Shoot um up

[Harlan Huckleby]

ah, you've already taken the best years of the poor guys life. what's he got to live for now anyway?

[Scott Campbell]

half way into the 911 call, while Joe is watching the thieves at his neighbor's house, Joe tells the dispatcher, "I'm gonna kill 'um"


Self-defense? ya, right.

Could reasonably have been bravado, or adrenalin. It certainly wasn't enough to convict him, or slander him the way you did as a cold blooded murderer.

If you planned on murdering someone and using self defense as a ruse, it's probably best not to confess that to an emergency dispatcher on a taped 911 call. He was probably frieghtened, angry and not completely rational. Though he was rational enough not to get killed, which could have easily happened in a case like this.

[Scott Campbell]

I've said I was gonna kill my ex enough times that I'd best hope nothing ever happens to the man...

I've sensed that it might be best to avoid your temper.

Would it be ok if I washed your car today?

[MJZiggy]

You could do that, but I'd be much happier with you if you mowed the back yard.... :P

[Scott Campbell]

No, I wasn't comparing teens cleaning out a garage with the Joe Horn situation, I was comparing teens spotted stealing stuff from the garage of a neighbor. (Of course it might later turn out that something different than a theft was going on over there, but that is always the case.)

I'm trying to get your opinion on when it is justified to kill somebody. Would you shoot the teens? Would you have shot the fleeing Columbians?

Would you shoot the teens?


No Harlan, I would not have shot the teens for cleaning out my garage. Oddly, here in Utah, we pay them.



Would you have shot the fleeing Columbians?


There's that nasty race baiting "Columbian" term again. Columbians, Australians, Canadians, Americans - who cares? I'm not about to ask their nationality or racial makeup before protecting myself. If someone broke into my house, or my neighbors house, and I was armed and confronted them, I'd shoot to kill if I felt threatened in any way at all. I'd give them the opportunity to surrender, as Joe appears to from my recollection from the taped call. But that's their only choice - surrender or die. Why would I let them run to their car to potentially retrieve a weapon, or run me over? It's on them to surrender. The choice was theirs.

Of course I don't own any guns, so the point is moot. And reacting in theory is far different than reacting real time. I hope to God it never happens to me, because I would hate taking a human life, and it would probably haunt me forever. It seems to haunt Joe, even though it appears he did the right thing.

[Scott Campbell]

If he wanted to fire some shots, he could have fired above their heads, but even that was obviously unnecessary.

Ok, so he already gave them a verbal warning. Now you expect him to fire some warning shots too? Geez, maybe he should have been required to offer them counseling and sign a waiver prior to engaging in the use of lethal force.

[texaspackerbacker]

One of the great "rights" we have in this country is "trial by a jury of our peers". Most people's "peers" are good normal Americans with a healthy respect for property rights and a strong disdain for punk criminals messing with good normal people.

Consequently, regardless of what legal precedent has been set by a bunch of elitist liberal courts, watering down the old Common Law concept that a man's home is is castle, a jury can and often does "nullify" the letter of the law.

So if it's deemed that the guy violated the modern interpretation of homicide statutes, the hell with that shit. A jury will (and should) nullify it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

As Shannon Edmonds, a lobbyist for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, put it: "There's an unwritten rule in Texas courthouses: It ain't against the law to kill a son of a bitch."

Looking Kindly on Vigilante Justice

[Tyrone Bigguns]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.

Joe is a 61 year old retiree. You guess that he was angry, which certainly makes sense. But it also makes sense that he was scared shitless.

If those thieves were desperate enough to break in through a window, and rob that families house, it's not much of a stretch for them to be desperate enough to be potentially armed, and willing to shoot those standing between themselves and their continued freedom. In that situation, all Horn had to do was to feel threatened for an instant to be justified in pulling the trigger. What he did was reasonable. That grand jury had no choice. This case never went to trial - he wasn't even indicted.

People rarely get prosecuted in these situations no matter what state they reside in, or what the particular laws state.

Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?

He chose to go outside and confront them scott. No matter how you spin it, he put himself in the situation.

Clearly, he coulda stayed inside and the police got there pretty quick as they were there to witness the shooting.

[Scott Campbell]

Clearly, he coulda stayed inside and the police got there pretty quick as they were there to witness the shooting.

Agreed - staying inside was an option. But he had no legal obligation to do so.

[Scott Campbell]

.....the police got there pretty quick as they were there to witness the shooting.

I wasn't aware the police witnessed the actual shooting.

[Deputy Nutz]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.

Joe is a 61 year old retiree. You guess that he was angry, which certainly makes sense. But it also makes sense that he was scared shitless.

If those thieves were desperate enough to break in through a window, and rob that families house, it's not much of a stretch for them to be desperate enough to be potentially armed, and willing to shoot those standing between themselves and their continued freedom. In that situation, all Horn had to do was to feel threatened for an instant to be justified in pulling the trigger. What he did was reasonable. That grand jury had no choice. This case never went to trial - he wasn't even indicted.

People rarely get prosecuted in these situations no matter what state they reside in, or what the particular laws state.

Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?

He chose to go outside and confront them scott. No matter how you spin it, he put himself in the situation.

Clearly, he coulda stayed inside and the police got there pretty quick as they were there to witness the shooting.

Gee what on odd concept to step up and protect your property but also your neighborhood as well.

Instead you think he should hide in his closet. Thank god I will never have to count on you to have my back. You will run to the first closet you see and put your head between your knees, and whisper, "Please make them go away, make them go..."

[Scott Campbell]

He chose to go outside and confront them scott. No matter how you spin it, he put himself in the situation.

What spin? I've never argued that he didn't put himself in that situation. What are you talking about?

[Scott Campbell]

Instead you think he should hide in his closet.

That statement embodies much of what I'm getting at. Not only are Harlan and Tyrone big fat soft targets themselves, but their attitudes and sympathies are also likely to make this type of burglary that much more attractive. The lower the risk, the better the odds for the criminal type. They prey on the path of least resistance, and Tyrone and Harlan are inadvertently arguing to widen the path.

If Harlan had his way (a criminal conviction), that would open the door for those two convicted felons and their families to benefit from a lottery type windfall by nailing poor Mr. Horn with a civil suit. And then it's even more attractive to be a crook. At some point it won't pay to be an honest citizen anymore.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.

Joe is a 61 year old retiree. You guess that he was angry, which certainly makes sense. But it also makes sense that he was scared shitless.

If those thieves were desperate enough to break in through a window, and rob that families house, it's not much of a stretch for them to be desperate enough to be potentially armed, and willing to shoot those standing between themselves and their continued freedom. In that situation, all Horn had to do was to feel threatened for an instant to be justified in pulling the trigger. What he did was reasonable. That grand jury had no choice. This case never went to trial - he wasn't even indicted.

People rarely get prosecuted in these situations no matter what state they reside in, or what the particular laws state.

Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?

He chose to go outside and confront them scott. No matter how you spin it, he put himself in the situation.

Clearly, he coulda stayed inside and the police got there pretty quick as they were there to witness the shooting.

Gee what on odd concept to step up and protect your property but also your neighborhood as well.

Instead you think he should hide in his closet. Thank god I will never have to count on you to have my back. You will run to the first closet you see and put your head between your knees, and whisper, "Please make them go away, make them go..."

Protect his property...what, was the grass in danger. The criminals didn't do anything to his property..and certainly hadn't when he called the police.

The issue was shooting them...because he either feared for his life or his property. His property wasn't in danger..and he put himself in danger.

You can't have it both ways...you can't cry and say he had no choice but to shoot them...when he did have a choice. He didn't have to go outside and he coulda waited for his tax dollars to be utilized..that is why we have police.