Geez Gary, you have a knack for misinterpretation.
No argument from me on the legality of what Horn did. As you correctly point out, his peers refused to file charges.
What I'm suggesting is that within the context of this case as described in the media reports, Horn was absolutely morally in the wrong to shoot two fleeing suspects IN THE BACK, particularly (as scrivener points out) because he was secure in his own dwelling away from imminent threat, his neighbors' lives were not in danger, LEO's were summoned and were on scene, and the 911 dispatcher warned him repeatedly not to get involved.
Whether a woman or a man runs around town topless has no bearing. That's social mores, customs, or conventions, not right and wrong. It's wrong to shoot unarmed people in the back.
I guess I am mistaken to think that it is absolutely wrong to shoot unarmed people in the back. Too bad. I thought we were upright citizens here.
Looking at it another way, Horn chose to go on the offensive here. He loaded up his shotgun and decided to launch a counterattack. I guess I view my responsibility as a lawful owner of firearms as primarly defensive. If the perps were on Horn's property I can see it from your perspective a little better. Heck, I'd be amped up and scared as hell if I found two goons in my backyard. I'd have no problem using a firearm to protect myself or my family if the goons were on my property and were posing a real threat, but I wouldn't go chasing after them guns a-blazing while they tried to flee. For one thing, I can't be sure of my background if I'm chasing after someone.
I know it's not as simple as offense versus defense. But the sequence of events (assuming the audio was not spliced together leaving salient points out) makes it clear in my mind that Horn, ignoring pleas to the contrary, took the offensive, left the security of his home, and found trouble. I think he went too far. I think he was wrong.
It also occurs to me that my own sarcasm is in response to the arrogance I perceive in your posts.
No argument from me on the legality of what Horn did. As you correctly point out, his peers refused to file charges.
What I'm suggesting is that within the context of this case as described in the media reports, Horn was absolutely morally in the wrong to shoot two fleeing suspects IN THE BACK, particularly (as scrivener points out) because he was secure in his own dwelling away from imminent threat, his neighbors' lives were not in danger, LEO's were summoned and were on scene, and the 911 dispatcher warned him repeatedly not to get involved.
Whether a woman or a man runs around town topless has no bearing. That's social mores, customs, or conventions, not right and wrong. It's wrong to shoot unarmed people in the back.
I guess I am mistaken to think that it is absolutely wrong to shoot unarmed people in the back. Too bad. I thought we were upright citizens here.
Looking at it another way, Horn chose to go on the offensive here. He loaded up his shotgun and decided to launch a counterattack. I guess I view my responsibility as a lawful owner of firearms as primarly defensive. If the perps were on Horn's property I can see it from your perspective a little better. Heck, I'd be amped up and scared as hell if I found two goons in my backyard. I'd have no problem using a firearm to protect myself or my family if the goons were on my property and were posing a real threat, but I wouldn't go chasing after them guns a-blazing while they tried to flee. For one thing, I can't be sure of my background if I'm chasing after someone.
I know it's not as simple as offense versus defense. But the sequence of events (assuming the audio was not spliced together leaving salient points out) makes it clear in my mind that Horn, ignoring pleas to the contrary, took the offensive, left the security of his home, and found trouble. I think he went too far. I think he was wrong.
It also occurs to me that my own sarcasm is in response to the arrogance I perceive in your posts.
Last edited: