The system works: Jury refuses to indict Texan for shooting 2 burglars who robbed his neighbor

Oy. I have no problem with someone taking necessary steps to defend their own life or the lives of...well, anyone else, really. (Though ideally I'd like them to do as much as possible to avoid doing anything permanent like killing the person.) Stealing someone's stuff doesn't automatically constitute such a threat.

And there's a huge difference between that and NarcissistZero's statement below:

Which is exactly the same idea as the death penalty, except minus the rule of law. So I wish people would quit arguing as if I were disputing the right to protect oneself and start actually addressing what I fucking well said, in response to what I was actually responding to.

you might take the time to notice that he's refined his statement several times over the last few posts. refined it, as it happens, into pretty much what i stated above. you're interpreting his statement in a way that pretty much no one else does, and attacking it based on that interpretation--despite the fact that the statement has been clarified to not quite mean what you apparently think it means.

yes, no kidding, it's wrong to track down someone who stole something from you and shoot them, a month after it happened; likewise, it's wrong to put someone in the chair for stealing your stuff. that's not what's being discussed. what's being discussed is the deterrent value of enabling people to shoot intruders during an intrusion.

^Bingo.

If you say so. I don't see anything "refined" or "clarified" out of that notion, merely more talking about being able to protect oneself, a right I never disputed. But hell, I'm not grumpy enough to get in someone's face about something if that wasn't what they meant by it.

In any case - I don't think that deterrence is really part of the equation here, for a couple of reasons. First of all, burglars are already mostly going to try to avoid burglarizing one's home while one is there, for the simple reason that gun or no gun, someone in the house makes things much more complicated and risky than it needs to be. This is why people are advised to have lights on timers and such, to convince the burglar that they are home even if they are not. Secondly - whether or not someone would get charged, they still have the option of shooting you dead if they have a gun in the house, so I'm not exactly seeing a huge difference in deterrent value based on the law, only the outcome for the prospective shooter. And there have been enough cases of mistaken identity that have turned into tragedies that I'd like to discourage trigger-happiness as much as possible.

i think deterrence is about as good as it's going to get, presently. nine times out of ten, if the cops show up at your place and find a dead guy with a criminal record on your living room floor, they're going to believe whatever you tell them. if you say "i thought he had a gun", well, shit, you're the only witness. so as it stands, anybody who does B&E work has to be cognizant of the fact that they could be shot and killed during any intrusion.

and while i think it does serve as a level of deterrence, i'm not sure how much of a deterrent it is. furthermore, deterrence isn't a reason i would give for recommending that someone arm themselves. it's simply an aspect of our culture, to me.

I'm not sure how much crime it stops, but it has to have some kind of effect. If tomorrow we passed legislation that either made self-defense shootings a lot harder to qualify for, or made gun ownership a lot harder or illegal altogether, I am sure it would have an effect on robbery and such. A huge effect? I don't know, no one can survey the minds of all criminals, but an effect none-the-less.

As much as I hate repeating Republican mantra, it is true that if you slowly and surely remove legal gun rights, the only people who will have and use guns are criminals. You just can't argue with that... they can do whatever they want with guns, they're criminals, and we are restricted.

I don't believe in almost completely open laws like this stupid Castle Law in Texas either though... I think Obama, despite it being a possible pander, is on the right track with respecting the 2nd Ammendment and gun ownership, but also keeping sensible restrictions in place. This sends a signal that homeowners are still armed when they want to be, and also hopefully keeps some guns out of the wrong hands.

Actually, according to Genesis Chapter 19, the residents of Sodom wanted to give the two strangers a very warm and hospitable welcome indeed but the two strangers rudely rejected this most generous offer of hospitality preferring instead to hang out with an illegal immigrant by the name of Lot.

I appreciate that you are trying to be witty with that remark but perhaps a more apposite remark would have been "Maybe Miguel shouldn't have burgled that house".

If someone chooses to break the law then they must accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The question of what is deserved does not come into it. In any society an adult must take responsibility for their own choices and to choose to break the law is to accept the risks inherent in such an undertaking.

If someone commits burglary in a locality where theft is punishable by, for example, amputation of a hand, then by committing burglary they are taking responsibility for that consequence. No guilt should fall to the state for enforcing the legal consequences of burglary.

If someone commits burglary in a locality where theft is punishable by, execution then by committing burglary they are taking responsibility for that consequence. No guilt should fall to the state for enforcing the legal consequences of burglary.

If someone commits burglary in a locality where the general public have the legal right to shot burglars then the burglar must take responsibility for the consequences even if that involves being shot and even if by being shot the burglar is accidentally killed. No guilt should fall to the shooter for exercising their statutory right to shoot burglars.

However, since Horn stated to the 911 operator that he intended not merely to shoot the burglars but that it was his intention to kill them, then his actions seem to me to amount to a premeditated killing. While Texan law may grant permission to the general public to shoot burglars, I find it doubtful that the law grants permission to perform premeditated killings of burglars. Then again I am not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to Texan law so correct me if I am wrong.

Hence, it seems to me that had the burglars been shot or even killed by someone who was shooting at them but who was not attempting to kill them, then the responsibility for the consequences would lie solely with the burglar. If as seems likely Horn shot the burglars with the deliberate intention of killing them, then the responsibility for the consequences should fall to him.

Hence, I find it rather difficult to comprehend the decision of the grand jury in this case.

+ 1 million

Seriously, I am tired of his xenophobic douchebaggery

I know. I know. You'd think God would have taught those incognito angels not to allow Lot to reject offerings of sweet, sweet anal rape, on their behalf.

If you knew texas it would make perfect sense.

You are failing to take into account the possibility that the law is wrong. If, for example, one were to perform anal intercourse with one's (legally adult) partner in private in a state that still has anti-sodomy laws on the book, one would, I suppose, be in some limited way responsible for the consequences if that law were enforced. But plenty of guilt most certainly ought to accrue to anyone that participates in that enforcement, because there's no good reason for that law to exist.