TexasFred’s
No Holds Barred: News, Opinion and Commentary
This is The Header Then

The Castle Doctrine: Explanation, Interpretation and Opinions

July 1st, 2008 . by TexasFred

The very 1st thing I want to say is this: I am a gun owner and a gun user, I am a strong supporter of the rights OF gun owners and a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment as well as The Castle Doctrine.

It appears that some of my readers are less than knowledgeable concerning the laws of the state of Texas and likely those of the USA itself, and further, apparently some are in dire need of a few courses in Criminal Justice, that would broaden their horizons greatly.

I am not obligated to educate my readers, that is their responsibility, I offer opinion, MY opinion, but the 2 pieces in blockquote below give a good thumbnail of the Castle Doctrine, and it’s intent and purpose. I hope those in need of this can read it and grasp what is written.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one’s place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one’s car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her “castle”), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

SOURCE:
Castle Doctrine in the US

And then there is this interpretation from Florida.

The Florida “Castle Doctrine” law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

SOURCE:
Florida Castle Doctrine

I hope a few of my readers that truly need to be enlightened can understand this, the Castle Doctrine gives you the right to stand your ground, in your own home, it does NOT give you the right to interject yourself into police matters, especially matters in which you have NO involvement other than that of being an observer, matters in which you have no training in the proper handling of and matters that IN NO WAY presented you with ANY threat of injury or death.

The Castle Doctrine does NOT give anyone the right to become a vigilante in the street. Within the walls of your home, you and your right to self protection reign supreme.

Apparently, if the ruling by the Harris County Grand Jury is any indicator, that right has been extended to your yard as well, at least in their opinion, even if you have no business being IN that yard and were told repeatedly, by police officials, stay in your home and do NOT go outside, we will see how this unfolds in future test cases I am sure.

I fear that this decision by the Harris County Grand Jury will have far reaching and damaging repercussions for all LEGAL gun owners. A loose cannon like Mr. Joe Horn is NOT a great representative of good common sense and I feel he has done more to bring gun owners into a bad light than anything the liberal gun grabbers could have come up with in an intentional smear campaign.

Many people are hailing Horn as a hero, he is anything but a hero. Horn plainly stated, “I am going to kill them“, and he did, by shooting them in the back. Call it *The Cowboy Code*, call it what you like, only a COWARD shoots a man in the back, a coward or a homicidal maniac that is fulfilling his dream of taking a life.

Make NO mistake about it, if you come into my home, as a burglar or any other form of illegal intruder, I am going to punch your ticket to hell. If you threaten me, my wife, my family or anyone in my home, you guessed it, your ticket will be punched, within the walls of MY home. Read the words of one of my readers, BobF, as he so eloquently states in THIS thread:

Sorry folks but if I see someone robbing your house, I’ll try to stop them but I won’t kill them. Of course, I’ll be armed and order them to lie on the ground but if they walk or run away, then they’ll keep walking or running because I won’t kill another person over stuff.

But, if I witness someone raping your wife or daughter, I’ll put 230 grains of Full Metal Jacket somewhere in their head. I’ll take a life to protect mine or someone else’s but I won’t take one to protect stuff, not even mine. That’s why I pay big $$$$ to State Farm each year.

Thank you BobF, that was the comment of the day, kudos Sir!

Trackback URL:
http://texasfred.net/archives/1319/trackback/

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

For all the most recent posts, click HERE for the FRONT PAGE

42 Responses to “The Castle Doctrine: Explanation, Interpretation and Opinions”

  1. comment number 1 by: Gawfer

    Though I fully agree with you on this Fred, the idea that people are not cowering to criminals speaks volumes. Here in this ‘former’ state of California, people are afraid of retaliation for even calling the police. People who have been taught by the Media and law enforcement that any type of reaction is bad, can see that action is an alternative to cowardice; serving to put criminals on notice.

    What Mr. Horn did was a use of excessive force and an over reaction that was not justified, and I think your assessment is correct that loonies like the ACLU will pick up the banner and challenge the court. The reassuring fact however, is that there won’t be anyone chasing into Mexico to offer amnesty for testifying against him.

  2. comment number 2 by: cary

    I think we might have a difference of opinion here -

    My neighborhood is, I like to think, a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. So, maybe I have a different viewpoint on just how far afield the castle doctrine should hold. My neighborhood has a wall around it, marking off the area from those who don’t live inside the walls (although we are not a “gated” community, there are only four roads and one separate sidewalk into the neighborhood). Common sense would tell the criminal invader, or any person intent on doing no good, that this is an area that is watched and guarded, especially since we also have the “Wild West” history.

    I have yet to test this theory on those who would besmirch the exterior of these walls with their crapfitti, but it has come close a time or two.

    I do agree with you on the time point - time will tell.

  3. comment number 3 by: TexasFred

    Cary, I honestly see NO difference of opinion, you didn’t state an opinion as such, you stated facts…

    And I hope you never have to test the theory, but I am convinced that in it’s true and original intent, the Castle Doctrine doesn’t offer ANY protection to you if you confront the wall artists…

    They are a police matter, and you would be well advised to call the police and observe…

    Now, here’s where there is NO question in my mind, come inside of MY fence, into MY yard and spray paint ANYTHING, quite likely you’re gonna take a sore ass home as I will unload a round or 2 of rock salt, and if they pull a weapon, I will unload some 00buck or 230gr hardball…

    A weapon, in their hands, ANY weapon, even if it’s just a decent sized stick, constitutes an armed attacker, punch his ticket, an unarmed and fleeing individual, shot in the back equates to, at least in MY mind, and after telling the 9-1-1 dispatcher that you are going to do it, it equates to nothing less than murder…

    I can tolerate a lot of things, and taking a life is one of them, IF the life taken was a justified shoot, and I believe that self defense OR the defense of this nation is a justified shoot…

  4. comment number 4 by: C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

    I think that Mr. Horn was probably no billed because he was defending himself. I really don’t know if the Texas version of the Castle Doctrine would apply. I guess it could because he was attacked while he was somewhere that he had a legal right to be–his own front yard. If you are attacked, you can certainly defend yourself.

    I think that he was foolish for him to leave the relative safety of his home. It is my understanding that upon walking out his front door, he found that the criminals were within 10 feet or so of him. He probably wasn’t expecting that. What may have saved him from being indicted was the fact that a plain-clothes police officer had just pulled up in time to witness the whole thing and corroborate Mr. Horn’s version of events.

    This is my understanding.

    Mr. Horn was facing two criminals who had just burglarized his neighbor’s home.

    The criminals knew that Mr. Horn was a witness to their felony.

    The two moved towards Mr. Horn rather than stopping as Mr. Horn ordered even though they could plainly see that Mr. Horn was armed.

    One of them suddenly ran towards Mr. Horn.

    Mr. Horn probably made his decision to fire when both men were still facing him and he was probably in panic mode by that point.

    It takes a certain amount of time to recognise that the criminals have turned away from you–reaction time. Police officers have shot criminals in the back under similar circumstance. Had one of them not made a run at Mr. Horn, they would probably be alive today and still breaking into our homes.

    Doesn’t it boil down to this? If Mr. Horn had a legitimate reason to fear for his life, then he can legally defend himself.

    If Mr. Horn had no reason to fear for his life made the decision to fire, then he should have been indicted.

    Personally, I would have been very afraid given the circumstances as I understand them.

  5. comment number 5 by: TexasFred

    C. Bruce Richardson Jr., personally, Horn is an idiot and damned lucky to be alive…

    In danger?? Horn presented more danger in this situation than the bad guys did…

    Are some of you people that challenged when it comes to reading comprehension? Didn’t you see the part where the plain clothes Pasadena cop was THERE? Didn’t you get the part where he said HE was in fear for HIS life?? FROM HORN?

    You have an awful lot of *maybe* in your post Bruce, there was NO *maybe*, Horn was told, the cops are on the way, stay in the house, not only were they there, they were scared of this goofy old bastard and his shotgun…

    Horn is VERY lucky the cops didn’t cap his ass…

    I swear, some people are so desperate for a hero that they’ll settle for a murderer…

  6. comment number 6 by: C. Bruce RIchardson Jr.

    Hello Fred, thanks for responding. I agree that Mr. Horn is very lucky to be alive. Those two guys could have jumped him and shot him with his own weapon. Or they could have beat him to death with their pry bar or even with their bare hands. What he did was very foolish. Most police officers would have waited for backup under those circumstances.

    Do you really believe that Mr. Horn had no legitimate reason to fear the two criminals? If the criminals were not a threat to Mr. Horn, then it would not have been self defense. If any reasonable person would have felt that they were a threat, then he was defending himself as he is permitted to do.

    Why would the police shoot Mr. Horn? He was in his own yard. The police knew that he was there.

    What the officer actually said was that he was concerned that Mr. Horn might think that he was part of the burglary gang. He was in plain clothes and in an unmarked car and Mr. Horn didn’t know that he was there. The officer was being careful. There have been cases where even a police officer has mistaken a fellow police officer for a bad guy and shot him.

    Some people may be desparate for a hero. I’m not. But I do believe that citizens have a right to defend themselves.

  7. comment number 7 by: TexasFred

    C. Bruce Richardson Jr., “Do you really believe that Mr. Horn had no legitimate reason to fear the two criminals?”

    If Horn had followed the direction given him by the 9-1-1 operator, yeah, I really DO believe Horn would have been in NO danger… Horn placed himself in this situation, Horn IS a damned fool old man and he had a deep desire to KILL someone, and he declared his intentions before going out there…

    “Why would the police shoot Mr. Horn? He was in his own yard. The police knew that he was there.”

    How many years did you spend on a police, Sheriff or State Police department? I am pretty sure that answer is NEVER… No one that had any law enforcement experience would even ask that question, the officer had NO idea who Horn was, other than some pissed off old fool with a shotgun and he had just proven that he had NO compunctions about using it…

    “Some people may be desparate for a hero. I’m not. But I do believe that citizens have a right to defend themselves.”

    Yes, people DO have a right to defend themselves, they also have an obligation to exercise some PERSONAL responsibility and exhibit a bit of common sense, Horn did neither, and your further defense of this old fool will not seen the pages of my blog again…

    You have NO idea what happened, you’ve quite likely never fired a weapon in defense of your life or that of others and Sir, this tete’ a tete’ is over, good day to you…

  8. comment number 8 by: Mark Krauss

    shit Fred,
    some of these people are scaring me, I support a personal right to defense. but damn, many of these commentators are really bolstering the liberal argument that most people are too stoopid to own guns. Human life just don’t seem to hold any value at all to some. I repeat, burglary is NOT a capitol offense! you cannot shoot a fleeing burglar in the back! that is, unless you get THIS grand jury….

  9. comment number 9 by: TexasFred

    No shit Mark, some folks don’t have a clue…

  10. comment number 10 by: Robert

    Here’s the way I look at it Fred, as a simple man I see simple things.

    As many rulings, judgments, findings and law suits that we hear about and get pissed. THIS one went in our favor. By our favor I mean the criminals are dead and the criminal killer is free and clear.

    I know that it gives ammo to gun grabbers, and I agree with your assessment, but I am reminded that all the judgments that went the way of the criminal, didn’t give us enough ammo to change anything.

    Horne was wrong, Horne is not a very bright guy, but I think he got away with murder on earth, but he will have to answer for it later.

  11. comment number 11 by: Patrick Sperry

    This issue, regards Mr. Horn, is something that first; We all need to remember that Grand Jury proceedings are secret, and always will be. We really do not know anything of the discussions that took place. With only prosecutors, and no defense I might add. From what has been released publicly so far, I have serious questions.

    These guys were apparently armed, not with a firearm, but armed none the less. Police training, and most state laws allow lethal force when the armed “assailant” is within a distance of thirty feet. Also, I seem to remember that he was also acting as a caretaker of the property while his neighbors were away. This further muddies the picture in a legal manner. Beyond Castle Doctrine, there might be a case based simply upon self defense, as noted above. Fleeing felon I just do not see. How did anyone know that a felony had, in fact or based upon a reasonable assumption? There is also what is called the “Good neighbor” doctrine that was mostly based upon the car thieves of the old west, in other words horse thieves. Ranchers were expected to assist their neighbors in matters like that and in the rustling of cattle.

    After having said all this? I think Mr. Horn is a punk. Then again, he is not a trained gunfighter like myself or Fred. He is a bushwhacker, at least until I hear more of the facts, and only the facts.

  12. comment number 12 by: BobF

    Bottom line: If Mr. Horn had stayed in his house like authorities directed him to, their wouldn’t have been a problem. A plain clothes police officer was already on the scene and backup was only seconds away.

  13. comment number 13 by: TexasFred

    Trained gun fighter…

    1st time I ever heard it called that…

    If a few of these people only knew…

  14. comment number 14 by: GUYK

    The right to won property implies the right to defend same..and those that say taking a life in defense of property is indefensible must be willing to give up their property rights…

    I will not make a call without hearing all the facts..but I will say this..if one waits for local police to respond to a call about intruders the place will be ripped off and the intruders gone before the police show up..

    I have a hard time justifying shooting someone in the back..but then if I catch them in the act of intrusion..and especially theft or vandalism on my place and tell them to stop..and they run..well, I’ll be aiming for their legs…

  15. comment number 15 by: TexasFred

    Well Guy, that makes YOU no better than Joe Horn…

    EDIT TO ADD: And as an after thought, when burglary, a burglary where no one has been hurt or physically threatened, IN ANY WAY, becomes a CAPITOL offense, then WE have become Islam…

    And I am guessing that a few of y’all would look damn good with a rag on your head!

    Yeah, good call Guy, you and a few others, all in defense of America, freedom and the justice system, you guys are making the case FOR the libber gun grabbers, they don’t need any real help now, they have people like a few that have posted here…

  16. comment number 16 by: Mark Krauss

    remember folks, this was a grand jury, not a trial. these folks were supposed to examine the situation to see IF there were any questions about this to warrant a formal trial. in other words, they stated by this action (clearing horn) that there was no question in their mind that horn’s shooting escapade was justified and a trial unnecessary. I heard the 911 tape. NO QUESTION? shit, I got a lot of questions.

  17. comment number 17 by: Patrick Sperry

    Actually, burglery, or what we now call “home invasion” was one of the few original felony’s. Still, I would hesitate to shoot someone that was running away unless I knew that they had committed a grievious thing against a person. This was not a warfare situation where the bastard might well be shooting at you and your comrades as soon as he rounded a corner, so to speak.

  18. comment number 18 by: Gawfer

    Here’s a thought that occurred to me last night as I was fading off to sleep:

    How can I condem Mr Horn who, in the defense of his neighbor’s property shot and killed two criminals who would have most likely continued to rob and burglar homes, yet advocate placing a tower on the border and sniping illegal border crossers whose intent is somewhat questionable? I know Mr Horn’s case and Fred’s post goes directly to the Castle Doctrine, but if we’re gonna defend America, doesn’t that include our neighbor’s property as well? I’m having a bit of difficulty distinguishing between the two.

  19. comment number 19 by: dtodeen

    Lets see hear for all you gun toters!!

    Horn was in no danger, his property was in no danger, his neighbors physical bodies were in no danger, and the bad guys had no weapons!

    Yep, makes the NRA look like average thinking Americans. Thanks for the help in keeping our gun rights. The libs surely will take notice.

    Good bye guns

  20. comment number 20 by: Robert

    @Patrick Sperry, you called Horn a Bushwacker???? I am offended! How dare you insult Bushwackers in that fashion. LOL

    Fred, I will refer you to rules 2, 3 and 4 of the previous post.

    Did you see horn on TV this Am? he was on GMA and he actually did a pretty good job of explaining himself, until the lawyer made this statement:
    “Mr Horn did not go in search of confrontation” THAT was a bold faced lie, he did indeed go out looking for confrontation and he shot one man in the back and one in the side.

    In the act of self defense and in the heat of battle adrenaline takes over common sense. I can understand his anger while talking on the phone, I can understand his desire to help his neighbors I can even understand his willingness to confront the criminals. WHAT I can’t understand is WHY he shot them if they were fleeing, if they were coming at him then it is justified but then the bullets would have been in the front….

    Good point Gawfer, IF we want to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic, protecting a hard working AMERICAN CITIZEN’S hard earned property from FELONS should be allowed, but it is a slippery slope.

    Fred, I don’t think anyone really disagrees that Horn should have stayed on the phone and waited until the Police showed up, BUT he didn’t he took the law into his hands, and sent to thugs to their graves. Oh well not tear shall fall for them from my eyes. The position that this gives gun grabbers
    more ammo for the grab, is correct but no more than innocent victims being killed by thugs with guns.

  21. comment number 21 by: TexasFred

    I am going to say this ONE MORE TIME and after that some of you can keep on blathering like the ignorant and uninformed *jail-house lawyers* you think you are:

    1. Joe Horn is a murderer
    2. Joe Horn is an old fool
    3. Joe Horn placed himself in the position to be killed
    4. Joe Horn was told, repeatedly, STAY IN YOUR HOUSE, police are on the way.
    5. Joe Horn made an open declaration that said, “I am gonna kill em”
    6. Joe Horn, at that very moment in time, became a PREMEDITATED murderer.

    Adrenaline and *heat of the moment* be damned, Horn was in a place of his own choosing, he was armed and extremely dangerous, he was untrained in law enforcement, as are MANY that are making the most ludicrous comments on this thread and if the psychology that I have studied is any indicator, Joe Horn had a latent desire to KILL and saw this as his opportunity to act on that desire.

    But hey, if YOU want to support that bullshit, if your conscience isn’t bothered, if your moral feelings aren’t hassled, if YOU want to allow some old fool like this to jeopardize our gun rights, great, go for it, and when Joe Horn is used as the example of WHY the American citizen shouldn’t have guns, I hope you’ll remember this, I f*cking told you so!

    If MURDER and a vigilante America is the way we need to go, some of you are well on your way!

  22. comment number 22 by: Robert

    I love how “Some of you are well on your way” As much as ALL of us bitch about border security, defense of our nation by what ever means necessary and kill what ever moves across doesn’t constitute vigilante America….

    I don’t think I mentioned that what Joe Horn did was right? I think I said: “Horne was wrong, Horne is not a very bright guy, but I think he got away with murder on earth”

    But I do believe that all the discussion and this holy’er that though talk is kind of silly, when the “gun grabbers” take guns from the public they site gun crime, robberies murders and what not… California has the toughest gun laws in the land and oh we had no Joe Horn, we had gangs, and thugs to give the grabbers ammo…

    So they can say Joe Horn killed to felons with a gun, I don’t think that will be the catalyst to remove your guns. The catalyst will be the liberal left that it’s mind set on a gun free nation of subjects.

    This issue is really not worth the time it takes to comment. The felons are dead, the “idiot” that killed them has to live with what he did and answer to a higher judge at some point. And the gun grabbers will still try to get them and we will still try to keep them…

    The Castle Doctrine will be edited with a Horne adjustment and life will go on.

  23. comment number 23 by: TexasFred

    OK, I was going to close this, but if we can’t ALL be adult and offer up even some *heated* opinions, and still remain friends, then we need to reexamine our priorities…

  24. comment number 24 by: Gawfer

    Well said Fred. The good thing about being friends is being able to disagree and debate without dividing.

  25. comment number 25 by: Robert

    Exactly Fred… We disagree on very few things…matter of fact on this particular issue we don’t disagree on most of it.. Horn Was wrong, Horn is Lucky to be free, and this will give the gun grabbers one more point in the battle to take arms.
    The Two Felons are Dead though and I always said if I get into a situation there will be one story told.. MINE.. Horn accomplished that.

  26. comment number 26 by: TexasFred

    Some of my newer readers may not have seen this, even the older readers may have forgotten, it’s worth re-reading…

    http://texasfred.net/archives/637

    I’m an old guy now, I don’t fight anymore, I am too damned old and it takes too long to heal up, and as that post says, my kids are grown and on their own now, with kids of their own…

    My son and his wife are both cops, my best source of up to date info on codes and so forth, but now it’s just me and the wife at home, and in the middle of the night, if I hear some shit going down, IN MY HOUSE, you can bet the person(s) involved are going to get a demonstration of MY right to self defense…

  27. comment number 27 by: dtodeen

    I love Gawfer, I mean if I weren’t married I’d take a run at him!!

  28. comment number 28 by: TexasFred

    Dave:

  29. comment number 29 by: Bloviating Zeppelin

    Many DA offices in Fornicalia hold to the “retreat doctrine” and NOT the “castle doctrine,” though they’ll never tell you so. If you perform a “Horne” in Fornicalia you can bet you’ll spend time in a small space.

    BZ

  30. comment number 30 by: Robert

    WOW I think we have stumbled into a gay zone Captain….

    Just kidding Dave I know you weren’t in the Navy…

  31. comment number 31 by: Bushwack

    Sorry Gary, you and Dave made it too easy.. LMAO

  32. comment number 32 by: Gawfer

    WTF?!

    HUNNY, WHERE’S MY SUPER SUIT?!

  33. comment number 33 by: TexasFred


    Gawfer in his Super Suit

  34. comment number 34 by: kris

    As for my two penneth? Maybe a bit late, but Fred is spot on. I teach criminal law and think I’d struggle to write a better explanation of the legal position of the case than Fred did here.

  35. comment number 35 by: Patrick Sperry

    Well Chris, then I have to imagine that you support the ex post facto provision of the “domestic violence” provision of the Lautenberg Act.

    I believe that this all comes down to common sense. Horn is an idiot, and probably a felon. But I will also say this: If I heard a terrible ruckus at my neighbors house, and I went out with a weapon, and I saw my friends wife laying battered and bloody?

    I’ll be judged by twelve, not buried by six…

    As far as I am concerned, this thread is closed.

  36. comment number 36 by: Bushwack

    kris, I don’t think anyone disputes the legal issue, I think the GJ got it wrong too… ANYONE with half a brain that knows the facts of the case would see that Horn acted in a way the jeopardized the lives of himself and law enforcement, and cost the lives of two criminals.

    All of that is fact, it is also fact that the Grand Jury slipped up and let him off the hook, and for that I say ok fair enough.
    AS many times as pedophiles/murderers/rapists and thieves are let off the hook by ubber liberal judges and then go out and re-commit crimes against the innocent, this time at least the good guy got away with it.. (And I use the term good guy only in lieu of a better word for NOT the one in the act of crime when the incident occurred)

    I am not in any way condoning what Horn did, it was stupid, it was dumb it was all kinds of idiot wrapped up in a bunch of ignorant…BUT the same grand jury system is responsible for far worse findings across the nation. In perspective this finding of the grand jury is not going to cause me to lose any sleep, neither would I have been sleepless if they found reason to hold it over for trial.

  37. comment number 37 by: Gawfer

    You mocketh thou!

    My suit is Grey with a big Bat on the front!

  38. comment number 38 by: kris

    “I don’t think anyone disputes the legal issue, I think the GJ got it wrong too… ANYONE with half a brain that knows the facts of the case would see that Horn acted in a way the jeopardized the lives of himself and law enforcement, and cost the lives of two criminals”.

    Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick. My understanding was that some were of the view Joe is some sort of hero.

    Cut out all the emotion and irrevelance and Joe Horn is a murderer. Simple as that. My props to Fred is because he seems to be the only guy on the blogosphere who gets that. Not only does he get it, he can see the blowback of this decision.

  39. comment number 39 by: TexasFred

    Kris, I’m not the only one that sees it or got it right but I’m one of the very few…

    I was simply astounded at the people that called Horn a hero, he did the world a favor by capping those 2 but it wasn’t his place to do so, and I will die believing Horn is nothing more that an angry old fart that had a secret desire to kill…

    Well, he got to realize that desire and I believe many of my cohorts are thinking with their hearts and not their heads, and that can be quite dangerous, some of the thoughts in this thread are prime examples of how people like Horn come to be and why there is a *mob* mentality in all too many incidents…

  40. comment number 40 by: Gawfer

    Yesterday at lunch, I got to see first hand the beginnings of the ‘blow back’.

    CNN ran a story called Vigilante Justice featuring a play by play account from Mr horn, walking on his property and posturing an imaginary shotgun.

    The lefty media will sing the Feinstein song of gun control until the liberal left shouts in chorus. That can only hurt my right to bear arms; if not now, soon.

    Like Rob said, Horn got away with murder. He really needs to keep his mouth shut.

  41. comment number 41 by: TexasFred

    Gawfer, and THAT is the exact point I have been trying to make, Horn did more to HURT the honest, and legal gun owner than anything the left could have come up with…

    I know Rob says that the *bad guys* are the ones doing the crimes and making things tough for gun owners, and that’s true, but even the loony libbers know their argument is hollow when using the criminal element in tirades against LEGAL gun ownership…

    The *bad guys* don’t buy guns, they steal em, Horn bought his, legally, and the idea of HOME defense was his claimed intent…

    I am ALL for HOME defense, but Horn used a skewed view of The Castle Doctrine and became judge, jury and executioner, all for a crime that was nowhere close to being a CAPITAL offense…

    capital offense n. any criminal charge which is punishable by the death penalty, called “capital” since the defendant could lose his/her head (Latin for caput). Crimes punishable by death vary from state to state and country to country. In some American states these offenses may include first degree murder (premeditated), murder with special circumstances (such as intentional, multiple, involved with another crime, with guns, of a police officer, or a repeat offense), and rape with additional bodily harm, and the federal crime of treason. A charge of a capital offense usually means no bail will be allowed.

    And in my no so uneducated and less than humble opinion, Horn himself is guilty of premeditated murder…

    Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension. State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of “premeditation.” In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is usually defined as one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of murder.

    When we become a nation that can allow a person to plainly state, “I’m going out there and I’m gonna kill ‘em, I can’t let em get away with this”, when we allow that to happen, we are empowering people like Horn to take actions that are above the law and all but granting them immunity for doing so…

    Commit a CAPITAL offense and I am all for punching your ticket to hell, and do not stutter in saying so, invade my home with me in it and I will personally punch your ticket, THAT is what the Castle Doctrine is supposed to cover, but I will call a murderer (Horn) just exactly what he is, a murderer, and I will damn anyone that calls him a hero…

    And I will call a burglar what he is as well, scum of the earth, but still not on the *fire at will* list in the yard while fleeing…

  42. comment number 42 by: Bushwack

    “while fleeing…” is the operative word I think, I commend Joe Horn for his willingness to get involved. I think he should have done as the operator suggested, I think he could have followed them and provided an eyes on service for the police, I think he could have shot them in the leg… all of these things HE should have, or could have done and we would not be having this conversation.

    Just like everything else looking backward it’s easy to suggest what should have happened. Horn killed TWO criminals, HORN was and is a MORON for doing it. However; I am not going bitch about “he should be in jail” or ” he is giving folks ammo to grab my gun”… While it may be true we have been fighting the gun battle ever since Libs had a voice, and we will continue until they are either dead, or they succeed….This will neither help nor hurt the cause in the long run.

    Until the US Justice system corrects some of the injustices to the PEOPLE, I will take this as “The PEOPLE” won one.

    just an FYI, I don’t think Joe is a hero, I think the marine that killed the subway robbers is a HERO. The only difference between the two instances was the MARINE was not told by the operator to stay in the house. The Marine, didn’t save a life.. The Marine didn’t protect HIS property, he stepped in and eliminated some thugs… Bottom line in both of these instances is 4 CRIMINALS are dead, and I don’t cry for them.