Ok seriously after that extra bit of detail is added to the story I'd like to know why the hell ABC omitted it? I think a detective witness who saw these guys approaching him when he shot them is a bit of an important detail.

Given the new info, I'm curious if that changes any minds?

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

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."





He actually said to the cop on the phone "You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them." That is a clear motive. He wanted to kill them for the burglary alone. The guy was nuts. He's lucky they gave him a reason to shoot. He already wanted to.

That said, I read that whole new article, and if they really came at him, he's totally justified in shooting.

Still no reason to shoot the other guy in the back. That's a case of not being able to control his adrenaline, or "getting in the zone" with baddie-busting. That's one innocent self-defense murder and one manslaughter.

I wonder which one got shot twice.

Now that new information has come to light, I will withhold judgment.

However, that first article was crap and never mentioned any sort of threat or fear, and just mentioned that he told the cops he wanted to kill the guys and then he did, so my earlier posts were based on misinformation.

The Ghost of RubangB said: "Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think." "You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them." 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." He actually said to the cop on the phone "You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them." That is a clear motive. He wanted to kill them for the burglary alone. The guy was nuts. He's lucky they gave him a reason to shoot. He already wanted to. That said, I read that whole new article, and if they really came at him, he's totally justified in shooting. Still no reason to shoot the other guy in the back. That's a case of not being able to control his adrenaline, or "getting in the zone" with baddie-busting. That's one innocent self-defense murder and one manslaughter. I wonder which one got shot twice. Now that new information has come to light, I will withhold judgment. However, that first article was crap and never mentioned any sort of threat or fear, and just mentioned that he told the cops he wanted to kill the guys and then he did, so my earlier posts were based on misinformation.

To be clear, if your assumptions and deductions are correct I'm pretty much agreeing with you that he should have been charged. My point is that we almost certainly are missing important details as this second article shows, so I'm not really willing to condemn the guy based on incomplete info. The fact that a grand jury threw it out is astonishing to me.

I should ask if you know what a grand jury is? Its a situation where you basically have no rights, they ask you questions, they don't have to let you have a lawyer, the deck is completely stacked against you. The trial is where all of the rights come into play, the grand jury is just for filtering out cases that clearly don't need adjudication. In most cases they are literally told that if they aren't sure just to indict to be safe.

Thats sort of why I've assumed we were missing info.

 

If he shot them when they were running away this would be enough for me to put him into prison.

Yeah I had a professor once who'd been on a couple grand juries and spent half his lectures telling us stories about them.

I think they bent the rules for him because they think the ends justify the means.

Now I'm really interested in the full story. He shot "at least one of them" in the back? It's one or two. That's very vague wording. Where the hell did this plainclothes detective come from and why is he only mentioned in one of the 3 articles? What was he doing while this happened? Would these men really have rushed a man while he's armed with a shotgun pointed at them and there's another man watching on the side?

The more I learn about this, the more it stinks. It's starting to sound more like a cover-up for a wacko 'cuz his wackoness got some baddies off the street, which made everybody happy.

The Ghost of RubangB said: Yeah I had a professor once who'd been on a couple grand juries and spent half his lectures telling us stories about them. I think they bent the rules for him because they think the ends justify the means. Now I'm really interested in the full story. He shot "at least one of them" in the back? It's one or two. That's very vague wording. Where the hell did this plainclothes detective come from and why is he only mentioned in one of the 3 articles? What was he doing while this happened? Would these men really have rushed a man while he's armed with a shotgun pointed at them and there's another man watching on the side? The more I learn about this, the more it stinks. It's starting to sound more like a cover-up for a wacko 'cuz his wackoness got some baddies off the street, which made everybody happy.

 

Well I personally wouldn't rule out the possibility that ABC and the AP writers may have had an anti-gun agenda.  There is just as much evidence of that as there is of a coverup.

Yes these men did enter a house, breaking a window or a door and destroying some property. He ended it by killing them. If you cannot see why this is wrong then I do not understand you.

There is a nice word in German law called Verhältnismässigkeit. I suppose something similar exists in US law. Proportionality perhaps?

If you break into a chewing gum dispenser you do not get put into prison, if you break into a house you are not shot.

This is different if someone protects himself and you can argue that it is ok for home owners to shoot burglars in defense because he cannot know if they are armed. It is NEVER ok for someone to shoot fleeing persons when they are no harm to him or someone else. Because of this we have a "Rechtsstaat" that means the government has the monopoly of prosecuting people and using force to uphold the law. Self-Defense is an exception. Executing people like this should be prosecuted.

Kyros said: but these men started the felony, the civilian simply ended it. Yes these men did enter a house, breaking a window or a door and destroying some property. He ended it by killing them. If you cannot see why this is wrong then I do not understand you. There is a nice word in German law called Verhältnismässigkeit. I suppose something similar exists in US law. Proportionality perhaps? If you break into a chewing gum dispenser you do not get put into prison, if you break into a house you are not shot. This is different if someone protects himself and you can argue that it is ok for home owners to shoot burglars in defense because he cannot know if they are armed. It is NEVER ok for someone to shoot fleeing persons when they are no harm to him or someone else. Because of this we have a "Rechtsstaat" that means the government has the monopoly of prosecuting people and using force to uphold the law. Self-Defense is an exception. Executing people like this should be prosecuted.

You should probably scroll up and read the second article which refers to the testimony of a detective who saw these 2 burglars approach the guy before he shot them.

 

Sqrl said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Yeah I had a professor once who'd been on a couple grand juries and spent half his lectures telling us stories about them. I think they bent the rules for him because they think the ends justify the means. Now I'm really interested in the full story. He shot "at least one of them" in the back? It's one or two. That's very vague wording. Where the hell did this plainclothes detective come from and why is he only mentioned in one of the 3 articles? What was he doing while this happened? Would these men really have rushed a man while he's armed with a shotgun pointed at them and there's another man watching on the side? The more I learn about this, the more it stinks. It's starting to sound more like a cover-up for a wacko 'cuz his wackoness got some baddies off the street, which made everybody happy.   Well I personally wouldn't rule out the possibility that ABC and the AP writers may have had an anti-gun agenda.  There is just as much evidence of that as there is of a coverup.

Yeah.  That too.  I kind of want to believe both now.  They should put the wacko in prison for a little bit and fire everybody behind the ABC and AP articles.  And track down that mysterious detective who appeared out of thin air to watch it happen and then disappear again.

Only inspetor gaget could make it to a scene that fast.