Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars

OK, understand, and I certainly didn't think you were in any way saying it's a justification for this kind of action; I just think that regardless of the country of origin, we, as citizens, should not be given any more leeway than the law affords - whether on this, or other issues - for the reasons discussed.

You've raised an interesting question.

 

Lots of debates going on here! I'd like to ask you people a question.

If the home owner, whose home was broken into, had shot the burglars in self defense, would it have been okay?

What intrigues me in this case is this - do people talk about law taking its own course and stuff like that only because a guy, who was in no way affected by the burglary that took place in his neighbor's home, shot the burglars? Or does the same argument hold for the hypothetical situation I pointed out?

I'd like to hear from you guys.

 

if he shot two white kids in the back there would be an outrage

and half you people wouldn't be so supportive of him

 

Content, this has actually been covered in this thread. I will answer for myself: of course not, he has every right to defend himself by whatever means necessary to do so. I can't answer for anyone, but I would imagine no one on this thread has an issue with this. At any rate, yep, covered (just the first example, from me, anyway):

(I know now that the guy went outside, willingly, to engage these men, and he shot them in the back).

I hate to say it, but my gut instinct agrees with you.

 

if someone shot two white kids in the back and killed them, there would be all sorts of people questioning the use of force, did he have to shoot, did he have to shoot to kill etc

these white kids could have turned their life around and been doctors and astronauts if they weren't killed, think of the families !

but throw the illegal , which essentially means non-white and everyone is like kill-em all !, shoot everyone who looks at you funny!

 

um well it sets a precedent which will be applied to other situations in the future that is why the "what ifs" are important.

in general killing someone by shooting them in the back when they are not a threat to your life, is viewed as sort of unreasonable

the law does not dictate execution as the punishment for theft

 

That would solve the problem with jail overcrowding and the money saved could be used towards building new highways.

 

ha ha knee slapper

 

homebiz,

You're really sad, and as a minority your humor isn't even a little bit funny. In the end, we all have to answer for our action and those who think that killing someone for what in the end was running away from a house they allegedly robbed isn't justified (I mean the thieves would have been innocent until proven guilty too, right).

And the thing that irks me most are these flag toting "Americans" who feel that the red white and blue is a badge of honor. It's disgusting. You never see any other race in America waving it when someone is senselessly killed. I now wonder whether or not RED is the blood the WHITES extract from those whose skin is closer to BLUE. Wow, whites are invisible here too..hehehe.

Excuse me for that one, I guess my humor's getting as bad as HomeBiz's.

I feel for the Horns of the world, I really do. Yes, he got off now he's got some serious karma issues to deal with, not to mention having to look over his shoulder forever knowing that he can't shoot them all.

 

What does me being a minority have to do with the thread? I do think Mr. Horn has regrets with his actions. When you kill a person you will think about it the rest of your life.

 

Uh, Homebiz, I believe he was referring to himself.

And I agree with him. Your "jokes" on this thread are anything but funny. Reprehensible, in my opinion.

 

homebiz,

I was referring to myself.

 

i'm sure he's doing that right now, cause one day, it'll be his last look.
it'll be someone looking for revenge or a US Marchall with an arrest warrant.

he is totally screwed, he just don't know it yet.

 

I think it displays a lack of education, trying to get a cheap rise out of people, and an appallingly weak moral fiber. But hey, that just my opinion.

 

But like Hey is correct, ditto back at you.

I still do not think the Grand Jury did anything wrong.

 

Wow, I am amazed that you guys are still droning on and on about this. It's history!

The Grand Jury has spoken. Joe Horn did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

His neighbors applaud him.

Get over it.

 

I see you have as bad an argument as ever.

 

Great point. I agree

The Grand Jury ruled as the majority of Texas citizens would have. The ruling allows people to protect there neighborhoods.

 

The ruling does not allow people to protect their neighborhoods, it does not change the definition of the law, the law maker himself says it's not meant for this case, a lack of evidence or simply one easily influenced grand jury is far from setting the law into stone to mean what you wish it would mean.

 

i wonder how much of the "good ole boy network" played in that.