It is a move to imposing the ultimate penalty for a crime that nowhere merits such extreme punishment.
I’d go so far as to say the Texas law is unconstitutional thus eroding our collective rights.
And as someone else mentioned I am not sure in the long run it actually provides for more safety. There always have been and always will be criminals. History has shown us that regardless of measures imposed criminals can and will adapt. You may get a blip of reduction in crime till they adjust but adjust they will. In this case the criminals will arm themselves and likely be more violently aggressive to “protect” themselves from the Joe Horns of the world.
I have no love for thieves. They are scum. But the Texas law goes too far.
I’m curious how many fall into the seemingly conflicting category that I do, which is:
1- I think Joe Horn acted extremely irresponsibly and should have been tried for murder (not necessarily convicted, but the matter warrants a trial)
2- For the two men he killed I could barely have less sympathy (and the coldest but extant part of my soul even sends a funeral wreath reading “Neener neener!”)
To me that contradiction of feelings is what makes the case so interesting and almost “important”.
One of them, by every account I have seen, did not rush him and he got a load of shot in the back.
As I noted above the other guy who “rushed” him (and again…who the hell is dumb enough to do that…you are essentially forcing the guy with the gun to shoot) also somehow manged to get shot in the back 15 feet away…twice.
As Sampiro noted I really think this case merited a trial to get everything investigated and spelled out.
The other guy was given an opportunity to stand down. Not sure how the law reads regarding this. If it merited a trial then it should have gotten one.
Nobody brought up the fact that home invasion is more than a loss of property. Insurance companies cannot replace the feeling of being violated and the ensuing fear of a return visit. Every noise outside the house is suspect, every person who walks by is suspect and every time you leave the house you worry.
They didn’t just steal something they willfully stalked a neighborhood looking for victims. They harmed everybody around the houses they stole from.
It’s sad that they put so much effort into being scum. It’s also sad that they didn’t value their own lives above deportation or prison time.
Obviously the Grand Jury did not think it did. Feels like jury nullification to me but then I really have no clue not having read any analysis or the evidence and arguments used.
It has been brought up (somewhere).
However, this was a neighbor’s house and the neighbor was out of town.
The home invasion had already occurred so damage done there. Whatever feelings of violation and future fear are already there. It was a done deal.
As punishment they were shot in the back and killed.
Ok, but if I shoot someone and kill them while they’re attempting to harm me physically are people still going to say that I was acting as judge, jury, and executioner? After all we don’t execute people for assault or attempted murder.
It’s pretty unlikely that I’d ever shoot anyone to save my property. I have decent insurance and it’s not worth placing myself at risk to save a television. On the other hand there was a time when I wouldn’t have been able to replace my El Camino had it been stolen. I might have shot someone to prevent its theft.
I think that if a white, racist Neo-Nazi ran through a black neighborhood screaming “FUCK NIGGERS!” and got himself shot, there would be a lot of people saying, “he got what he had coming to him,” and a few people even applauding it. This is just what I’m assuming from all my experience talking to people in life - a lot of people hate racism to the point where they seem to actually believe that people should be shot for it. Of course, now that I’ve said this, I’m pretty sure a lot of folks are going to say “I would NEVER support someone being killed just for using a racial slur” but I really, really think that if it actually happened and there was a thread about it, plenty of people would be saying “fuckin’ asshole…serves him right.”
It was a done deal when the people responsible for it were prevented from doing it again. Otherwise it would have been an everpresent concern for the homeowners and those around them.
they were given a choice. You call it punishment, I call it suicide.
I do not know where the law draws the line on this. People get into fights all the time. Bloody noses, black eyes, fat lips…I doubt anyone would suggest one or the other of the combatants would be justified in shooting the other. But how far does it go? Broken jaw? Cracked ribs? Broken arm? How much of a beating are you expected to take and of course at some point you need to act (shoot) while you still can before you are beaten beyond ability to do anything. Honestly I have no clue…judgment call I guess and then hope you can convince a court you were justified. Sucks but how else could it work?
Of course if you know (or have very good reason to believe) the other person means to kill you then do your best to kill them first. Are you judge, jury and executioner? I guess so but it is an extreme circumstance. The law allows for mitigating factors and I think this is an ultimate mitigating factor. If someone steals your stuff it can be recovered or replaced. If you have time to run away and/or call the police and could expect them to arrive in time to help then you have options. But if your back is to the (proverbial) wall and it is your life or his then you have every right to defend yourself (or others). You cannot undo dead. It is final and complete and there is no conceivable remedy to help you after that.
Would I think they had it coming to them? Sort of but more for being an idiot. Like jumping into a tank of hungry sharks. You may not deserve to be eaten but I have little sympathy since you could pretty much expect what would come next.
That said, if the racist dude got shot, I would fully expect the shooter to stand trial and go to jail for it.
To me justice in the case above would be the locals giving the skin head a serious ass kicking. Nothing he couldn’t recover from but something he would remember.
So if someone says freeze MF and you go with Plan B, who’s the idiot? We’re back to the same scenario, dumbass had it coming but the cause of death was Darwinian in nature.
There is a difference between setting ones self up as “judge, jury and executioner” and “attempting to stop criminals caught in the commission of a crime with force” and you know it, so can we dispense with this straw man, along with Whack-A-Mole’s “Vigilante justice” scarecrow?
You mean if the guys are caught (or dead) then the feeling of violation goes away?
I know for a fact it doesn’t…at least not for all people (personal experience with someone who was robbed). They remained skittish for awhile even though the bad guy was caught. There is no denying there is an effect beyond losing your stuff (her purse and jacket in this case…she gave the mugger her purse and then he grabbed her jacket and she slipped out of it and ran screaming fire…smart woman). She was very jittery for a few days and it was there to some extent for a few weeks and remains more wary to this day. But she got over it. If he had never been caught I doubt she would have recovered any quicker.
Admittedly anecdotal but she told the story occasionally and others who reported similar violations seemed to hew to the same sort of recovery.
“Stopping” a criminal is not judging or punishing a criminal. The whole point of a trial is to determine the facts of a case, evaluate extenuating circumstances, determine guilt and apply an appropriate punishment if guilty.
I’ll help you out with vigilante:
Or…
Seems to me that is PRECISELY what Horn is (was…whichever).
Further, there is NOWHERE in this country that metes out capital punishment for a burglary.
Where is the scarecrow argument? How does Horn not meet the definition of a vigilante?
And my (admittedly anecdotal) experience is the after effects are there whether the perp is caught or not. The person I know and other similar stories I heard did not espouse a fear that the same dudes, if not caught, would repeatedly come back to rob the place. Indeed it seems foolish they would…they already robbed the place and took the best loot. It was more a generic, “Holy shit! Bad people got me and there are more out there!”
Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
I do not think it unreasonable when presented with a gun for some people to run. Indeed I am not sure what the “recommended” response from experts is on this (assuming a bad guy pulls a gun on you). Stay there and hope it all works out or take your chances and bolt? I do not know the answer to that.
At worst you could say they were dumb but not suicidal.