What ever happened to that guy? I caught the original story then didn't see it anymore. Did they prosecute him? I can't imagine calling 911 before going and doing that. I would've kept my plans to myself! They said he shot the guy within 15 ft coming towards him right? PJ

The investigation is continuing, and whether charges will be filed against him, for doing a civic duty, remains to be seen.

Some people seem to be of the mind, that no matter what some one does, they shouldn't be harmed.

Yes, he was quite close, when he fired, and I dare say did so, because the criminals came towards him, but we will have to wait out the law's interpretation of justification of his actions.

In my book, he was more than justified.

FEARLESS.
I hope this Mr Reed walks. The criminals were within 15 feet. According to what I've learned in self defence 15 feet is close enough to present a threat.
The criminals were so accustomed to getting their way they thought they could do whatever,whenever even with a shot gun trained on them! IN my old neighborhood they were just as brazen because no one would stop them. Not law enforcement, not other neighbors, not laws, not common decency NOTHING. They felt entitled to just do as they pleased they were fearless and feral.
There were at least 4 attempts in 4 years to break into my California home. There were dogs in the house and outside.
Even after multiple dog attacks(screaming,dropping drugs,and I'm sure some serious blood shed) thugs continued to try to break in!!! I wouldn't have cared if the dogs had killed some of these fearless freaks. One dude walked through my front door! I didn't wait for the dogs. I started after him. (I did stop when he ran out tho. I had a toddler in the house.) Crime is increasing because there can't be enough cops to protect everyone out there. I believe in lax gun laws. If people start shooting criminals I'll bet crime will go down. That people will be safer in their homes. That the life of crime wont be as appealing anymore. It's funny. I have noticed that men are more likely to want guns for self defence when women(and their children) are the ones most likely to be attacked.PJ

Yes, it is obvious that the law is not feared. Therefore we must hope that armed citizens will be feared.

Go Rick!
J.D.

I tend to be a liberal democrat "bleeding heart", as my friend says. But I totally agree that citizens should be armed, if they so wish, just as long as you know how to use whatever you own.

As far as "vigilante justice" - I'm all for it! If someone is committing a crime, they should expect to be shot at. I got pretty good with an air gun when I lived in Red Oak.

If someone is a threat I believe you should defend yourself. One time back in 83 I was living in Diamond Hill. The street we lived on was a bit isolated from other houses and the houses on the side street had over grown brush so you could barely see them. Thanks to my dad he taught me to keep my doors locked. One evening a man run up on to our porch opening the screen door and trying to turn the knob on the door. I got the phone called 911 and grabbed the 22. I showed the man the gun to told him I was on the phone with the police and it did not faze him one bit, he still was trying to get inside. The police showed up what seemed like 10 or 15 minutes later. They took the guy and talked to him and came back to talk to me. I told them what happened and they told me that the guy was scared because he'd just been robbed and was looking for someone to help him. Now I never believed what the police told me. WHY? Cause if it was anyone else with a woman pointing a gun at you do you think anyone in their right mind would still try to get in if they were looking for help? I think not. I told the operator that if he broke in I would shoot him. I had to protect my two kids and myself.
I could not just hurt someone, they'd have to be hurting me or a loved one for me to do harm to them.
PJ, It is more women that are attacked than men. Most women fear guns me included. But you back me in the corner and I will come out fighting like most everyone would.
How many men have been raped?
Your defense is the best next thing and might be better than a gun. With a gun the person can take it away from you.
We teach our children about sex it became the most important education because of so many teens getting pregnant why not teach them how to defend themselves?

I watch alot of Court TV and such programs. I am amazed to see people that have raped, killed, tortured people (even children) that get off with 5, 10 year or such like sentences for it. Then people that do some minor thing get 15 to 20 years. Go figure.

I don't like guns either. They really make me nervous around my kids. Most of these attacks happen at close range. My weapon of choice is a knife. The only problem with a knife is it requires more training than a gun to keep it from being taken away and used on you! Sticks are good too. In self defence the best things I learned to do is anticipate what someone else is going to do and to be able to get them to flail where I want them. PJ

You could always hit them over the head with a frying pan, if you want to let them get that close, but I would rather be able to reach out and touch them with something else.

I hope the man who shot the robbers doesn't get a day's time. Not even probation. They showed one of the "victims'" family on tv. Of course it is sad to lose a loved one, or your children's father, but if he hadn't been doing what he was doing, he wouldn't have been shot.

The people being robbed and the old man who was tired of being scared and victimized were the real victims. I hope he gets off too. PJ

When I first opened your thread I agreed with you rick.

I just listened to the audio clip of Mr Horn's 911 call...

I think he was wrong now, he he should be subject to criminal charges. Premeditated. The 911 operator told him 13 times to stay in the house, police were seconds from the scene.

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" - dispatcher. "It's not worth shooting someone over this."

"I don't want to, but if I go out there to see what the hell is going on, what choice do I have?"

I am not defending the criminals in any. They were wrong, simple.

Mr. Horn went outside to kill those criminals- not to protect himself. He stated so to the dispatcher. He took the law into his own hands, I almost see this as an act of anarchy. He had total disregard to the system and bypassed it with a lethal act of vigilantism. He should be prosecuted. He referenced his rights due to Sept 11th.

Sorry to say (I can't believe it myself) I do not side with Mr. Horn

Zjoe

Disagree....he applied the law, in a personal way. That appears to be the only kind of effective law there is today.

Realize, that the legal system is run by lawyers, and they control everything. They have succeeded in making the law serve only them, and no one else.

This perversion of the law, is why the citizens are now having to return to the tactics of 200 yrs. ago, in order to control the criminals.

Let me get this straight. You think it was justified for him to step outside with the intent to kill them. He had no intention to stop the thieves, he went out there to kill them. Premeditated. Listen to the audio. He wanted to kill them because he had no self control. He is an out of control vigilante. He became so mad he acted violently, what else makes him mad? Really! We need a list, because someone else might be killed. Put him in a different scenario: He's driving and car cuts him off. He becomes so angry that he confronts the person. It becomes heated and he shoots them. This man is dangerous.

We have certain rights and limitations as civilians when it comes to applying the law - he overstepped them.

Yes, most lawyers learn the law system only to manipulate it. I met many in grad school that admitted it - not the point, though. Nice try.

Excuse me Rick, but I really take offense to your comments. Realize, that the legal system is run by lawyers, and they control everything. They have succeeded in making the law serve only them, and no one else. And Joe I don't agree with your comment either about Yes, most lawyers learn the law system only to manipulate it. I met many in grad school that admitted it - not the point, though. Nice try.

I wonder just how many lawyers you all know. Sorry guys but over the past 35 years I have worked as a paralegal, legal secretary and was a pre-law major at UH. I have known many, many attorneys from ever aspect of the law, i.e. defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, law professors, etc., and I have worked in every field of law that there is in Texas. Yes, some attorneys are real d**ks, but not the majority of them, and certainly not all of them.

Both my DH and my ex are attorneys, and I have never heard them make comments that you allude to. What they do is make sure that the client is represented in a fair manner. I've been to many trials over the years at municipal courts, county courts, district courts and federal courts. I have also served on one of the Harris County Grand Juries, so I have an understanding of the law.

Lawyers don't make the laws; the legislative makes the laws. The legislative has some members that are attorneys, but they come from all professions. Many attorneys would not have a practice if the insurance people would pay legitimate insurance claims. Often people have to hire an attorney to collect their claims.

Every profession has the "good-bad" element. Not all doctors are great, but most are. Most insurance agents are good, but not all of them. Same goes for CPA's, professors, real estate developers, and on and on!

Making such blanket statements is certainly showing a very narrow mind. I believe that your comments are what you believe, but they are far from the truth!

OK, I won't say anything else on this thread because this is a very volatile topic, but I do not appreciate such totally ridiculous and uneducated comments.

Lt- you are correct. I don't know many, 3. As I stated before, I met them in grad school and that is what mentioned from their experience - not mine. I don't have first have knowledge. I apologize for my comment. Honestly, I only mentioned it in an attemptto not to be so confrontational to Rick's post. Again, my apologies.

Zjoe

Apologies accepted! Thank you!

Thieves are thieves. They entered a home without permission, breaking into the building. They committed crimes. They violated not only the law, but all acceptable societal behavior.

A citizen has a moral obligation to stop criminals from committing crimes. It matters not, whether he intended to shoot, or not to shoot. It only matters that he attempted to stop criminals in the act of committing a crime.

When the criminals perpetrated their crime, they gave up their right to life, no differently than if confronted by police, who then shot them.

It is the same. There is no difference. A citizen should have the right to stop crime, just as much as a policeman.

In fact, the persecution of citizens, for stopping crime, is one of the main reasons we HAVE so much crime. Those who are not afraid of the criminals, have to fear the law treating them worse than the criminals.

Crime is NOT prevented by police. Police are a REACTIONARY FORCE, who simply try to catch those who have committed crimes. (Usually they try to wait until they are sure the criminals have left the premises, before responding, so they will not be in danger.)

Crime prevention, can only occur with the actions of citizens, who show zero tolerance for crime.

Criminals today, receive such light sentences from judges, that they seldom spend more than a few weeks in jail, or in the case of major crimes, a few months in jail, and then they are right back out on the street again, doing it all over again.

On top of that, the taxpayer must pay to house, feed, clothe, and provide medical care for.....scum! Talk about adding insult to injury.

I take a very hard line on criminals. I would advocate for a 3 strike and you are dead, law. I do not want to keep this scum in prison all their life, at MY EXPENSE, either. I would prefer to eliminate them from society. They were the ones who made that choice, not I.

I despise our judicial system, as a corrupt, worthless, joke on society. We pass laws on DUI, and celebreties walk away in hours, after costing the citizens thousands of dollars in legal proceedings costs, to prosecute them. What's the point????

Someone murders their husband in his sleep, and gets 7 mos. Someone kills a child, and gets out in 2 yrs.

Think about it. You have a daughter.....how would you feel if your daughter was molested, perhaps killed, by a repeat offender, who has a long history of crimes, but was released in just a few months, from jail?????

This is not an isolated case, this is the NORMAL judicial process, today.

I look at it this way......if you see a cockroach in your kitchen, do you catch it, place it in a cage, feed, water, and provide for it, or do you step on it?

Vermin are vermin.....human or otherwise.

I agree with Rick about career criminals. I know it's harsh and I can live with that. I've almost gone to jail twice for self defense (in California). One time I was out numbered and another I was grossly out sized. The people that tried to attack me were frequently in trouble with the law. To this day they do what they do and don't give a **** who gets hurt. One thing they do understand is the common folks they prey on fighting back. If they believed that serious injury or death were the consequences for thier behavior they would probably stop acting on thier psychopathic tendencies.
I got to listen to a tape made by law enforcement of one of my would be attackers. They were FURIOUS that I wasn't arrested! Despite a lengthy criminal background,being on probation for the same thing against someone else,my total lack of a criminal past, and the fact that they attacked me first. This person threatened the police with bodily harm,was verbally abusive, and couldn't BELIEVE they couldn't manipulate the system more than they already had!(I believe they should've been charged with attempted assault myself. I was walking along minding my own business when they jumped out of a car to come after me!)
I ran into this same person later. You wouldn't believe how this person acted. They started running around screaming,"Help! Help! She's gonna kill me!!!" I just stood there stunned. I finally said,"You have to swing first dumb****" and walked away. This person felt fine threatening the police but acted like I was SWAT in full riot gear. The laws are too lax. Common folk need to step up and deter crime with more lenient laws.
I know a gazillion Dr's and lawyers. I disagree with Lt Collins assertion that most are good folks. I think the good ones are far and in between but I do personally know some really great Drs and lawyers so it's not every last one. PJ

Barb - Women tend to have a better aim with a gun than most men, so I don't know why more women don't get accustomed to handling a gun. I grew up with my dad teaching me gun safety and how to shoot different types of guns. I shot a .22 pistol and rifle, shotgun and even a black powder rifle (that was a lot of fun!). But on the other hand statistics show that most murders occur with the victim's own weapons (maybe because they were too afraid or lacked the knowledge of how to use them?). I think you were right to do what you did to protect your family by keeping that intruder at bay with a gun and calling the police.