You are right about that. Most people who are outraged by this are liberal whiners who think they should be able to abort at will and euthanize Grandma. I am not against the concept that you have a right to protect your property. My problem is that I think Mr. Horn was entirely too eager to kill someone. His stated intent was to kill the men, and that’s exactly what he did. He gave a farce of a warning with no time to react, then shot the men in the back.
I’ll ask anyone on this thread who blindly supports Mr. Horn: What if , despite your best efforts to train them to respect other people’s property, your 15 year old had a few beers too many one night and got involved in something like this with a couple of friends? Would you feel that Mr. Horn was justified, or would you think maybe he had gone a little too far?
I suspect that a great deal of the support for Mr. Horn on this board has as much to do with the ethnicity of the perps as it does with whether Mr. Horn’s actions were right or wrong.
The only people here who are doing anything “blindly” are those trying to find fault with Horn.
He intended to kill them? Good.
Nothing was at risk but property, and he killed them anyway? Good.
They were running away, and he killed them anyway? Good.
I don’t care if they were down on their knees crying and begging for their lives. They forfeited their right to breathe when they entered that house. Horn just made them pay the check.
The only way we’re ever going to take our country back is with a lot, ***LOT*** more of this kind of thing.
Actually, the Founders were killing people over property. They took the "property" stuff our of the Declaration and Constitution in part because it was commonly understood at the time that property was paramount.
I imagine the Founders would be gobsmacked at today's notion that "it's just stuff".
That's how the government ended up owning most of our "stuff", including our paychecks, real estate and automobiles.