s for the Joe Horn case, I'm not sure how I feel. He may have been legally in the right according to Texas law, but morally? He chose his circumstances, and he escalated the situation himself. What started as a non-violent property crime became a double homicide. I don't see anything to do with self-defense in that situation, and therefore I find it irrelevant to the matter of "Castle Doctrine."
Nice to see someone actually "gets it"
Ya see Tom, there is a subset of folks around who use a sort of "circular logic" when it comes to property crimes as they relate to the Castle Laws.
It usually goes like this : If I see someone stealing the radio out of my car, I will call 911 to send LE, but then I'm gonna go confront the thief. If he threatens me in any way, I will fire...as my life was threatened, and therefore justified. They will then claim they did not shoot to protect property, but to defend themselves.
You would be amazed at how many times we have debated that very point on these forums, and how many people feel that if you don't agree with that logic, you are somehow diminished, or have the mentality of a "victim".
I have said it before, and I will say it again, a firearm is life insurance not property insurance.
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
It would be interesting to know what the Grand Jury might have done absent the police officer's testimony that Horn had been threatened.
My guess is a nice set of orange PJ's and a very long prison sentence.