Not your best work, nimh. Odd that you would take what I write so far out of context in an attempt to prove your point. Maybe you just missed that most of what you quoted came in response to Deb's:
Deb wrote: Had the deceased attempted to enter his home, you might have a point.
Treespassing is likely not properly punished by death, either.
This is what I had responded to.
Your selective reading is rather out of character as well.
nimh wrote:Moreover, you can read this in the transcript. He never once said anything, not a word, about feeling that either he, his family, or his house was being threatened. He never once uttered a word of fear.
Really?
The transcript writer wrote: "Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."
Shortly after, Horn said he sees one suspect was standing in front of his house, looking at it from the street.
"I don't know if they're armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."
That sounds like the rambling of a scared man to me. Sure he wants to be tough and righteous, and probably likes Charley Bronson a bit too much; but that doesn't mean he isn't scared and it sure doesn't prove intent to murder.
You too are making a logical leap to judge the intent by the result.
Let's look at the actual evidence here.
1. Joe called the cops when he saw a crime being committed against his neighbor= The right thing to do.
2. Joe was very agitated by the idea of someone getting away with crime in his neighborhood= Reasonable.
3. Joe chose to go outside of his home, presumably to stop the thieves in their tracks, as evidenced by his command to do so.= Reasonable? At this point, no one has been shot. We know Joe wanted to stop those crooks, but we DON"T KNOW if Joe wanted to kill those crooks. We do know he was prepared to fire if he thought it necessary. (Considering they were obviously criminals and they were on his property at this point, I believe his actions thus far are
reasonable under Texas Law.)(Not liking Texas Law, is no excuse to blame Joe).
4. If the plain-clothes cop is to be believed; Joe emerged from his house to find two criminals,
on his property carrying his neighbor's belongings. Joe found this unacceptable.= Reasonable
5. Joe gave a warning, "Move and you're dead". Not the best warning I've ever heard, but it was clearly a warning.= Reasonable?
6. One of the two criminals, on Joe's property, ran in Joe's direction, after being warned that deadly force would be used. (According to police. And: This may well be the first time Joe felt
truly threatened... but so what. He had at this point done nothing unreasonable).
7. Joe responded by quickly firing his weapon 3 times, killing both criminals. Reasonable? That's the $100,000 question, isn't it.
8. Joe went back in the house and explained what happened.
9. Joe went to the police station and cooperated fully with the investigation.
10. Only after a public outcry, was Joe accused of a crime.
Now, under Texas Law, in these United States, Joe is legally entitled to EVERY benefit of the doubt. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Joe did three questionable things that may or may not be considered criminal, right?
1. He stepped outside of his house, on his own property, to confront two criminals that had just burglarized his neighbor. Texas Law allows for the protection of yourself, your property and your
car, so this is not criminal, even if it is stupid.
2. Of the three people on Joe's property at that point; only one had a right to be there. Joe, knowing these two had just victimized his neighbor, was within his rights, under Texas Law, to level his shotgun and warn "Move and you're dead", since these criminal were now on Joe's property.
3. From Joe's perspective, the criminals then ignored his deadly warning and rushed at him! Joe instinctively defended himself by shooting them both, who were now very close to him, on his property.
Is it reasonable to feel threatened by a criminal who just robbed your neighbor, entered your property, ignored your deadly warning, and charged at you? I'd say probably. I think it absurd to be sure that it isn't,
beyond a reasonable doubt. It is entirely possible that Joe expected his warning to be heeded and then panicked when the criminal rushed at him. This is possible and reasonable and thereby not criminal under Texas Law nor the Laws of these United States.
Certainty to the contrary is simply not supported by the evidence presented here.
