geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/2674631
GeriDoc, you seem to be "judging' what was right or wrong in this situation. That is not really up to you, since you were not a member of the grand jury.
Horn exited his house to intercede on behalf of a neighbor; not knowing if what was happening was a burglary or if it was more than that and involved someone being victimized in that house.
He was not the executioner in the criminal justice system. It doesn't make sense to view this situation in that light. Its not a matter of stealing not rising to the consequences warranting the death penalty. Horn was never in a position to give these criminals the death penalty. He saw a crime, felt threatened himself and for his neighbor, and he defended himself and his neighbors property. The death penalty has nothing to do with this. Defending life and property is what happened here.
We shouldn't view this as a death penalty issue, or that Horn delivered some kind of justice on these criminals. That is simply not the case here.
A grand jury cleared him. He did nothing wrong. Period.
Of course I am making a judgment. I don't deny that. Texas law is what it is. I am simply arguing that it is more subtle than that. Horn manipulated a situation to place himself in jeopardy, then argued self defense. Sort of like killing your parents, then requesting leniency because you are an orphan. He saw a crime, as you said, but did not feel threatened until he rushed outside to confront the criminals with "Freeze..bang, bang!". The second criminal was clearly running away (unless Horn used the famous boomerang shotgun shells that pass the target, then double back).
You say "He did nothing wrong", which is incorrect. He did nothing that the grand jury indicted him for, but I argue that he did something wrong, or is it no longer wrong to kill someone with a shot to the back (we'll ignore the other fatal shot to the side, but that is usually considered wrong too).
It seems unlikely that we will ever agree on this, since our worldviews seem to be fundamentally different. You, and others, feel that a thief got what he deserved, and I think that our laws already say what each of them deserved, and it wasn't what Horn dealt out. The fact that a grand jury declined to indict can reflect many factors, including politics, racism and community standards as well as the law (as explained to them by a (elected) prosecutor).
http:///forum/post/2674631
GeriDoc, you seem to be "judging' what was right or wrong in this situation. That is not really up to you, since you were not a member of the grand jury.
Horn exited his house to intercede on behalf of a neighbor; not knowing if what was happening was a burglary or if it was more than that and involved someone being victimized in that house.
He was not the executioner in the criminal justice system. It doesn't make sense to view this situation in that light. Its not a matter of stealing not rising to the consequences warranting the death penalty. Horn was never in a position to give these criminals the death penalty. He saw a crime, felt threatened himself and for his neighbor, and he defended himself and his neighbors property. The death penalty has nothing to do with this. Defending life and property is what happened here.
We shouldn't view this as a death penalty issue, or that Horn delivered some kind of justice on these criminals. That is simply not the case here.
A grand jury cleared him. He did nothing wrong. Period.
Of course I am making a judgment. I don't deny that. Texas law is what it is. I am simply arguing that it is more subtle than that. Horn manipulated a situation to place himself in jeopardy, then argued self defense. Sort of like killing your parents, then requesting leniency because you are an orphan. He saw a crime, as you said, but did not feel threatened until he rushed outside to confront the criminals with "Freeze..bang, bang!". The second criminal was clearly running away (unless Horn used the famous boomerang shotgun shells that pass the target, then double back).
You say "He did nothing wrong", which is incorrect. He did nothing that the grand jury indicted him for, but I argue that he did something wrong, or is it no longer wrong to kill someone with a shot to the back (we'll ignore the other fatal shot to the side, but that is usually considered wrong too).
It seems unlikely that we will ever agree on this, since our worldviews seem to be fundamentally different. You, and others, feel that a thief got what he deserved, and I think that our laws already say what each of them deserved, and it wasn't what Horn dealt out. The fact that a grand jury declined to indict can reflect many factors, including politics, racism and community standards as well as the law (as explained to them by a (elected) prosecutor).
