members of your household (if the crime happens in your home). If you see a guy robbing a 7-Eleven you don't have any right to go up and shoot the robber, that's the right and responsibility of the owner or whomever is working there at the time. And you certainly don't have the right to calmly walk out and shoot a couple guys in the back who robbed your neighbour's house.

The police don't really bother much with property crimes and criminals know it. The cops are too busy arresting a guy carrying some weed or ticketing someone who didn't signal when changing lanes than responding to someone stealing from someone's garage or breaking into a house. With these misplaced priorities, and the rather overworked nature of most larger police departments, citizens have to be left with some recourse to defends themselves and their property. Criminals should not be allowed to get away with "simple property crimes" or be allowed to roam around raping and killing just because government thinks only law enforcement should be allowed to stop it.

Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property and those who infringe upon yours should very well be punished for it, and in a way that deters those who would consider infringing your rights to reconsider.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow.... I am stunned by the amount of people here advocating murder for trespass or theft...
I had an inclination that Americans were socialized to believe "might is right" but I had no idea it was so pervasive. sick people! F***ing sick! Does the fact that they were stealing something justify that they were killed? Could you actually sleep at night knowing that you ended the lives of two people over material possessions? More often than not the only demarcation between "citizens" and "criminals" is a failing social structure and These kind of laws will only encourage people to bring guns along when they steal.
The threat and use of violence will only cause others to adopt those methods leading to a terrible "one up" kind of game and hiding behind the law for your murderous actions doesn't change the fact that you are a killer. If this doesn't bother you in the slightest I have a suggestion: stay inside, lock your doors, bar your windows and fawn over your precious possessions to which you attach so much importance and don't bother participating in society because your ideology will only magnify the existing problem. Truly, someone who can justify killing in this way was likely waiting for the perfect opportunity to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There seems to be a general agreement that more armed citizens will result in less crime. I question that assumption. If I were determined to make a living by robbery or burglary, and many of my potential victims were likely to be armed and trigger-happy, I would take the same approach. Shoot at the first sign of resistance and then take what I came for. If you're going to break down the respect for life in protecting property, be prepared for those who want your property to show less respect for your life too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

judging by the responses on this thread. Not surprising in a fear-based culture such as ours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that has an adjustable velocity of being hit by Mike Tyson, (his feet planted), down to getting your undivided attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For new insights into our prisoner-justice system, read "The Church of the Second Chance" by Jens Soering, a lifer who has now written 3 books on religious values and the lprison system. He shows how our "tough on crime" attitude over the past 30 years has failed in every way: crime has not gone down, we now have 8 times the prison population we had before that time, most repeat crimes are committed by young people just in a short time whie most of our population in prison is old timers...and tax payers are paying extra for it all. The influence of the "industrial-prison-comlex" has made private corporations lots of money with private prisons and all the services they supply, but they;re much more expensive than traditional state-run prisons...and these guys use their money to lobby for life sentences so that they can keep making more money...much like Rumsfeld and his military-industrial complex gang. Counselling and other services are cut so that prisons become great places to make bad people worse, or to make them totally lose their minds over the years....if they weren't mental cases or on drugs when they committed their crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]