It is a very sad state of affairs in this country when your government won't lift a finger to stop a plague of violent illegal aliens, when the police will not respond promptly to the commission of an inherently dangerous felony, and when half the country votes for a political party that has done everything possible to take away citizens' best means of defense.
In Texas, what he did is legal. I don't know if I personally could do it, but I am glad that two dangerous illegal alien recidivist felons are not out breaking into others' homes.
There are so many things wrong with this set of statements, I don't know where to start.
First, burglary is not an inherently dangerous felony...it can be dangerous based upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the 911 tape, Horn specifically mentioned that he was aware that his neighbors were out of town. Apparently, the burglars were also aware of this fact too and they decided to cash in on their unavailability. This resembles a common theft more than it does a robbery. Would you consider it to be inherently dangerous if someone were to pick a lock with a paper clip, reach his arm through the door, and grab a wallet off a table? Because that's burglary too.
If these were 17 year old white high school boys who wanted to steal a few items to sell at a local pawn shop, I highly doubt that you'd be singing the same tune. Instead, you justify what occurred on the basis that it's two less illegal aliens our country has to deal with.
I'll trust the grand jury, who heard all the evidence and examined the applicable laws.
Do you really have trust for the common jury? The average jury member either (1) forms an opinion and sticks to that opinion regardless of what direction the evidence points (2) wants the same amount of evidence to find guilt that would be found in a Law & Order episode dramatizing the same incident. I think it's pretty clear that an all white jury from his locale viewed him as a hero and not a criminal and chose not to indict him on that basis.
The recorded 911 call had the following pieces of evidence for consideration:
-Horn's Statements: Horn stated throughout (1) how he "knows his rights" and was planning on shooting them if they came onto his property (2) kept repeating "I'm going to have to shoot them, I have no other choice" several minutes before they even set foot on his property (3) he described what the men were carrying, in which the only thing that could be construed as a deadly weapon was the crowbar
-Operator Statements: the operator kept telling him that they had police on the way, and specifically instructed him to go inside his house, put his gun away, and calm down
Ultimately the grand jury was faced with this LEGAL issue: "Did Horn reasonably believe that if he didn't shoot the men, he would have been exposed to substantial bodily harm?" The one burglar had a crowbar, the other had a bag of trinkets, and neither man ran towards Horn in a threatening manner. The men were not trying to run into his home to seek shelter, but were merely running on his property so as to escape from the scene of the burglary. In fact, the mere pointing of the gun in the direction of the burglars was enough to leave them running with their backs exposed to him. No reasonable person in Horn's shoes could have concluded that firing a shotgun was necessary to prevent him from substantial bodily harm.