Check this story out. Seems so Texas to me. Man I love Texas. :cowboy:

:gungrin: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/213462.php :gungrin:

Here in Fairbanks an elderly lady called 911 and reported that an unknown male was trying break in her back door. The dispatcher said that the officers were tied up on other calls and it'd be a while before they got there. The lady said she'd try to handle it herself. When the police arrived they found a guy in the backyard shot to pieces. The old lady had shot him five times through the screen door with a 12ga. shotgun, reloaded and shot him five more times. The police asked why she'd shot him so many times and she answered, "Because he was still wigglin'". She was never charged with any crime.

^^ That's why I keep a 12ga. Winchester pump in the room at night, nonetheless safely locked. I don't think I'd want to kill anyone though. A shot or two in the arm to get them scared off should do the trick.

Here in Fairbanks an elderly lady called 911 and reported that an unknown male was trying break in her back door. The dispatcher said that the officers were tied up on other calls and it'd be a while before they got there. The lady said she'd try to handle it herself. When the police arrived they found a guy in the backyard shot to pieces. The old lady had shot him five times through the screen door with a 12ga. shotgun, reloaded and shot him five more times. The police asked why she'd shot him so many times and she answered, "Because he was still wigglin'". She was never charged with any crime.

As it should be...

^^ That's why I keep a 12ga. Winchester pump in the room at night, nonetheless safely locked. I don't think I'd want to kill anyone though. A shot or two in the arm to get them scared off should do the trick.

Oh for christ's sake...

1) Why do you keep a door gun locked if you are going to use it for defense purposes?

2) A shot or two in the arm to get them scared off? Maybe you like lawsuits as well, because that's damn well what's gonna happen! That's hollywood bullshit right there.

^^ I know, that :suspect: You don't think I'd really do that do ya? ...haha :histeric: I'm just making fun of the stereotype. Ya see, I'm from Texas "an we is just ain't as smart as yall northern fellers, I reckon" ....lol

Isn't the second amendment awesome :highfive:

We have his and her 12ga pumps with 18" barrels! I'm from Texas and she is from New York.

I was gonna say... My Fav. is from Texas. He can shoot them in the back if he wants!

In Houston, there's a mall named "Greenspoint." The locals call it "Gunspoint." We don't mess around. :cowboy:

Yeah Spyder, that new legislation they just passed in September lets anyone use deadly force if they even feel threatened. :cowboy:

As for you, Mr. EcSTSatic, do you hang your hat in Kansas as a compromise from TX to NY? ...lol

Yeah Spyder, that new legislation they just passed in September lets anyone use deadly force if they even feel threatened. :cowboy:

As for you, Mr. EcSTSatic, do you hang your hat in Kansas as a compromise from TX to NY? ...lol

We sort of split the difference didn't we? :yup:

In Houston, there's a mall named "Greenspoint."

You confused me there for a minute. It's been a long time since I've heard it called "Greenspoint". :rolleyes:

Good riddance to 2 career criminals and dregs of society. That shooter wouldn't survive prosecution in any state other then TXm but I hope he gets off scott free.

"The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;"


Castle Law passed on Sept 1st in Texas. Looks like he should be no-billed (not charged) by the Grand Jury.


"Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable. "

The surviving families cannot file suit against him either.

OK, they broadcast the entire 911 call on the day it happened in Houston. (They have since "edited" the tape so that the entire thing cannot be heard.) From that tape, there is NO WAY that shooter should walk. He was cautioned several times by the 911 operator to STAY IN HIS HOUSE; the police were being dispatched. He was in no imminent danger; his home was not being robbed. He should be put away IMO. Not condoning the burglars, but his actions were not appropriate.

You confused me there for a minute. It's been a long time since I've heard it called "Greenspoint". :rolleyes:

You should have heard it on the news yesterday and today, since that crazy guy shot and killed the salesclerk there yesterday afternoon.

OK, they broadcast the entire 911 call on the day it happened in Houston. (They have since "edited" the tape so that the entire thing cannot be heard.) From that tape, there is NO WAY that shooter should walk. He was cautioned several times by the 911 operator to STAY IN HIS HOUSE; the police were being dispatched. He was in no imminent danger; his home was not being robbed. He should be put away IMO. Not condoning the burglars, but his actions were not appropriate.

As I'm sure you're aware the Grand Jury's do not always/usually follow the exact letter of the law when making a deternination as to whether to bill an individual when using deadly force. They bascially look to see if indivduals were in the commission of a crime at a felony level when deadly force was used against them. If so they usually no bill the shooter. I can think of several cases in the past before Castle Law where the individuals were in the process of fleeing, being no threat to the shooter, and were shot and killed and the shooter was no billed.

“Don’t go outside the house,” the 911 operator pleaded. “You’re going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don’t care what you think.”
“You want to make a bet?” Horn answered. “I’m going to kill them.”
He did.

There's a keen difference between self-defense and premeditated murder. I'm all for the protection of one's self, one's family, and one's property... I believe strongly in the second amendment, I have several guns, and I have full intention of using them if someone were to ever break into my home. While most of them are kept under lock and key, two are not - I keep a 10-ga Benelli in our bedroom closet with shells within arm's reach (which I have also taught the wife how to load and fire), as well as a loaded .38 "Iver Johnson" revolver (which my grandfather actually bought for about 5-bucks from the Sears and Roebuck catalog of all places) which stays in a hidden compartment in my desk is the office. If for whatever reason my wife can't get to the Benelli, she's also trained to use the PPK which stays locked in the safe. If someone were to ever break into my home, they will be shot - I am prepared to do so and I have prepared my wife to do the same.

However... what this man did is well beyond self-defense and there's more than enough evidence to show that it was premeditated. He was told repeatedly to stay in the house and if he really felt he was in any danger he would have. It would have been one thing had they tried breaking into his own house or his own car but they didn't.

Also, the last time I checked, burglary isn't a capital offense... surely they deserved jail time, but death?

I know some may disagree with me, but I'm sorry.. this man isn't a hero, he's a murderer - a self-admitting, premeditating murderer. Were someone's well-being in danger then it may have been justifiable, but regardless of that, this man had full intention of killing these men despite being implicitly told to do nothing by dispatch.

Again, self-defense is one thing but what this man did is reckless and inexcusable. I'm not going to debate whether Texas' laws are a little "screwy" or not, but I will be absolutely disgusted if this man gets off scot-free.

I agree that it was overboard. But after he decided to leave the house, the situation completely changed. It may very well have been self-defense at that point, but I think he kinda sorta expected it. So, it's a tricky spot. He did provoke the situation a bit, but he didn't cause the problem to start with remember. Probably just a trigger-happy fella looking for an excuse to kill someone. I'm not sure what should happen to him, but I don't think he should be praised. He'll probably just get probation or something like that in a plea bargain. Remember not too long ago it was lawful to kill a man stealing your horse and is still true over in some places. But I understand it wasn't his property. Maybe if the neighbor asked him to "sit" the property I would feel better, which very well may have been the case. And for all you know, there could have been a child home-alone in there scared out of his wits. Even if that wasn't the case, this guy couldn't have known for sure. I think he was right-minded, so maybe criminal prosecution isn't the right track. Maybe civil scorn would work better. Hmm?

My viewpoint is a little different. The two perps committed "suicide by redneck" by burglerizing a home in Texas in broad daylight. They were crooked, they were stupid, and they were foolhardy. At another level they brought it on themselves by creating an attractive nuisance. To wit, presenting themselves as suitable targets to anybody in the neighborhood with a weapon. On another level still, they're no great loss to mankind. If all suitable organs were stripped from their bodies and transplanted into people in need it would quite likely be the first decent thing they ever did in their lives. The world needs to move on to a real problem. This one has already reached finality.

That's nothing more than moral relativism.... and it's fairly disturbing.

That's nothing more than moral relativism.... and it's fairly disturbing.
I thought that was all the rage nowdays because it sooths the consciences of the druggy parents and white collar criminals.

What would have been a real crime is if the shotgun wielder had killed an innocent bystander. I don't worry about the criminals as much as innocent kids in the crossfire. The shooter was stupid but it could have been worse.
At the risk of repeating a story. Here in Alaska a couple of guys were crossing an old man's property to get to a lake to do some fishing. The old man stopped them and tried to explain that there were no fish in the lake but just down the road was a much better prospect. The guys took offense at the 70 year old man and one of them pushed him to the ground. A native woman who lived with the old man heard the commotion and stepped out the door of the cabin just in time to see her man go down. She picked up a .22 cal. rifle near by and shot both the fishermen right between the eyes and killed them deader than hell. She was never arrested, never brought before a grand jury, and the comment from the investigating troopers was, "Nice shooting". When you decide to embark on a criminal act everything that happens to you after that is your own fault and you have nobody to blame but yourself.

+42 for DKoz!

I am by no means trying to defend the actions of those two men... they were committing a crime and chances are that wasn't the first time they had done so, however none of us really know the circumstances surrounding them, but it's so much easier to just label them as "criminals," thereby negating any sense of remorse for the situation.

Yes they were committing a crime and deserved proper punishment for it, but was it this guy's place to exact punishment? If it were the homeowner who had shot these men then this would be a non-story, but that's not the case. The last time I checked, when someone says "I'm going to kill them," and then does so, that's called premeditated murder. In cases of self-defense, there's usually no thinking, no deliberating... it just happens out of an inherent desire for self-preservation. This man was in no immediate danger... until he put himself in the situation. He had plenty of time to think about it... he wasn't going to try to stop these guys, no... he was going to kill these guys.

This man deliberately murdered two men, not out of self-preservation, but out of some desire to rub out two mexicans (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one who noticed that either). Am I honestly the only one who feels this man committed a crime? Not only that but one much worse than the dead-men were committing? And even if you don't think he committed a horrible crime, should we really be praising some unbalanced, trigger-happy cowboy? Do we really want people like that roaming around free? What kind of example will this set if this man goes without prosecution?

While I may be more than prepared to pull the trigger on someone were they to break into my home, I can also say that is something I hope never has to happen. Maybe it's just me but I don't particularly like the idea of shooting another human being... and I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to find an excuse to do so.

I'm sure the legal results will be much ballyhood no matter how it turns out. There was no real threat to the shooter and he took it upon himself to exact justice. He may or may not skate.
A friend told me that when he was a boy back in Missouri his dad shot and killed a black man picking up coal scattered around the door to their basement coal bin to use to warm his family. He was convicted of careless use of firearms and his punishment was that they confiscated his shotgun for the entire duration of racoon hunting season. Many neighbors thought that this was far too severe. Thank God we're beyond this kind of thinking.

I'm sure the legal results will be much ballyhood no matter how it turns out. There was no real threat to the shooter and he took it upon himself to exact justice. He may or may not skate.
A friend told me that when he was a boy back in Missouri his dad shot and killed a black man picking up coal scattered around the door to their basement coal bin to use to warm his family. He was convicted of careless use of firearms and his punishment was that they confiscated his shotgun for the entire duration of racoon hunting season. Many neighbors thought that this was far too severe. Thank God we're beyond this kind of thinking.

I'd like to think so... however, if some people are praising this particular gentleman as a "hero" then maybe we're not that far beyond it...

Even though I don't normally keep abreast of the comings and goings of the Lone Star state... I'm very interested to find out what happens with this case. I hope our Texan brethren will let us all know as this thing unravels.

Don't worry; I'll try to keep this thread alive. ;) But I think media coverage will probably cease from here on in. Or at least be little publicized (as I am anxiously awaiting Phil Spector updates).

But yeah, remember the law is only what we the people have said it to be. If the people say it's okay, then it is. If the people say it isn't, then it isn't. It's as simple as what your neighbors think of you.

“Don’t go outside the house,” the 911 operator pleaded. “You’re going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don’t care what you think.”
“You want to make a bet?” Horn answered. “I’m going to kill them.”
He did.

Works for me. Where can I mail this person a gift?

This was my thought: why not pin a medal on this guy? I wouldn't want my neighbors to defend my home this way. Only because I wouldn't want them risking their lives for my "stuff." This guy greased 2 brazen career criminals...BFD. Home invaders and burgulars are a dangerous breed. It's better they get dealt with sharply then to soak up taxpayers $$$ in jail, until the day they get paroled and become a repeat offender, and maybe kill somebody.

Does anybody remember the story a few weeks back out of New England where two guys broke into an older couple's home, killed the husband by beating him to death, raped and killed the wife, looted the home, and set the bodies on fire as they left? All this was on THE SAME DAY they got paroled. Call me crazy but my tolerance for these types of lowbrow parasites is diminutive. If a free man chooses to defend his neighbor's home, and as a result has to defend his own life against criminals, I don't see a problem.

I say if your buisness is breaking into people's homes, being shot and killed is a job hazard. Whether the home owner shoots you, or the neighbor, you were begging for it. Get off drugs, get a job, and stop terrorizing the populace.

Good riddance.

Don't worry; I'll try to keep this thread alive. ;) But I think media coverage will probably cease from here on in. Or at least be little publicized

This is usually the case. The actual trial and details are far too boring to waste any news airtime over (unless it's O.J. Simpson). Better to report on important matters like Britney Spears running a red light with her children in a car, and such. ;)

Rolex...Probably the best post I've ever read on Cadillacforums.

If there was a few more sensational public stories of violent criminals being killed by their intended victims there would be far less people willing to be violent criminals. That would make the world better for everyone that matters.

Just so I get things straight here... premeditated murder is a crime only when it's against someone who is not a criminal?

Just so I get things straight here... premeditated murder is a crime only when it's against someone who is not a criminal?

I like that idea.

Does anybody remember the story a few weeks back out of New England where two guys broke into an older couple's home, killed the husband by beating him to death, raped and killed the wife, looted the home, and set the bodies on fire as they left? All this was on THE SAME DAY they got paroled.

Are ya saying these guys shouldn't be killed?

Any thug that embarks on a life of crime deserves whatever happens to him. All he would have to do to prevent it would be to go get a job like any other honest person does. They were the sole creators of the situation and the last guys with a chance to prevent it. Nobody needs to cower in his home while thugs roam the neighborhood at will looking for trouble. Who's fault is it when they find it up close and personal? A citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest. If the thugs resist it's going to be too bad for them. This bleeding heart liberal attitude is what gave these brazen thugs the idea that it was safe to do any damn thing they wanted to do. No do-over here. The municipality should be required to reimburse the guy for the ammunition he expended providing a valuable public service.

Just so I get things straight here... premeditated murder is a crime only when it's against someone who is not a criminal?

In relative terms the only people this shooter is a danger to are criminals, not the public at large. I believe in locking up, or permenently retiring people who are a danger to the populace. The shooter here didn't load up in his Cadillac and go looking for trouble.

There's a legitimate argument to be made that the shooter committed a crime. But to me, it's more likely that any crime he committed was far less then the crimes he prevented by retiring these criminals. It would serve no good purpose to jail this man who, in my opinion, provided a valuable public service. He's stupid and brave at the same time. It took a lot of guts to do what he did.

Your mileage may vary.

Your mileage may vary.

^^What?

Well here's an idea. Maybe criminals would stop be criminals if they knew they could be shot for doing so. They're job wouldn't be so easy then. As long as they think they're above the community, and think they can terrorize people w/ only looking out for cops, then they will continue to do so. But if criminals knew that justice could be dealt out by anyone, then I bet they would be alot more scared of "impromptu" justice, than rather the occasional police officer that they can evade.

Stories like this actually do society a favor in that would-be criminals are giving it a second thought. Maybe the media ought to make up a bunch of stories like this, just to scare thieves out of their wits. Better yet, let them be true stories. IMO, the police are simply not powerful enough to scare off all criminals. We as a right and honest people need to put the "garbage of society" in their place or at least threaten to do so.

As long as thieves know neighbors are shut up in their homes powerless to stop them, they'll keep on stealing. We need to stop them by any means possible!

Man I love Texas! :cowboy:

^^What?





Your mileage may vary.

My way of saying, "You and I can agree to disagree."

^^What?

Well here's an idea. Maybe criminals would stop be criminals if they knew they could be shot for doing so. They're job wouldn't be so easy then. As long as they think they're above the community, and think they can terrorize people w/ only looking out for cops, then they will continue to do so. But if criminals knew that justice could be dealt out by anyone, then I bet they would be alot more scared of "impromptu" justice, than rather the occasional police officer that they can evade.

Stories like this actually do society a favor in that would-be criminals are giving it a second thought. Maybe the media ought to make up a bunch of stories like this, just to scare thieves out of their wits. Better yet, let them be true stories. IMO, the police are simply not powerful enough to scare off all criminals. We as a right and honest people need to put the "garbage of society" in their place or at least threaten to do so.

As long as thieves know neighbors are shut up in their homes powerless to stop them, they'll keep on stealing. We need to stop them by any means possible!

Man I love Texas! :cowboy:

You, my boy, are right on the money.

All I know is that, at least with my conscience, I cannot justify and exonerate this man's actions simply because the two he bumped off were of an undesirable element and questionable character. If this man's intention was to merely stop these individuals in an attempt to prevent them from eluding the law then I would praise him to high heaven, but that's not the case at all. Well before he even put himself in the precarious position, he had already made up his mind that he was going to kill these men, and he said so more than once. It is that, right there that changes this entire situation from some mild-mannered man with the noble intention of protecting his neighbor's property to being a murderer. When someone says they are going to kill someone and then proceeds to do so, that's a crime... frankly that's the worst crime there is. This man took it upon himself to be the judge, jury, and executioner for these men and somehow it seems that I'm the only one who sees something very, very wrong with that. When it comes down to it, this has nothing to do with those two men... yes they were committing a crime but our society dictates a certain course of action which would have dealt with them... and I am very surprised at those on here who have previously felt so strongly in the purpose and proper execution of the law, would now exercise an about-face with regard to this situation.

Some seem to be so hung up on the fact that these men were breaking the law and so therefore, somehow had what was coming to them. However, the law also says that John Q. Public can't purposely pick up a gun, walk outside, and kill someone just because they choose to do so. That is the issue at hand here. This has nothing to do with a "bleeding-heart liberal attitude," (ahem, koz) in fact it stems from the complete antithesis of such an attitude.

What's even worse is that some on here are probably construing my point into me somehow defending these two men, so I'll just reiterate as clearly as possible - this has nothing to do with the men that were shot. Two men are dead and I feel it is because an ever worse crime was committed... whether one agrees or disagrees with it, that's just not the way things work in this country. It's absurd to praise this man, let alone to even condone his actions.

By an extension of the logic which some on here seem to be following, what's to stop me from pulling out a gun and shooting the next person I see speeding and/or driving recklessly.. because you know, they would be committing a crime that would cause me to fear for my well-being and the well-being of others. So it would then be my responsibility to stop them at any cost in order to prevent them from evading the law and possibly hurting someone else in the future. Their criminal actions and utter lack of respect for the law and for society means that they would have whatever is coming to them. By doing so it would send a clear message to anyone else and force them to think twice about possibly breaking the law.

Because evidently that's the way we do things now, and we're all okay with it...

On the one hand the guy said on the phone he was going to kill the guys. On the other hand he later claimed he confronted the men and they made threatening moves toward him. He was completely within his rights to attempt to arrest the men as any citizen is allowed to do no matter what the dispatcher said. We have no proof that the guy actually killed the men in cold blood without provocation. Since he is the only one around to tell the tale you have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Two-bits says he walks.

A friend of mines father-in-law was the victim of an attempted car jacking. A guy shoved a gun in his face and told him to get out of his new Mercedes. He came out of the car with a knife about a foot long and opened the guy up from his crotch to his chin. His guts fell out and he was dead before he hit the pavement. The vicitm told the cops that he'd worked all his life to be able to afford the car and he wasn't about to give it away to a thug. He walked.

Man I love America! :usflag:

I think its great that we can openly and respectfully debate our opinions. And yes I do respect my more liberal (I don't mean that in a negative way) counterparts to keep me in check. And vice versa, too. While I think the speeding ticket logic is a little extreme. It does make me think. If there were a weapon that could stop a person as effectively as deadly force, I think it would be great. I still support the idea of the citizens' rights to protection of themselves and the peace, but if there were a way to neutralize a person as effectively as halting life w/o doing so, then I'd be all for it. But there doesn't seem to be such a weapon yet. At least not as readily available and practical as a shotgun.

Basically what I'm saying is I support the ability to immediately halt a person's actions and neutralize any threats he/she may pose against you. The side effect is death. Sorry, but that's not my problem nor was it my intention; the villain should have considered that half of the bargain.

Really, I don't even support the death penalty, partly because the criminal is already completely helpless and immobilized, and that is the real cold blood crime. But under circumstances harsh enough I do support it. I just don't like the irreversibility of the matter. However this man had no doubt in his mind that the burglars were a threat to the community which needed to be immediately neutralized.

:cheers:

Here's my short take on the robbers. Any men who would be brazen enough to invade someone else's home are (IMO) the kind of men who would give a shit about slitting your throat to get what they want. Those are DANGEROUS men. Damn dangerous. While I don't have the crime stats on home burgulary and home invasion in my lap, I suspect it's common enough that people get killed during the course of these crimes that when this man confronted these robbers the situation did become one where he was in immediate fear for his life.

Still I would agree the shooter is either an idiot, or really brave (or maybe both). If he had a modicum of common sense he would have stayed safe inside his home and gathered a thorough description of the suspects so he could act as a good witness to the cops. Instead he chose to confront and hold these men until the cops got there. Not smart IMO. Why you ask? He put his own life in grave danger to defend a DVD player and grandma's silver flatware. He also opened himself up to a great deal of criminal (and possibly civil) liability.

Now arguing that you could in any way compare exceeding the posted speed limit with home robbery/invasion is just absurd. I hope that's just for the sake of argument, and you wouldn't really try to defend such a fantastic position AMGoff. :cookoo:

Ask Sean Taylor if home invaders/burglers are dangerous. Wait, he's been killed in his own home hasn't he. If he'd had a neighbor willing to put his life on the line for him he'd still be alive. Why is it so hard for the liberals to see that some members of the human race are garbage and need shooting.

^^ Agreed. When a limb is rotten, it needs to be cut off. You just can't save everything. Justice does vary, and the world is not fair. We just gotta work with what we got. Folks need to lose the lofty ideas and get used to it; you don't want to end up like Cuba, do you? ;)

First off koz.. how exactly can we give him the benefit of doubt. He can retract and contradict himself all he wants... the funny thing about those 911 dispatchers is they record the calls they get in.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."
"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

I'm not sure how there's any sort of misunderstanding here... when someone says "I'm going to kill them" and then actually does so, that's called premeditated murder. And while I appreciate all of you little anecdotes, most of them don't apply to this particular situation. As I said before, if he had shot them as they were breaking into his own property, then this would be a non-story. When it comes down to the protection of one's own person, property, and family then the use of force can be justified. As I've also said, I have guns of my own, and I have full intention of using them were someone to ever break into my home. However, that is not the case in this situation. How many times do I have to repeat that.

Rolex, of course I don't condone the exaggerated example I used... that logic is absolutely absurd. My point was to merely highlight the fact that some are using the same logic with this case. There are laws that govern our behavior, one of them is that we don't pick up our guns with the intention of killing other people, regardless of whether they have committed a crime or not. I find it disconcerting that some feel it is okay that this man took it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner of these men. That's not how our system works.

The question of whether these men "deserved" what they got shouldn't be a question at all. The fact remains that two men are dead because one man intentionally killed them. I'm sorry, but that's called murder... call me silly, but I don't think people should intentionally murder other people. But by the looks of things, I'm the only one who has a problem with that.

It makes no matter what the guy said he was going to do. All that matters is what he did do. After the incident:
“I had no choice,” he said, his voice shaking. “They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick.”
Lambright said Horn had intended to take a look around when he left his house and instead came face to face with the burglars, standing 10 to 12 feet from him in his yard.
Horn is heavyset and middle-aged and would have been no match in a physical confrontation with the two men, who were young and strong, Lambright said. So when one or both of them “made lunging movements,” Horn fired in self-defense, he said.
He talked big on the phone and did something different in reality. He could have stated he was going to blow them up with an atomlc bomb but he didn't do it. It's like two dogs on the opposite sides of the fence barking at each other. Yank the fence away and the whole dynamic changes.
In safety, people make all kinds of claims and statements about what they would do in a particular situation but when faced with the "nut cuttin'", actions change dramatically. This guy surprised himself. As Popeye used to holler at Bluto, " Let me at him. I'll moider da bum".
He's going to walk.

Premeditated murder is when someone has a sinister intent to rob somebody of life. Remember that what he says will be tested under the "Clear & Present Danger" test of the First Amendment. What we've read in the news article does not indicate the tone or the manner in which he said "I'm going to kill them." He could have been fired up and crazed with anger watching his neighbor's property being robbed. It could have been in the same manner as "I'm gonna kill the president, I tell ya!!" No one said this guy was making malicious intentions against other individuals. It was in the heat of the moment.

When did he state "I'm going to kill them," he was merely expressing his intentions to put an end to the threat they posed, not settle a personal grudge. I'm sure if any of us were in the same predicament and could do so, we would snap our fingers and have magic iron cages enclose them. Killing them was only a side effect of stopping them.

The news made it sounds like he was betting the operator he would do an evil deed. Whereas it could have been much more crazed. Just think, if he hadn't killed the men, do you think he would be tried for conspiracy to murder?? Of course not, it was the heat of the moment and he was angry. So even though the men ended up dead doesn't mean he's accountable for a line he said previously. When the court examines the legitimacy of the threat, they will judge it based on events up until then, not off the end result, thus showing how non-serious and non-malicious it actually was.

The liberal media arranged the quotes and their comments to make it sound like an evil psychopath vowed a death wish, when in reality it could have been an off-the-wall sporadic comment.

Premeditated murder is when someone has a sinister intent to rob somebody of life. Remember that what he says will be tested under the "Clear & Present Danger" test of the First Amendment. What we've read in the news article does not indicate the tone or the manner in which he said "I'm going to kill them." He could have been fired up and crazed with anger watching his neighbor's property being robbed. It could have been in the same manner as "I'm gonna kill the president, I tell ya!!" No one said this guy was making malicious intentions against other individuals. It was in the heat of the moment.

When did he state "I'm going to kill them," he was merely expressing his intentions to put an end to the threat they posed, not settle a personal grudge. I'm sure if any of us were in the same predicament and could do so, we would snap our fingers and have magic iron cages enclose them. Killing them was only a side effect of stopping them.

The news made it sounds like he was betting the operator he would do an evil deed. Whereas it could have been much more crazed. Just think, if he hadn't killed the men, do you think he would be tried for conspiracy to murder?? Of course not, it was the heat of the moment and he was angry. So even though the men ended up dead doesn't mean he's accountable for a line he said previously. When the court examines the legitimacy of the threat, they will judge it based on events up until then, not off the end result, thus showing how non-serious and non-malicious it actually was.

The liberal media arranged the quotes and their comments to make it sound like an evil psychopath vowed a death wish, when in reality it could have been an off-the-wall sporadic comment.
Exactly!
An article in the Drudge Report says that liberals report a way higher rate of mental problems than conservative do. We knew that all along. Liberalism is a mental disorder in itself.

Texas has Castle Law now (Sept 1st). The law states Texas's citizens have the RIGHT to use deadly force to protect themselves, others, property, including cars and no longer have to "retreat" if they can, and can still shoot the bad guy if they are "fleeing" It really doesn't matter if his intent was to kill the robbers from the start, or whatever a 911 operator tells him to do or not do. All the grand jury has to see is the people he shot were actually robbing the place and they will no bill him.

Some people may think it's not right to kill someone simply because they are stealing your property. I don't think they should have any right(s) when they make the choice to rob me.

By violating your rights, they have sacrificed theirs. So in exercising your right to protect those rights, you may have to deprive another of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or any other Bill of Rights right. (I know I'm mixing documents)

As for that old lady, dkoz, where can I get a shotgun that can hold 5 rounds? Last time I checked the legal limit was 3. ;)

My favorite...Take the plug out. Betcha most any that you've ever shot that weren't double barrels hold five once you take the three minutes to pull the little wooden dowel out.

Hell, I've got two that'll hold 9 regular sized shells or SIXTEEN mini-shells.

^^ Sweet! Thanks, Spyder!

By violating your rights, they have sacrificed theirs. So in exercising your right to protect those rights, you may have to deprive another of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or any other Bill of Rights right. (I know I'm mixing documents)

As for that old lady, dkoz, where can I get a shotgun that can hold 5 rounds? Last time I checked the legal limit was 3. ;)
Three is the limit for migratory waterfowl. If you're hunting rabbits in the wintertime or burglers it doesn't matter.