No red-blooded gun-owning here
In response to "'Move, and you're dead,'" Nov. 28: This may come as a surprise to a certain Daily Texan columnist, but millions of Texans aren't "red-blooded gun-owners" who feel obligated to kill.
Clearly, those on the right value property. They value their money and materials more than health care for children, more than due process and, apparently, more than human life. It is not a "justifiable homicide" to shoot someone in the back, even if they are fleeing from the scene of a theft. Joe Horn's life was not being threatened by a robbery occurring next door. In fact, by displaying such imprudent machismo, Horn placed himself in danger. I doubt police officers appreciate it when citizens, acting stupidly, complicate already dangerous situations.
Obviously, people have a right to protect their own lives. But the case of a "great neighbor" who killed two men on someone else's property hurts and undermines the position of responsible gun owners. We have an organized and well-trained police force in our state, and it is grotesque and uncivil for a person to believe they have the authority to act as officer and executioner. Violence does not deter crime. There are more sophisticated and effective methods to curb criminal activity and ensure security for all Texans.
Adrian E. Hernandez Sociology sophomore
An eye for an eye?
In response to "'Move, and you're dead,'" Nov. 28: Daniel Earnest seems to think that Joe Horn did nothing wrong, saying the thieves "were caught in an illegal activity and they deserved to be punished" and that "anyone who says that they would not want to live next to him [Joe Horn] is lying." Earnest does not seem to understand why a reasonable person might have a problem with Joe Horn's actions.
Two questions come to mind when I ask myself whether Joe Horn has committed a crime. First, is death a reasonable punishment for theft and breaking and entering? Not only death, but summary execution without a trial? (Even under Islamic Law, the punishment for such crimes is the amputation of a hand, and even that is considered cruel and unusual by the citizens of most democracies.) Second, was Joe Horn justified in taking on the role of apprehending officer, judge, jury and executioner in this case, when neither his property nor his life were in danger? For anyone who believes in human rights, the rule of law, the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments and/or the Sermon on the Mount, the answer should be a resounding "No!"
And no, I don't think I would want to live next to someone with such a ready willingness to kill other human beings, even if they seem to be engaged in suspicious activity. Anyone who says otherwise might change their minds the next time they find themselves locked out of their house at night.
Peter Enyeart Cell and molecular biology graduate student
This is not your "Castle"
Daniel Earnest's column, "Move and you're dead" (Nov. 28), brings to light interesting points of law. Can we kill to protect property? What about other people's property? The Texas "Castle" Law (the statute in question here) is meant to cover defense of your own property, not your neighbor's. The author of the law even says so.
Quoted in a Houston Chronicle article, State Sen. Jeff Wentworth states, "It is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action … you're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."
Joe Horn does not seem to be asserting that he was the de facto guardian of his neighbor's property, so his actions seem to be without merit. Further, Earnest goes on to say that because Horn harbored "no malice or criminal intent," this case represents justifiable homicide and should go unprosecuted. However, to lack intent one must … well, lack intent.
In the 911 tape, the operator warns Horn that he would likely be shot by the burglars if he went after them with a gun, to which Horn replies; "You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them." Horn intended to kill the intruders before going outside with a gun. As might be expected, Horn's defense counsel is asserting that there was no intent here, despite evidence to the contrary. He is claiming that the intruders came at Mr Horn, lunged at him, and only then, fearing for his life, did Horn fire at them. However, the 911 tape paints a different picture. Here, believing property and things to be of greater import than life lead to the death of two men. This case is very prosecutable and Horn should be tried for his crime.
Claire McCarthy Texas alumna
Be the first to comment on this article!