I'm not some wild-eyed liberal, and I even have a carry permit. I grew up in Arkansas, where I hunted small game from a very young age. I also served a military tour of duty, and I still practice to keep my marksmanship at an acceptable level. But having a gun should not be an excuse to go looking for a fight. As for my reaction to all of this, I prefer the original laws, and an assailant will have to break my door down or crash through a window before I start shooting. And I might die for hesitating, but I intend to voice a warning before I pull the trigger.

"Property isn't worth killing for", says who? The crooks obviously didn't think "property isn't worth getting killed for."

"He warned them to stop...", even police officiers can't just fire their weapons willy-nilly with just a warning. They need to be in mortal danger, or mortal danger has to be presented to others. Both victims were unarmed. Does Mr. Horn have some kind of "license to kill" like James Bond?

He wasn't defending innocent PEOPLE from thugs, he was defending a TV set from thugs. I'd hate to think I can't give my brother-in-law the keys to my house to pick something up for me in, in fears of my crazy neighbor whose never seen him possibly shooting him fatally.

God bless America and Mr Horn, who will not surely
gain admission into Heaven..

He'll have a life of paranoia and worry after what he did. Anyone that does what Horn did would end up with the same set of concerns.

I'd rather just fill in a claim form and get new for old under my insurance policy than having to spend years worrying about revenge attacks for shooting unarmed men leaving a scene in the back.

Just keep in mind the burglars intentions aren't known. All we know about them is that they were desperate men, willing to commit a felony. I have female friends whose domiciles were burgled, and private things like underwear were taken. We know how well the rehabilitation system works.

To me, a person who steps on my property with felonious intent IS taking his life in his hands, since I'm not willing to take chances on his good nature to keep me and mine from harm.

This is how I choose most of my opinions. By siding against the people who never actually read anything.

The guy definitely needs to be punished, don't get me wrong. But if a few criminals think twice now, and people in the area fell safer, that can't be bad

As I understand this case, the criminals moved into HIS yard and toward him. That is when he felt threatened. There were police offers who witnessed the shooting and still there was not enough evidence to convict Mr Horn. That means under our laws he is not a murderer.

I'd be happy to have him as my neighbor.

This man was doing neither. The accepted legal route for dealing with criminals is apprehension, either through citizen's arrest (which does not cover lethal force) or by calling the authorities, which he did. This man accepted all the benefits of our society and then turned around and abandoned his responsibility to control his emotions in a situation when he was not protecting anyone's life.

I agree with many of the above posters, it does not matter if it was his stuff or his neighbor's, his moral responsibility was the same. However, that moral responsibility did not cover superseding the established justice system with the clear intent to kill, rather than stop, the criminals.

Would we be ok with this if it was a 16 year old 4.0 GPA student with no prior criminal record who was stealing money to pay for his sister's brain operation? In this admittedly unlikely scenario, the fact that the shooter overstepped his legal and moral rights would be a tragedy rather than a controversy. If this same do gooder kid had held someone up at knifepoint for the money, then deadly force would be warranted. As average citizens we are granted the right to use deadly force only to protect our safety, not to shoot fleeing criminals in the back.

The fact that it was not the 4.0 student who was killed is inconsequential because the shooter could not possibly have known who it was that he was so eager to kill.

Long story short, we cannot live in a society where the punishment for theft is death. As much as we might want to get revenge on those who steal our treasured and hard earned belongings, we value the freedom to make mistakes, and to forgive the very human errors of others. And if the justice system, congress, and the executive branch (military courts) all agree that killing to protect property, rather than safety, is unacceptable then we have no right to go above their decisions. To do otherwise is criminal.

The jury was wrong, both on moral and legal grounds.

well i did here on of the homeowners say "their just things"

from waht i remeber they where on vacation and in no harm

Dave Donelson, author of Heart of Diamonds

You don't aim to kill.