Joe Horn

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

What if this guy, or someone else in a similar situation, shot someone who was supposed to be at the house, just not known to the shooter? What if it was a family member, or a friend that wanted to get his tools back after the neighbor borrowed them? What if it was dark outside and the shooter couldn't even see who it was?

I'm thinking of all the times I've gone over to my family's house at night when they've been out of town. I'm glad my family doesn't have a psycho neighbor that fires his gun at just anyone he doesn't know that's on someone else's property!

I think judging from the tone of the 911 call...it was clear (wasn't it?) that the guys were robbing the house...and the fact that they ran from a guy wielding a shotgun was even more evident.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I think judging from the tone of the 911 call...it was clear (wasn't it?) that the guys were robbing the house...and the fact that they ran from a guy wielding a shotgun was even more evident.

But what if it wasn't clear? We're telling people to use their own discretion when determining whether it's OK to shoot at someone who's not even a threat?

Some people have said here that the guy was protecting his neighbor, but I don't see that at all. He was, at most, protecting his neighbor's "stuff" which is not enough cause in my mind to shoot someone. In other words, I'm saying the law in this case is idiotic. But I think we all probably get what really happened here - the guy was pissed off and wasn't going to let the robbers get away with anything...not on his block!

And if the guys were running away from him, all the more proof to me that he was not in any danger.

Don't get me wrong, if someone was in my house that I didn't know, they better watch out. But our laws shouldn't permit people to just shoot other people they see breaking the law.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

But what if it wasn't clear? We're telling people to use their own discretion when determining whether it's OK to shoot at someone who's not even a threat?

Some people have said here that the guy was protecting his neighbor, but I don't see that at all. He was, at most, protecting his neighbor's "stuff" which is not enough cause in my mind to shoot someone. But I think we all probably get what really happened here - the guy was pissed off and wasn't going to let the robbers get away with anything...not on his block!

And if the guys were running away from him, all the more proof to me that he was not in any danger.

Don't get me wrong, if someone was in my house that I didn't know, they better watch out. But our laws shouldn't permit people to just shoot other people they see breaking the law.

that's what I was thinking peppy...what happened was not enough grounds for him to shoot these guys.

I mean just suppose these guys were also armed and what went from a simple robbery, wound up getting him shot?

What kind of obligation was he under to watch a neighbor's (who he didn't know) property and call himself a protector?

I am sure he thought he was being the 'good' neighbor but his responsibility ended when he called 911.

I think what would be interesting to find out is the rate of burglaries in that area over an extended period of time.