yea,good point.the roads would be safer with people shooting at each other.thats a stretch guy and you know it.

What on earth is wrong in America when someone can go out with a loaded gun and an intent to kill someone off his own property and then be defended as if he is a hero?

It's just another example of putting property and possessions ahead of human life. That man should be charged with murder, end of story.

Those of who insist that their lives are worth the same will argue that the man was not justified in shooting them, and those who hold that the criminal lives are below that of the others (since they CHOSE to be criminals will be the reasoning) will argue otherwise.

"Your quote is just one person's interpretation of what they did. It is a stretch."

As usual Art, your overly high opinion of yourself is amusing. This was not just "one person's interpretation." It was the statement made by the District Attorney involved in the case.

I guess we all have to just get used to the fact that you know better than anyone else about absolutely everything.

Quote

 
It has nothing to do with the relative worth of human life. It has to do with whether Horn was legally justified in taking a human life (any human life) under the circumstances. I wasn't there and have no idea what really happened, but based on what has been written about it, here are the "facts" that bother me:

1. Horn shot both men in the back.
2. There was an unmarked cop car at the scene before the shooting started.
3. The 9-1-1 operator told Horn not to go out there.
4. Horn specifically told the 9-1-1 operator that he was going to kill the men.

It does make you wonder . . . if the two men had been two 17-year old white kids from the neighborhood who got shot, would we still be having this kind of discussion?

You wonder if we would be having this discussion but what you are really talking about is how people might value a white criminal's life versus non-white criminal's life in this particular scenario.

Quote

 
It has nothing to do with the relative worth of human life. It has to do with whether Horn was legally justified in taking a human life (any human life) under the circumstances. I wasn't there and have no idea what really happened, but based on what has been written about it, here are the "facts" that bother me:

1. Horn shot both men in the back.
2. There was an unmarked cop car at the scene before the shooting started.
3. The 9-1-1 operator told Horn not to go out there.
4. Horn specifically told the 9-1-1 operator that he was going to kill the men.

Quote

 
That's a far cry from comparing "criminals" to "non-criminals" which is what your original post appeared (to me) to be doing. No doubt the racists out there will value the lives of the white criminals lives more than the lives of the black or Hispanic criminals. Of course, that's just rationalization . . . fact is the guy was just pissed off. It's just easier to justify the "they needed killin'" defense when you find out after the fact that they were illegal aliens from Colombia with prior criminal convictions.

Edited to add: I guess what I'm saying is that I see this less as a criminal issue and more of a race issue. The radio talk shows in Austin yesterday were full of flat out racist comments about the two victims as they searched for ways to rationalize Horn's decision.

You have to look at 9.41 and 9.42, as well, though, David. 9.43 says he must be justified in using force or deadly force under 9.41 or 9.42 AND ...

9.41 applies to use of force. 9,42 applies to use of deadly force. 9.41 basically says he can use force to prevent the unlawful removal of property. 9.42 is the kicker here.

Sec. 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I think it's #3 that Danno has an issue with. If he shot them in the back, are 3(A) and 3(B) really satisfied? I don't know. Given the unmarked cop car was there, was deadly force necessary? I don't know. Did Horn know the cop was there? Does Horn's statement that he intended to kill these guys indicate that he didn't care about requirement #3, he just wanted to kill these guys? I don't know.

It's not quite as cut and dried as you'd have others believe. Clearly, the grand jury decided he had a reasonable belief that in 3(A) and (B). But Danno's points are well taken. Whether the grand jury really believed that, or wanted to send a message is something only the grand jury members know.

I am totally shocked by the grand jury. I agree that property is not worth the value of a life. Even the life of a thief. People commit crimes every day but they do not warrant taking lives. This man was wrong in what he did. He had no right to kill those men. He has to live with that for the rest of his life.