Not A New "Good Neighbor" Proposal

From the story:
Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters at the courthouse. “The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances. … In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense.”

“He was afraid for his life,” Lambright [Horne’s attorney] said. "He was afraid for his safety, and then they charged him. I don’t think Joe had time to make a conscious decision. I think he only had time to react to what was going on. Short answer is, he was defending his life. "

Lambright acknowledged that the 911 dispatcher urged Horn to stay inside but said, “Joe was doing what he thought was necessary. As a man, he thought it was his duty to protect his house, his neighborhood, his community.”

If you read self-defense stories going back to the 1970s, it was common to read about people being shot/killed fleeing a burglary/robbery. While many people believe it is morally, ethically and/or legally wrong to shoot a fleeing criminal, there are probably at least as many that believe it to be justified, as these jurors did.

At what point is loss of property going to harm you and your family enough financially or in fear enough to make life difficult? What about family heirlooms or necessary equipment for survival or to remain in business. Insurance only covers just so much, and it does not protect against emotional trauma that victims often endure. My grandmother’s home was robbed several times and many items of value were family heirlooms many generations old. Obviously the insurance company could not replace them, and what is the real value of irreplaceable items?

When the justice system fails people, people are more likely to take defense of selves and property into their own hands. Why do we carry firearms for self-defense? Because we know that when self-defense is necessary, we are the real first responders. Typically, waiting for LE is not a good option when your life is in jeopardy.


Well said @Dave17 . I understand current legal climate and will comply with it. I also believe order in society will continue to crumble, unless laws are changed to justify protection of property. I don’t care if they start with burglary, shoplifting, or graffiti.


We have no policing rights once the crooks leave our property. I’ll go further and say once they are running away and you are not in danger, shooting at them and hitting them would put you at risk for arrest.
If they entered your neighbors land and threatened them with lethal force you can intervene. Otherwise call 911, then the USCCA lawyer and keep your response to the cops to minimum until you meet w your lawyer.


big mistake to chase and fire on someone running away! unless they were an immediate threat you will most likely be charged as the aggressor& portrayed as the lawbreaker. it has happened .


Wow, that guy was very fortunate to not be prosecuted.




After reading the smarmy article written by the ABC folks, it’s what should be expected from them. Their depiction fits their agenda.
When this guy confronted the crooks we only had the castle and stand your ground laws for a couple of years. The crooks probably didn’t know that extended somewhat to property protection. I’m sure this wasn’t their first rodeo, so they didn’t do their homework. They certainly paid a heavy price.
If this guy would have been indicted every crook in the state would have been emboldened to rob with impunity. I think most of us were surprised to see an urban grand jury “no bill” him. They probably saved some lives since it was only a matter of time before the crooks would confront a homeowner and that would not end well.