IMHO, it is moral for the building-dweller to employ potentially deadly force to prevent his home from being burgled, within reason. And the neighbor was apparenlty a close friend of the building-dweller; so (again, IMHO) the neighbor was acting in the interests of his friend.

Here’s the big caveat to go with this, thouhg; if the building-dweller had acted in the manner that the neighbor did, I would be just as concerned about his judgement and the “righteousness” of the shoot.

That said, if this definitely was a self-defense situation, in that he told the burglars not to move, and they started moving towards him, well, hell, I would probably shoot them too. But in a situation like that, was he sure they were moving towards him? Did they just jump because they heard someone behind them? Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but at the time, those kinds of decisions can be difficult.

In this particular case, the tape is damning… Way too easy to get something beyond “basic self defense” out of it when he was saying crazy things like that. I was not there, and we probably do not have access to most of the evidence on this event, but I am definitely leaning towards the side of legal and moral murderer.

‘Course, for future reference, it might be something of a tossup as to whether or not you stay on the line with the 911 operator once you made your report… Or we all just make a note to mind what we say (valid advice juse about anywhere, these days, what with more and more recording features available to Big Br… er… the government).

I’m just not sold on pepper spray as an effective LTL weapon – primarily due to it’s disturbing habit of affecting everyone nearby, and secondarily because I know people who can “shake it off” (knew in college, anyway).

As for hand-to-hand as force, not deadly; I don’t think I can exactly subscribe to that, either. It’s less-than-lethal, true, but at the same level as say, rock salt or a beanbag round. I’m not sure there is *any* level of force that is both effective in almost all cases, safe to the wielder, and reliably non-lethal.

While philosophically I’d love to have such a beast, right now I don’t think we have have anything between harsh language and potentially lethal. The directed energy weapons they’re trying out now might be, but they’re not exactly man-portable yet, either. There’s a case of needing better battery tech. Also, the ones I’ve seen are more intended to drive off the target than to incapacitate for any longer than the beam is on-target.

The question will be whether it was reasonable for Horn to fear the men and whether his earlier threats on the 911 call showed he planned to kill them no matter what, said Fred C. Moss, who teaches criminal law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

“That’s what makes it so hard and that’s why we have juries,” Moss said.

Pretty much. A lot of “community activists” are wondering why he’s been allowed to go free. Perhaps that’s because he’s an innocent man. People too often forget that whole bit about innocent until proven guilty.

But I can see your point on LTL loads still being potentially lethal.

I guess I’d rather kill someone deliberately through misapprehension of circumstances than accidentally because of a LTL round that turned out to be lethal after all.

Much better to not have to shoot, though (as the vast majority of defensive firearms uses end up being).

I think LTL rounds are bad news, because LTL rounds have the potential to be lethal. I wouldn’t use them. Pepper spray is a reasonable non-lethal alternative to a firearm.

Anyone heard of that?

Also, since it was a shotgun… Any thoughts about having the first one in the tube be a less-than-lethal round? (Rock-salt, beanbag, birdshot, etc)? Obviously, it’d have to be pump or break, since IIRC most less-than-lethal loads won’t cycle a semi.

Two on one, there’s a force disparity issue, so weapons or not may not be an issue. Two men can kill a third easily without weapons.