thanks to all who pointed out the bleeding hearted nature of the joe horn bashing post
No bleeding heart here. I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime. But in this country, it's to be decided on by a jury of your peers, not a jury of your victims. You guys are quick to throw away constitutional rights in the name of Justice. And speaking of justice, someone mentioned the biblical "eye for an eye" earlier in this thread. Is anyone here going to argue that death was "eye for an eye" for burglary?
respectfully (the following will probably read in an unintended hard tone, no offense intended), kcobean, this is a texas issue. the good people of texas have determined the law in this case
I agree with you...states rights are very important, and Texas apparently has structured the gun laws in such a way that purposefully inserting yourself into a situation and shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the commission of what is probably a misdemeanor non-violent crime while at the same time disobeying the command of a law-enforcement officer is acceptable. I don't agree with it, but I respect it.
.....even the presentation of deadly force put people at risk of jail???
probably not jail, but depending on circumstance (if deemed unjustified) carries a misdemeanor charge and can result in revocation of a CCW permit, etc. Again..unjustified presentation...i.e. you can't just walk down the street waving a gun around, you can't point a gun at someone in a road-rage confrontation, etc. It's called responsible gun ownership.
the point is not the punishment for the theft of property, but at issue is the protection of property
Give me a break. So let me ask you this...if Joe Horn can play judge, jury and executioner, what do you think a REAL jury of his peers would have handed down as a sentence in a court of law? Before you remind me what a joke our penal system is, remember that these are citizens issuing a punishment..just like Joe Horn, but without the gun. What's the worst they can do?
we had quite a trek to get to this slippery slope
Not slippery at all..I'm asking a legitimate question. If we as a people have a right to decide on the spot whether someone should die for a crime or not (which is exactly what Joe Horn did), what's the cutoff? I notice you didn't answer, but instead chose to get snide.
had he done what you suggest, the anit-gunners would have said, "see he had a gun but it didn't stop the crime so guns are not needed by the public"
Really? So the only way to responsibly justify gun ownership is to run out into a situation from a position where you weren't in danger and start blasting away at people? I think you're getting a little ridiculous in your arguments here.
[quote}
again the law is not to allow vigilantism, but the protection of property [/quote]A life is a life. If your life is worth more than your TV, than a robbers life is worth more than your neighbors jewelry. And don't assume that because I'm against what he did that I'm a limp-wristed bleeding heart liberal. I'm for the death penalty and severe punishment for crime as much as the next guy. I just think that he went farther than a citizen should go in protecting an inanimate object.
agree, but then do what in their absence? agree to be passive victims?
shalom
You prove my point...JOE WAS NOT THE VICTIM. If his neighbor was being attacked, then I'd happily stand next to him and put a few rounds in the bad guys, but this was a non-violent crime.
For the record, I agree with you that the penal system would likely not have dealt as severely with these thugs as it should...not even close. We NEED to get our penal system to a state where would-be criminals are scared to death of it. But even in the worst of cases....Burglary is not a crime befitting the death penalty, not by Joe Horn, not by the courts.
Sorry to say sometimes im not proud of my country 
