By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars in Texas. Damn Right!

The Ghost of RubangB said:
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.

I think thats a solution I can get behind...PUNISH EVERYONE....just to be safe =)

 



To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network

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.


Because of information like this it is extremely hard to make assessments about a situation without knowing all the details.
That doesn't change the fact that Zens: They started the felony he ended it statement had to be contradicted.

If he acted in self-defense it is ok, if he shot them in the back he is a bastard. I think that sums up my position.



ZenfoldorVGI said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
But nobody should ever be shot in the back when they're running away.

 

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.

 

I think this is the first time i have ever agreed with you Zen.  But try not to kill the child molesters, they deserve far worse then death.



I can't believe the police told him to sit around and do nothing. That is crazy. This is why everyone in the country should be deputized on their own/family/friends property. The fact that countless thousands of dollars were wasted investigating what happened, hiring a jury, judge, and lawyers is stupid. All that should have happened was Mr. Horn being asked to file an incident or police report with the Police Department for record keeping.



_____________________________________________________

Check out the VGC Crunch this Podcast and Blog at www.tsnetcast.com

The Ghost of RubangB said:


Yes, people risk death when they break into somebody's house. But nobody should ever be shot in the back when they're running away.


That would make track runners the best burglars ever then. Just so long as they keep their backs to the cops and everyone else they'd be golden.

I'm generally on the side of "it's your fault for robbing the place." Was that guy some crazy jackass? Yeah probably, so were the people robbing that guys house.

Nobody "deserves" to die... but nobody deserves to be robbed either. Had they gave up and stood still rather then tried to still get away.... yeah. But they ran... and if you run... it's still their fault.



Around the Network
senseinobaka said:
I can't believe the police told him to sit around and do nothing. That is crazy. This is why everyone in the country should be deputized on their own/family/friends property. The fact that countless thousands of dollars were wasted investigating what happened, hiring a jury, judge, and lawyers is stupid. All that should have happened was Mr. Horn being asked to file an incident or police report with the Police Department for record keeping.

Why have a police department at all then?  Why investigate murders?  Why not just give all murderers the benefit of the doubt and trust them when they say "self-defense"?

Hiring a jury, judge, and lawyers isn't stupid.

Of course the cops told him to stay inside.  He wasn't trained for this kind of situation and could have gotten himself killed.  The cops (who were trained for just this) were on their way.  According to one article, a detective was already on the scene when he started shooting.  He didn't know what he was doing and 2 people died.



Sqrl said:
Rath said:

Or the law should be changed because it is quite frankly ridiculous.

Bah I'm not entirely happy with New Zealand law at all points (our abortion and gay marriage laws aren't perfect for example) but I'm sure glad we at least got our laws right as far as self defense and guns go.

Edit: @Steven. Shooting somebody because it is theoretically possible that they have a gun, despite the fact that they are indeed running in the opposite direction to you, is still murder and not self-defense.

 

You are making several assumptions to make your point to Steven. For example:

-You don't know if he knew they had guns, you assumed he didn't know but he very well may have seen them holding them when breaking in initially. You can't hold a gun and a TV at the same time after all.

-You don't know if they were running for cover, for a weapon, or for their lives, you assume they were running for their lives.

 

In any case, the castle law is perfectly fine, the application of it here may have been dubious but that doesn't mean the law is flawed. It means the grand jury failed in its legal duties.

This is the media we are talking about.... if the two illegal immigrants had any guns on them it would definately be in the story.

What I don't like about this is that the guy knew about this new law that was just changed or re-instated or something, and he went out there with the intention of killing them.

---
Edit: I read a little more of what Sqrl found out about one of the burgalars coming towards the guy?.... seems there is some crossed wires on what actually happened.... but I think the phone call with the police before he did anything should be enough to put him away, whether they (or one of them) threatened him or not he intended to shoot them before he wen out there.

 



The Ghost of RubangB said:


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

 

It is the law, apparently, cause they let him go completely free, lol.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ZenfoldorVGI said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:


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

 

It is the law, apparently, cause they let him go completely free, lol.

It depends on which article you're trusting.  If it happened on the neighbor's property, Horn didn't have his neighbor's consent to protect their property, so the Castle law doesn't apply to him at all, and the grand jury bent the rules to let him go.



I live in Texas and everyone knows this law. If your own our property we will shot you. Im happy that the got cleared, but did the burglars have any weapons on them because i dont think the burglars had a gun on them. I think the guy should have shout them in the leg or something.



PSN ID: getrdone25