If that house was empty, I could not justify putting myself in harms way to protect some property, so I'm not really interested in the moral judgement part of it.
Did he really have the legal right to go next door and order them to stop and then shoot them dead?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story
2007-11-17 14:14:22 · 7 answers · asked by Victor S 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If the same thing had happened at his house, there is no question that it would be a legal shooting.
I'm from Texas and the new law was big news down here.
There have been some lawyers on the news saying that they think, since he was asked to watch the house by the owners, it became his castle, and it was just as legal as if it was his own house.
Does that sound right?
2007-11-17 14:33:20 · update #1
I didn't notice in the story that they came into his yard. That changes everything if it's true.
2007-11-17 14:38:31 · update #2
No, he didn't. If they had been breaking into his house he would have had the right to defend himself, but there would have been no need to defend himself if he would have stayed in his house like the dispatch told him too. If everyone took the law into their own hands this country would be worse off then it already is.
This is a blatant misuse of self-defense, and I hope any jury can see through it. He purposely provoked them to come onto his property so he could shot them just because he was pissed off and thought of himself as John Wayne.
Edit:
One other thing I'd like to add; The new Texas law -the castle law- states that in order to use deadly force to protect property it has to be night time and if you research this further you will find that it was not night time when this happened.
Also I agree that people should do their part and not just ignore what is happening, but he was doing his part by calling the cops. The enforcement is for the police and the justice system; that's what they're there for otherwise let's just turn everyone in the country loose with a gun and see what happens.
Honestly, do you think he also needed to shoot the second guy. Do you think the second guy still posed a threat after watching his buddy get blown away or do you think he just wanted to get the hell out of there.
Mr. Horn stated himself that he wasn't going to let them get away with it, it had nothing to do with self defense, it was all about him making sure they paid and that's not right. No one should pay with their life for a bag of loot. Too high a price.
2007-11-17 14:25:34 · answer #1 · answered by Short Shot 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To be honest, I don't see the ethic in shooting the burglars. As far as the news tells they were only armed with close-range TOOLS for breaking in. A man with a ranged weapon could have easily held them at gunpoint without having to fire. Property certainly isn't worth taking a life, let alone TWO lives. The burglars had clearly committed a felony in the past and would have been on record. No doubt there would have been evidence at the scene of the crime. The punishment for burglary is certainly NOT death. The burglars ran ON FOOT. Clearly the police will have been able to chase them by vehicle. It's not exactly easy to conceal a bag full of loot without having to watch over it and return for its retrieval. There are so many possibilities for the arrest of those two men that the shooting is hardly justifiable. I can only pray that the old man was truly acting on impulse and fear. We have enough young people wielding glocks. We don't need elders wielding shotguns.
2007-11-17 14:30:56 · answer #2 · answered by ktownfarmboy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He did not have the legal right to go next door, but apparently the burglars went on his front yard when he confronted them, they should have run when they had the chance, they must have watched to many TV shows where the protagonists take the gun off the sucker. In Texas you can shoot them high and low, always could always will, its cowboy country. God bless America and please hurry.
2007-11-17 14:27:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your right. It ain't worth it for other peoples possesions. Mine however are a different subject. He was dumb and there was no stopping him. He regrets it now. A bit late.
He had no legal right to shoot those guys while they were on the neighbors property. They said he shot them when they came into his yard.
Those two dumbasses he killed are not without blame. I think more of this should happen. It might cut down on crime.
2007-11-17 14:25:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Your inability justify putting yourself in harm's way to protect property is exactly what criminals count on; it's why they are willing to put themselves in harms way to obtain some property, because they think the risk is low.
Yes, I think Texas law allows him to do that, good for them.
2007-11-17 14:32:03 · answer #5 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Doesn't sound legal, but they have two less street thugs off the streets. My hat's off to Mr. Horn. Chances are these thugs would have just gotten their hands slapped and out back into the streets and doing it again. Guess what, not any longer.
2007-11-17 14:18:07 · answer #6 · answered by HAGAR!!! 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
they do things a little different in TX......it was definitely premediated and I hope he goes to jail but he probably won't.
2007-11-17 14:25:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋