Judicial decisions are law.

I am tired of this thread though, sorry to leave but I just don't care that much.  Yee Haw!

In America, if he was defending his neighbors home, and he was afraid for his life due to the physical actions of the burglers, it actually does make it ok for him to kill them.

Now, that doesn't mean they need killing. It could still be considered a mistake and a horrible accident. However, what matters here is his intent.

We must determine:

Did he intend to protect himself from the possiblity of the suspects darting in a direction that could have been considered closer to him?

or

Did he intend to murder the suspects for being felons?

As I've said, there is no evidence at all that could indicate either way what he felt at that moment.

That being the case, in America we are innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, with no evidence, it's impossible to prosecute.

Morality, again, is a question for each and every person, however, I ask that you consider you, me, and everyone else have very little idea of the second by second play at the scene, and who is to say that we wouldn't have acted similarly. For instance, perhaps the gun shot high, or perhaps the man assumed, as most would, a shotgun might only wound the suspects, since as any gun owner(or FPS player) knows, shotguns have many different loads, and are much less effective at a distance.

@bolded,

Again, legally it does if he was afraid for his life from the people he shot.

I mean the irony here is staggering, you are willing to convict him in your mind based on the limited details and assumptions you were able to scrape together from the article. So you in essense are willing to see him put in jail for the rest of his life (he is 61 iirc) and you even have the benefit of time to make a careful decision where as he didn't.

Whoa whoa whoa, if we're gonna get into a "what I would do" thing, then...

I wouldn't even blink while murdering somebody in the act of rape or attempting a murder.

But if they had just committed a non-violent burglary and were escaping, I'd aim for the legs and/or the tires of their getaway car.

And if I accidentally killed them, I'd expect to be charged with manslaughter, since that's the definition of the word.

A rapist, child molestor, mass murderer, terrorist, or child murderer should be shot while running away, or after they are caught...imho.

That's me stepping out from behind the law, right there, lol.

Interesting, as I've been cautioning there was more to the story:

After the shooting, he redialed 911.

"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."

Source

It sounds like the burglars may have confronted him. Looking for more info.

Exactly. Rubang, I'm not trying to gang up on you here. I completely see your point.

However, we share a different ideology when it comes to justice. I believe that the benefit of the doubt should always go to the civilian, and never to the criminal.

I believe that the case against a civilian vs criminal should have to be so air tight and certain that it is virtually indesputiable, open and shut.

I don't feel that it should get the same treatment as any other case.

This guy isn't a criminal. He didn't have time to contemplate the ins and outs of the legal system. He simply acted on what he thought was the right thing to do to prevent the criminals at that time from doing what they were doing. It's easy to second guess. However, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, that is mis-assumptions and poor thinking and judgement caused this tragedy, instead of his theoretical wanton will to be an avenger for justice.

In all honestly, I think he was scared. I very seriously doubt that what was going through his mind when he shot those folks was "Woot! Two criminals off the street, murder time."

More likely it was "Zomg, /pisspants, helps! /adrenaline rush bullet time."

Now, in all honestly, if you got bullet time going on for you, it's hard not to be just a tiny bit scared of how this is going to turn out.

Sqrl,

Okay, replace "I assume" with "I have deduced," because I can't think of a reason why nobody would mention a weapon, since that would be the key ingredient to this guy's case.

Zen,

The man watched them break into the house, called the cops, and told the cops "I'm going to kill them." Then when they came back outside with the goods, he went outside and killed them. He wanted to kill them for the burglary, not for fear of his own life.


Luckily your humble opinion isn't the law, so we don't have superhero/vigilante/cowboys everywhere.

Yet another shocking revelation:

Ballistics tests suggested that at least one of the men had been shot in the back, raising questions about Horn's story.

But a plainclothes detective who witnessed some of what took place later told investigators that the men did not stop when a visibly nervous Horn pointed a shotgun in their direction, and that at least one man appeared to be moving toward Horn when Horn fired.

Lambright, a friend of Horn's for four decades, said he found it hard to reconcile the shooter with the man he knew. He defended Horn's right to step out his door and confront the suspects, but added that he hoped other neighbors would never find themselves in Horn's shoes.

"He is absolutely not the person you hear on that 911 tape," Lambright said of Horn. "Joe is quiet, humble."

source

So was it both who were shot in the back or were they confronting him thinking they could disarm him and he shot one and then the other as he fled? This really only raises more questions..which again is my point that we don't know enough to convict this guy here.

mod edit

Racially offensive comments are not allowed even as a joke. I'm in a good mood so I will let it slide since I think you were in fact only joking, if it happens again it won't be so leniant.

-Sqrl