Elderly man fatally shoots 2 reported burglars--NEWS FLASH!!

[rkhal]

Would you just sit back if you were in a gas station and it was being robbed? It's not your property, they have insurance against such things.

Short answer --- Yes. I carry to defend myself and my loved ones. I am not a cop and don't want to be. If the BGs can rob the gas station without endangering me I would let them.

I hope that this guy gets off but he did run his mouth a lot when he shouldn't have. He made the situation sound like vigilanteism instead of good citizenship and that can effect all of us.

Yeah, he ran his mouth, but I don't consider it vigilanteism at all. I consider it acknowledging the reality of the situation. He simply stated out loud what any of us would have been thinking in a similar situation. When you pull your carry weapon in a situation that justifies deadly force, you are thinking, "I'm going to kill this guy," aren't you?

To me, indicting him on what he said is tantamount to thought crime. It's not the "killing the bad guys" we're worried about, but "what was he thinking when he killed the bad guys" that seems to be so important. To me, that's Orwellian and should not play a role in the indictment.

No --- I think "I am going to stop this without getting hurt if possible." If this guy had said "I am going to stop them!" this would be an open and shut situation.

A guy on another forum said that his instructor told the class that there are 3 kinds of people that carry a gun --- Those that couldn't take a human life, those that can and are looking for an excuse, and lastly those that can but would only do so as the absolute last resort.

The instructor said those in the first category should get rid of the gun. Those in the second should buy a large jar of vaseline and save up for a good lawyer because eventually they would need one or both. Those in the third category would probably do everything totally legally.

This guy seems to me to be in category number 2. He sounded to me like he thought he had a legal way to shoot these guys. That to me is vigilanteism.

Now I hope he gets away with it. But he ran his mouth and he left himself very exposed.

[rkhal]

You know if I was working at a store and I was being robbed I would pray that someone would help me. AND NOT JUST SIT IN THEIR CAR AND DO NOTHING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING THREATENED.

Well see here is the thing. I got a chl to protect me and mine. I did not get it to protect you. I did not get it so I could be a policeman. John Wayne died and I am not here as his replacement. There is no guarantee that the bad guys won't start shooting and kill you when I pull my gun. Add to that, that I was told in my class with a deputy DA as guest instructor that when I fire my weapon I can figure on spending many many thousands of dollars. So if I can just watch I will. Now if he shoots you that is different. But am I going to ruin my life to save your boss' money? Not a chance in Hades. Mr. Horn is waiting to see if he is going to spend every penny he has set aside to take care of himself and his family in his old age on lawyers. Right now that is a coin flip. I bet at this time he is wishing he had made a different choice.

"If I was working at a store and I was being robbed I would pray that someone would help me." You can get a gun and protect yourself. I don't mean to be flip but I took the steps to protect me and mine because I didn't trust anyone else to do it for me. If you don't care enough to protect yourself don't ask someone else to put his future on the line for you.

Does this mean I would never get involved? No! But I will use a great deal of discretion when I do. It will have to be a very serious situation before I shoot somebody. When my gun comes out I am going to fire. I may or may not say "Please stop!" Or "Don't do that." So what my original statement meant was, Am I going to shoot somebody that I see robbing a stop and shop. No I am not. Rape, assault or something else. Yes. But I will be the one that decides. I am not going to get involved in every crime that happens and stop it. You go ahead if you feel that your chl came with a union suit with an s on the front. But consider the price your wife and children may have to pay.

[rkhal]

If you can live with the fact that you chose to do nothing when someone was raped, killed, etc. etc. then good for you.

We each weigh the risks and respond accordingly.

I believe the original statement was a gas station being robbed. Nobody said anything about raped, killed etc. We are now talking about something entirely different. Yes, I would stop a rape or a killing. But that was not the original question was it?

My point was --- I am a man with a gun. I am not a cop. I am not superman. I do not have a mission to stomp out crime and evildoers everywhere.

One of the things that has been discussed several times is thinking about how you would handle a situation before it happens. If I don't have to ruin my life I won't.

I am sure your superior attitude will be extremely comforting when you have given all your savings to your lawyer and are trying to get a second mortgage on your home and refinance your truck.

[rkhal]

That said, there are certain rare situations that one has no choice but to dive headlong into the fray (i.e. Luby's in Waco).

Hey Lodge2004,
I understand your stance and your statement sums up what I learned and hold true as my justification for using deadly force. The suspect in his criminal actions HAS LEFT ME NO OTHER CHOICE. PERIOD. If I am NOT in imminent danger, then I HAVE PLENTY OF CHOICES other than using deadly force. This justification can be applied to any scenario.
Store robbery in progress with me inside, then firearm is coming out.
Store robbery in progress across the street and I'm outside, then cellphone is coming out.

Thank you! Close to what I am trying to say.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Whether to use deadly force to defend a 3rd party is a purely personal decision. I'll not give my opinion because what I would or would not do should not have any impact on another's decision. I would suggest that you will have only slightly more time to make that decision than you would if it was your life placed in jeopardy, so perhaps you should decide now.

Also, the difference between a robbery and a murder is measured in split-seconds and somewhere between 3 and 9 pounds of pull on the trigger, so don't expect to be able to intervene somewhere between the robbery and and murder phase.

Chas.

[cxm]

This brings to mind something Chas Cotton said that I use in every CHL class I teach....

"DON'T LET YOUR MOUTH TURN A GOOD SHOOTING BAD."

Excellent advice IMHO, though I think the actor was legally justified in this case (albeit dumb as dirt.)

V/r

Chuck

[DoubleActionCHL]

No --- I think "I am going to stop this without getting hurt if possible." If this guy had said "I am going to stop them!" this would be an open and shut situation.

A guy on another forum said that his instructor told the class that there are 3 kinds of people that carry a gun --- Those that couldn't take a human life, those that can and are looking for an excuse, and lastly those that can but would only do so as the absolute last resort.

The instructor said those in the first category should get rid of the gun. Those in the second should buy a large jar of vaseline and save up for a good lawyer because eventually they would need one or both. Those in the third category would probably do everything totally legally.

This guy seems to me to be in category number 2. He sounded to me like he thought he had a legal way to shoot these guys. That to me is vigilanteism.

Now I hope he gets away with it. But he ran his mouth and he left himself very exposed.

Unfortunately, this perspective is tainted by the condition that our legal system and popular liberal thinking has evolved into.

Should he have kept his mouth shut? Sure. Not a bright thing to do. However, if you placed this event in 1907 or 1807, there'd be no question that what he did was the right thing. The town would give him a medal and throw a fried chicken picnic in his honor.

The problem is not so much with what he did, but how we've come to view it.

[seamusTX]

This brings to mind something Chas Cotton said that I use in every CHL class I teach....

"DON'T LET YOUR MOUTH TURN A GOOD SHOOTING BAD."

Something else worth thinking about: People who go around saying things like, "I'm going to pop a cap on a scumbag," stand a good chance of saying that or worse while the recorder is running.

- Jim

[TEX]

Although I think he is covered by the law, it doesn't matter if he is indicted or not. The DA isn't going to find 12 people together that will convict him. Maybe in Austin, but not Pasadena. My own personal code is not to (generally) shoot someone over property for a number for reasons, none of which has to do with "they don't deserve it", because they probably do.

There are just too many variables on something like this. Given the same situation would you be less likely to shoot if it was a couple of 14-16 years olds who had made a bad decision vs. a couple of 30 years olds who it appeared where at work exercising their chosen vocation of stealing.

I also have issues with discharging a high powered weapon in my neighborhood. At least he chose the right tool, a shotgun - effective up close, but unlikely to end up in the bedroom of a neighbor two houses down. Although I applaud his decision to get involved, he did place himself in more danger. Perhaps for a 70 year old man who may not still be directly responsible for feeding and housing a family? What if it was a younger man with a wife and kids to support. Would it not be irresponsible of him to unnecessarily place himself in harm's way?

Another thing I don't think anyone has thought of is the possibility that some DA of low caliber and devoid of honor may claim that the (your) property was recoverable because you had insurance. Not too much of a stretch for some prosecutors – I have heard of worse.

In general, IMHO, it is not the best idea to shoot someone over just property. Rightous, yes - smart, no!

TEX

[40FIVER]

I've been rather vocal in this thread. The letter that Stupid posted actually states my sentiments better than anything I have written.

I will admit that other posts have stated valid opinions and the decision to get involved in a situation that might require you to shoot is a very tough one to make. Every person will have different reasons on whether to get involved or not get involved.

However, somehow this country has got to get back to the attitudes that it used to have as brought out in the letter. I just don't know if the good old USA will ever be able to get back to that. It's a lot more complicated now than it was back then.

If I made anyone mad on previous posts, it wasn't my intent and my apologies if that happened. I stated my beliefs publicly to generate discussion on a difficult subject. But I still believe what I believe and others will believe what they believe. That's still something we can do here in America, and that is good.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I haven't seen the latest stories on this, but has it been determined whether the BG's ran towards Mr. Horn when he challenged them, or if they ran away?

If the former, I think he will easily be no-billed in spite of the unwise way he ran his mouth on the phone with 911.

If the latter, he is non much shakier ground legally, IMO, however much most of us may sympathize with him morally.

[Reloader]

If he hadn't been told by the 911 operator NOT to go outside, he might have been justified, but when he bragged to the operator he shot them, I think it may have changed to pre-meditation.

[frankie_the_yankee]

If he hadn't been told by the 911 operator NOT to go outside, he might have been justified, but when he bragged to the operator he shot them, I think it may have changed to pre-meditation.

I don't think anything the 911 operator might have told him matters one way or the other. The 911 operator is not on the scene. I do not believe he has any lawful authority to issue any kind of binding order. (Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong about this.)

To me, he had every right to go outside, and he had every right to arm himself. I may well have done the same thing in his shoes.

The crux of it is, what happened after he ordered the BG's to stop. If they ran away, I personally would not have shot them. If they ran towards him, shooting them would be much easier to justify.

Eventually, we will know what happened and we will see how this turns out.

[mr surveyor]

in my neighborhood the 911 operators are not LEO's, and I would guess that they have no more authority to make a tactical decision/command than any other citizen when it comes to an active call. They are instructed to offer advice and keep the caller on the line to maintain the flow of event related information, but not issue "orders".

just my take on it.

[DoubleActionCHL]

If they ran away, I personally would not have shot them. If they ran towards him, shooting them would be much easier to justify.

The fact that they were both shot in the chest should give us some clues as to which way they were 'running'.