[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, just to preempt the analogyphobes, I'm not saying rape or murder = home invasion. I'm merely pointing out that protecting people from being victimized is also a legitimate reason to use force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting someone (I think) necessarily = using force
Using force != shooting someone

Right?

There's "using force" to stop your neighbor's house from being robbed, and then there "taking your shotgun and blowing the guys away who are robbing your neighbor's house". I think there's probably some distance in between these two options, and I think Horn's utilizing of the extreme end of the force spectrum is probably what most people object to. Had he went over there just to threaten the guys with his gun (in other words, "using force to protecting people from being victimized") instead of opening firing on unarmed guys, this probably isn't a notable story.

That the guy was ostensibly doing something "nice" and "admirable" by "protect his neighbors from being victimized" doesn't give him license to use the most extreme and irreversible measures of force to do it.

I agree, it's probably legitimate for people to "use force to protect their neighbors property", but that's just a vague euphemism for what occurred here, hence why you rightly recognized you should be wary of using analogies here. There's a reason why people should be hesitant to rely too heavily on analogies and it's because they often obscure vital elements necessary to cast a prudent judgment. Yes, Horn "used force", true enough -- it was a specific kind of deadly force that (in light of the fact the guys were unarmed and not threatening Horn himself) was completely unnecessary. We can claim "well, maybe he didn't know the guys were unarmed", but he'd still be guilty of some kind of gross negligence or yes, even murder, for making a mistake like that. I don't think reasonable people operate under the "shoot first, ask questions later" principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with pretty much all of this. I tried to stay general in my response because the specific details of this situation aren't really great for "my side" of the argument. I agree that this guy sounds like he was a little out of control and trigger-happy. But I wasnt there and am reticent to just call him a violent nut.

Obviously, when I mean using force, I mean using the least amount of force necessary to get the job done. If firing a warning shot would have done it (and he could have reasonably expected it to work) then he should have done that. If simply yelling at them and telling them he called 911 would have reasonably worked, that first. Going straight to shotgun blasts is PROBABLY not appropriate. Important to reassert that I wasnt there and will pretty much always give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who wasnt breaking into someones house.

I personally think its more interesting as a sort of philisophical or moral or legal argument, basically whether self-defense should apply to your property as well as your body, and another different, related issue, of whether using force to protect someones life or body can be extrapolated to cover protecting their property.