Here is one for the self defense crowd

bivenator · 04-09-2009, 10:34 AM

No charges filed, we will see. Sounds like some good shooting. Gang banging is tuff in Texas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6366239.html

masraum · 04-09-2009, 10:42 AM

Excellent!

pwd72s · 04-09-2009, 11:01 AM

Prediction...this will NOT appear in the national network broadcast news...

Pazuzu · 04-09-2009, 11:05 AM

Gang banging? I must have missed that part.

I didn't miss the part where he had cleared himself of danger, and was no longer in a position to defend himself from extreme harm. He did however re-engage the enemy...

I would expect that he is charged, and the charges dropped. Naturally, the kids will be charged as well, and those will not be dropped.

Oh...what's that I hear...the cavalry is coming to hang me...

rouxroux · 04-09-2009, 11:17 AM

Some days you're the windshield, some days you're the bug. Good shootin'!!!
Gun control is the ability to hit your target.

HardDrive · 04-09-2009, 11:20 AM

There is a likelyhood that he did not need to shoot them in self defense, but good lucking finding a jury to convict him. You shoot at a man, you best be ready to welcome some return fire.

onewhippedpuppy · 04-09-2009, 11:22 AM

He did everyone a favor. I do believe that if I was shot at and had the ability to return fire, I would do so.

bivenator · 04-09-2009, 11:24 AM

Perhaps Pazuzu he was fearing for other citizens' safety and wanted to stop these persons of interest before they shot, oh lets see, maybe you.

Pazuzu · 04-09-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bivenator

Perhaps Pazuzu he was fearing for other citizens' safety and wanted to stop these persons of interest before they shot, oh lets see, maybe you.

That's fine, he made such a decision. However, he more than likely broke the laws in this state, and should be charged as such. Then the legal system can determine if his actions were warranted or not.

I don't dispute that he was shot at on a freeway, and decided that getting a weapon himself might have been the safest thing to do, what I'm concerned about is that Mr. Horn created a precedence where fat old white men can shoot at criminals and not have to deal with the legality of their actions. If those kids had not broken off the assault and put him out of danger, then I would have fully supported him killing all of them right there on I-45.

The "fat old white man" part is extrapolating from a classically crappy Chron story, just like the "gang banger" part

cmccuist · 04-09-2009, 11:29 AM

How did he "clear himself of danger"? Why did the kids shoot at him in the first place?

They may have gotten right back on the freeway, followed the truck and then finished the guy off.

12:20 in the morning and a 17 and 19 year old are shooting at a truck? Why take a chance that them exiting is the end of it?

Call 911, but if you're armed, don't let them have another crack at you. He did the right thing.

cmccuist · 04-09-2009, 11:34 AM

Also, Mr Horn cleared the way for Blacks, Hispanics and Asians to shoot at criminals as well. And he did deal with the legality of his actions. The grand jury didn't indict.

Grand jury doesn't indict vigilante

Pazuzu · 04-09-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmccuist

How did he "clear himself of danger"? Why did the kids shoot at him in the first place?

They may have gotten right back on the freeway, followed the truck and then finished the guy off.

12:20 in the morning and a 17 and 19 year old are shooting at a truck? Why take a chance that them exiting is the end of it?

Call 911, but if you're armed, don't let them have another crack at you. He did the right thing.

Please. He was on a freeway, they got off. He would have been 2 miles away before they got back on. Instead, he STOPPED, and then put himself BACK into the situation. No training anywhere would tell you to go back and put yourself in the line of fire after the enemy has broken off and left. If you think that it was legal, then what prevents someone from going to a burgler days or weeks later to kill them, stating "they might have come back to my house and burgled me again"?

I simply want the laws to be applied as they need to be. I don't want to see people going vigilante and not being charged. If the judge them decides to drop the charges, fine.

m21sniper · 04-09-2009, 11:37 AM

Rifle vs pistol rarely ends well for the guy(s) with the pistol(s).

m21sniper · 04-09-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

I simply want the laws to be applied as they need to be. I don't want to see people going vigilante and not being charged. If the judge them decides to drop the charges, fine.

I would like to see a lot more vigilantism.

The cops have OBVIOUSLY failed at controlling violence(or drugs, or guns, or anything else) utterly. Let the citizenry have a crack at it for a while. We can hardly do any worse.

Pazuzu · 04-09-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmccuist

Also, Mr Horn cleared the way for Blacks, Hispanics and Asians to shoot at criminals as well. And he did deal with the legality of his actions. The grand jury didn't indict.

Grand jury doesn't indict vigilante

He did not make it legal to shoot criminals, nor did he clear the way to shoot criminals. That's still illegal. He cleared the way (not really, you give him too much credit) to defend his home according to the laws. These are QUITE different things.

We all know he wasn't indicted, the laws were interpreted and a decision was made. However, I don't see any self defense laws coming into play here.

m21sniper · 04-09-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmccuist

Also, Mr Horn cleared the way for Blacks, Hispanics and Asians to shoot at criminals as well. And he did deal with the legality of his actions. The grand jury didn't indict.

Grand jury doesn't indict vigilante

Nice job Tex. Good shooting.

m21sniper · 04-09-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

He did not make it legal to shoot criminals, nor did he clear the way to shoot criminals. That's still illegal. He cleared the way (not really, you give him too much credit) to defend his home according to the laws. These are QUITE different things.

We all know he wasn't indicted, the laws were interpreted and a decision was made. However, I don't see any self defense laws coming into play here.

Did you read the article?

He shot burglars climbing out of his neighbors home in the back after he told 9-11 he was going to go outside and kill them. Which he then did.

And he was exonorated.

Because clearly Texans have had enuff.

Pazuzu · 04-09-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I would like to see a lot more vigilantism.

The cops have OBVIOUSLY failed at controlling violence(or drugs, or guns, or anything else) utterly. Let the citizenry have a crack at it for a while. We can hardly do any worse.

I'm sure that you're fully aware of the fact that you would last an hour if the citizens where to go vigilante in the street, right? I expect you're not the most loved person in the 'hoods, and if the citizens raise up arms against the thugs, the thugs are going to raise up twice as many arms against the citizens.

Also, look around you. Look at the people who live, work and play in your neighborhood. Do you think that even 50% of those people are in any way shape or form capable of being honorable and just vigilantes?? If you're going to give the power of life and death to the citizens, they must be honorable and just people, and that is a trait that is hard to find these days.

Pazuzu · 04-09-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Did you read the article?
.

And what does anything you said have to do with what I said?

varmint · 04-09-2009, 11:44 AM

somebody shoots at me, and i will not consider the situation over till they are a minimum of 300 yards away. 500 if i have the rifle with the scope.

the article is not particularly clear. short of a map or re-enactment i don't see much point arguing details.