The Execution State, Not the Death Sentence State

This year, The New York Times reports, Texas accounted for 62 percent of the country's executions. But contrary to the state's reputation, it is not especially likely to impose death sentences. It is just more likely than other states to carry them out:

According to a 2004 study by three professors of law and statistics at Cornell published in The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Texas prosecutors and juries were no more apt to seek and impose death sentences than those in the rest of the country.

"Texas' reputation as a death-prone state should rest on its many murders and on its willingness to execute death-sentenced inmates," the authors of the study, Theodore Eisenberg, John H. Blume and Martin T. Wells, wrote. "It should not rest on the false belief that Texas has a high rate of sentencing convicted murderers to death."

Comments

Madeline Albright | December 26, 2007, 12:04pm | #

"What’s the point of having this superb death penalty you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?"

Brian Sorgatz | December 26, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Is this supposed to give me a better impression than before of the Texas criminal justice system?

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 12:22pm | #

Texas' reputation as a death-prone state should rest on its many murders

I think the state tourism bureau has found its new motto!

Warty | December 26, 2007, 12:32pm | #

No Country for Old Men agrees. Death-prone state, indeed.

el profesor erótico | December 26, 2007, 12:38pm | #

Murders are attempted in Texas at just below the national average; it's just that our killers are much more effective.

I attribute this to better marksmanship and weaker victims.

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 12:43pm | #

More possibilities:

"Texas: come here for the humidity. Stay here for your funeral."

"Texas: taking state pride way too seriously since whenever the hell we were admitted into the Union."

"Texas: now with air conditioning!"

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 12:46pm | #

"Texas: I once dated a guy who was born there."

de stijl | December 26, 2007, 12:47pm | #

Everything's deathier in Texas.

Don't mess with Texas or we'll kill you.

Timothy | December 26, 2007, 12:47pm | #

Jennifer: Those are great!

Texas: We hate Mexicans but love their food!

Texas: Our white people live in fear!

Texas: WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 12:51pm | #

"Texas: our big hats are NOT meant to compensate for other shortcomings, and if you say they do we'll kick your ass."

Edward | December 26, 2007, 12:51pm | #

I can think of one candidate from Texas who's gonna die, electorally speaking. But go ahead and send him money anyway.

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 12:53pm | #

"Texas: the inspiration for Hit and Run's most prolific trolls!"

Lamar | December 26, 2007, 12:54pm | #

Texas: You'll get the DNA to exonerate me when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Russell | December 26, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Our nation is great enough to accommodate time zones reckoned in centuries as well as hours. The Texas Time Warp being the largest and deepest,its courts best demonstrate how inquisitional logic can prosper indefinitely in synergy with a strong secular arm.

smartass sob | December 26, 2007, 1:04pm | #

Texas: If you can't do the time for the crime, we'll execute your worthless ass - well we might when we get around to it in ten or twenty years.



ps: The big hats are for deflecting all the bullshit that gets thrown at us.

Eryk Boston | December 26, 2007, 1:04pm | #

"Murders are attempted in Texas at just below the national average; it's just that our killers are much more effective.

I attribute this to better marksmanship and weaker victims."


...or, perhaps, it may be your lousy emergency rooms.

Warty | December 26, 2007, 1:08pm | #

The thing I love most about Texas is that everything in Texas is shaped like Texas. Texas-shaped belt buckles, grills, earrings, etc. I hope they have a Texas-shaped electric chair.

ed | December 26, 2007, 1:08pm | #

Texas: Where any white woman can become Miss America!

sage | December 26, 2007, 1:13pm | #

Texas: It's like a whole other state.




Sorry.

The Ghost of Texas Future | December 26, 2007, 1:13pm | #

Lamar wins. On principle. I in practice. Mwah-hah-hah!

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter | December 26, 2007, 1:19pm | #

I lived in San Antonio for a relatively short period of time. I was in the Air Force and went through both basic training and tech school at Lackland Air Force Base. The town itself I liked. It reminded me (Texans, forgive me if this offends you but I mean it as a compliment) it reminded me of San Francisco with a Texas accent. It was quite beautiful and had the best food I ever put in my mouth. The River Walk helped keep me sane when I was on break during Tech School. I must admit that I have never been anywhere in Texas outside of the greater San Antonio metropolitan area but that part of it at least, I cannot speak a single word against.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 1:23pm | #

There is a recent story out of Texas that HnR really should have blogged, but hasn't.* Short version of the story:

Two undocumented immigrants from Columbria break into a house and are making off with loot. Next door neighbors calls 911, says he will shoot the burglars, is told by the 911 operator not to shoot the burglars, tells the operator that he is going to shoot the burglars anyway and proceeds to shoot the burglars to death. Police show up and decline to arrest. It is not clear whether any criminal charges will be brought against the killer.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/us/23texas.html?em&ex=1198558800&en=8fd40a9a62c46725&ei=5087%0A

Also, the tape of the 911 call is available on the Nets and worth hearing.

On the one hand, you can kind of see why HnR hasn't found this blogworthy, what with: (i) the bad light it casts on undocumented immigrants; and (ii) HnR's Texas correspondent having taken the position that people won't casually shoot other people just because guns are easily accessible. However, these are also exactly the resons that HnR should have reported this interesting story.* So they can explain to the gunnuts why what Joe Horn did was okay. So the gunnuts will have a response when this item comes up in chit-chat.

FOOTNOTE:

* Correct me if I am wrong on this. Also, I don't follow that Chas. Oliver thing if they still do that.

grylliade | December 26, 2007, 1:24pm | #

I can think of one candidate from Texas who's gonna die, electorally speaking. But go ahead and send him money anyway.

k thx bye

Lamar | December 26, 2007, 1:26pm | #

Who needs to be told why Joe Horn was justified in doing what he did? He was protecting the property of his neighbors, which is allowed under Texas law. Perhaps you would loosen up on the stupid racial angle if you knew that the neighbors Horn was protecting are Vietnamese.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 1:37pm | #

"So they can explain to the gunnuts why what Joe Horn did was okay. So the gunnuts will have a response when this item comes up in chit-chat."

I find it interesting that people who support the second amendment are often called "gunnuts" while people who support any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are not given a label with the suffix "nuts". For the record I do not currently own a firearm. Perhaps I should buy one though as it looks more and more like I may need one to defend my rights from an increasingly oppressive government. If I do buy one, I will make sure I buy at least one via the black-market or other unofficial channel. That way if the ant-gun crowd successful passes a gun ban I will still have at least one gun with which I can defend the few rights I will have left.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 1:40pm | #

He was protecting the property of his neighbors, which is allowed under Texas law.

Yeah, I shouldn't have cited the Times article. They do play up the race thing waaay too much. I guess my angle is that Horn did not have sufficient reason to know they were burglars when he shot them. You really need to be surer than he was when shooting fleeing people in the back with a shotgun. The fact that this guy is not being charged reflects badly on gunnuts and on Texas, even though they did turn out to be burglars here.

also: I think the relevant Texas law requires that the neighbors told you to guard the property ahead of time. If so, they may be able to convice the Souphanousinphones to perjure themselves here. Still, next time it is going to be a window repairman or somebody else with permission. Bad law. Bad police work.

Lamar | December 26, 2007, 1:43pm | #

"I find it interesting that people who support the second amendment are often called 'gunnuts' while people who support any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are not given a label with the suffix 'nuts'."

I thought that's what "wingnuts" referred to. BTW: Joe Horn seems to have lucked out. If the "robbers" were actually, say, the cousins of the neighbors and were, say, playing a practical joke, then Horn would be (and should be) screwed.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 1:44pm | #

support the second amendment are often called "gunnuts"

I support the second amendment. I don't think everybody who supports the second amendment is a gunnut. Not even every second amendment supporter who would have us read the word "well-regulated" out of the amendment is a gunnut. The kind of people who support Joe Horn are gunnuts though. The kind of people who are likely to use the 2d amendment, than any of the other BOR amendments, as a litmus test for a judicial / political candidate are gunnuts. The people who would deny that they understand the concept of "gunnuts" are gunnuts.

smartass sob | December 26, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Joe Horn's case hasn't come before the Grand Jury yet, I believe - although it probably will. He's gonna be in a whole lot of trouble when it does.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 1:44pm | #

"Still, next time it is going to be a window repairman or somebody else with permission."

Unless you were actually there (please tell us if you were) you do not know all of the sensory information that this person had before he made the decision he did. Whatever information he had, it guided him well enough to make a correct decision. We have no reason to believe he would have made the same decision if it was a widow repairman, a cleaning person or someone else with permission.

jimmydageek | December 26, 2007, 1:47pm | #

The fact that this guy is not being charged reflects badly on gunnuts and on Texas, even though they did turn out to be burglars here.

The fact that the guy has not YET been charged, pending a grand jury hearing, does not reflect badly on anyone. That's how cases like this should be handled. If it's then found that he committed a crime he will be charged accordingly. What's wrong with that?

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 1:47pm | #

Unless you were actually there (please tell us if you were) you do not know all of the sensory information that this person had before he made the decision he did.

I listened to the 911 call. I would recommend that you do the same. Really Reason should put the thing on ReasonTV. I can't believe they are making me do their job for them here!

Plant Immigratuion RIghts Supporter | December 26, 2007, 1:51pm | #

“The kind of people who support Joe Horn are gunnuts though.”

So even though I do not own a firearm I am a gunnut. Interesting.

“The kind of people who are likely to use the 2d amendment, than any of the other BOR amendments, as a litmus test for a judicial / political candidate are gunnuts.”

The reason some people are more likely to use the 2nd Amendment as a litmus test than other BOR amendments is because that is one amendment that is ignored by a higher percentage of judges and congress-critters than any of the others. Although, I must admit that the signers of the McCain-Feingold bill did blatantly violate the 1st. BTW, I am no fan of McCain and that is one reason.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 1:52pm | #

That's how cases like this should be handled.

No, usually in the case of a shooting, there is an arrest and a bail hearing and timely, sworn witness statements (eg, from the neighbors). Unless you are Dick Cheney, I suppose . . .

What is more, this guy disobeyed direct orders from the police not to shoot (lissen to the 911 call). That kind of disobedience generally results in bail being denied. The idea is that if you don't follow police instructions, then you won't follow the court's instructions.

PLant Immigration RIghts Supporter | December 26, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Amendum to my above post: the 10th Amendment is also ignored by almost all congresscritters and judges.

smartass sob | December 26, 2007, 1:54pm | #

"Texas: our big hats are NOT meant to compensate for other shortcomings, and if you say they do we'll kick your ass."

Yeah, with our size twelve boots. ;-)

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 1:56pm | #

"I listened to the 911 call. I would recommend that you do the same. Really Reason should put the thing on ReasonTV. I can't believe they are making me do their job for them here!"

Are 911 calls now via videophone! Wow! Also, a phone conversation will miss a great deal of audio as well.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Amendum to my above post: the 10th Amendment is also ignored by almost all congresscritters and judges.

Yup. My Con Law prof (now a high level judge, I believe) heartily endorsed the Supreme Court's idea that the 10th amendment was a tautology. I counterargued after class that even the statement "A Is A" implies that A exists and exists to a meaningful extent. I am sure that he thought I was a States Rights Nut. I am, and dang proud of it!

jimmydageek | December 26, 2007, 1:56pm | #

No, usually in the case of a shooting, there is an arrest and a bail hearing and timely, sworn witness statements (eg, from the neighbors). Unless you are Dick Cheney, I suppose . . .

I said this is how these types of cases SHOULD be handled, not how they USUALLY are handled. Do you understand the difference? Or, are you saying that any case involving any shooting, including self defense, should result in immediate arrests?

robc | December 26, 2007, 2:04pm | #

My litmus test is the 3rd amendment. I guess that makes me a quarternut.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Madeline Albright | December 26, 2007, 12:04pm | #

"What’s the point of having this superb death penalty you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?"

All right, I know this is threadjack, but I see that someone has once again completely misunderstood that famous Albright quote, and it's a pet peeve of mine.

You see that verb in that sentence? "CAN'T?" You see how it isn't "WON'T?"

When Albright got into that argument with Powell, he was talking about how it was a bad idea to use the military in Kosovo, and she wasn't making a point about the purpose of having a military to be to go to war.

He was explaining to her that the United States Army was incapable of putting a force together to deploy to Kosovo in less than six months. Literally, not able to carry out the deployment. Powell was explaining that ground troops would need to be defended by helicopters, and the helicopters could only be stationed if they were defended by Abrams tanks, and it would take at least six months to get the Abrams and their supporting equipment to the theater.

People keep using that quote as if it was a paraphrase of "There's no point in having an army if you won't go to war." It wasn't. It was a paraphrase of, "We spent trillions of dollars on this army, and it can't do the job it was supposed to do?"

It's a statement about the physical capabilities of the military, not a philosophical statement about when to use force. Powell dishonestly mis-caste the statement to mislead his readers.

All right, then. Carry on.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Or, are you saying that any case involving any shooting, including self defense, should result in immediate arrests?

Not neccessarily all. However, ones where a fleeing, unarmed, dead victim result generally should result in an arrest, even if charges aren't deemed appropriate in due course. That is especially true in this case in light of what was said during the 911 call.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Oops,

"When Albright got into that argument with Powell, he WASN'T talking about how it was a bad idea..."

Madeline Albright | December 26, 2007, 2:11pm | #

. . . not a philosophical statement about when to use force.

I burned those kids in order to save them. What is the point of having a flamethrower, etc., etc. Whatevs, joe.

robc | December 26, 2007, 2:12pm | #

joe,

So, instead of Albright being a warmonger, she is an idiot. Good to know.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Grownups recognize that it is a problem to spend a trillion dollars on something that doesn't work.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:13pm | #

"Whatevs, Joe."

Grownups also care about whether the things that say are true or not.

Hillary Clinton | December 26, 2007, 2:14pm | #

What is the point of being First Lady if you can't tell the President what to do?

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Personally, I think there is rather significant difference between a Secretary of State who thinks that the presence of a big military is a reason to start a war, and one who does not think that.

Frankly, anybody who claims to be against war but doesn't think this is a meaningful difference is full of shit.

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter | December 26, 2007, 2:18pm | #

"Grownups recognize that it is a problem to spend a trillion dollars on something that doesn't work."

Grownups also recognize that just because you spend a trillion dollars on an effective way to kill people does not mean that you should kill people. If it would be immoral for IBM or McDonalds to do something it is also immoral for the United States Government to do it.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 2:19pm | #

Grownups also care about whether the things that say are true or not.

Depends on what your definition of "true" is.

de stijl | December 26, 2007, 2:20pm | #

I confused. Why did Powell argue that you need tanks to defend a helicopter deployment? Can't you do that with aviation assets? Was he putting his US Army cap on or was he not so subtly trying to influence policy?

The Wine Commonsewer | December 26, 2007, 2:21pm | #

Stopn me if you've heard it before. Nah, screw it.

Texas ain't so tough, they paroled William Suff ten years into a 70 year sentence for beating his baby to death. Good behavior. Then he came to my town and killed a truckload of women.

Got damn good thing Texas is so tough on criminals.

Oh and since today is Kick Texas Around Day allow me to add that The Best Thing Out of Texas is I-40.

Thanks, I'm here all week.

robc | December 26, 2007, 2:22pm | #

joe,

Grownups recognize that it is a problem to spend a trillion dollars on something that doesn't work.

It works just fine. The military deploys slow and then kicks ass. That is how it does its job.

Little story to prove my point. In the summer of 1986 (after jr year of high school), I toured the college I would eventually attend. The Industrial Enginerring Dept gave a demo that was a slimmed down and non-secret version of a program/project they developed for the DoD. It enabled them to find minimum deployment times for military action in different countries. I think the example they gave us was Korea. They walked thru pieces of it showing us some of the "problems" such as the army band could get there in days but the guys with guns took a bit longer. The program allowed them to put order to things, so that Abrams tanks would arrive before helicopters or whatever. Anyway, the point is, I knew that deployment times were slow in 1986, well before Kosovo, and Albright had access to better info than I had.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 26, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Be nice if I'd close my tags, eh?



there

Timothy | December 26, 2007, 2:23pm | #

Set {True} = 1 where DaveW is null.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:29pm | #

PIRS,

Grownups also recognize that just because you spend a trillion dollars on an effective way to kill people does not mean that you should kill people

I agree. Pretty much everybody in America agrees. As does Madeleine Albright, despite the best efforts of certain people to misrepresent what she said.

de stijl,

Powell was against getting involved in the Balkans from the beginning, so it's a safe bet that he was being dishonest. We didn't need six months and Abrams tanks in Panama, which was carried out on his watch. But he'd lost the argument about the wisdom of the policy, so he tried to invent bureaucratic roadblocks. That's my read, anyway.

robc,

I don't disagree, but it wasn't Albright calling for the Abrams. Powell set out to convince her that they were needed, so he could show that the missions couldn't be executed.

Madeline Albright | December 26, 2007, 2:30pm | #

Al Gore, the standard bearer of the Democrat Party in the 2000 election did not invent the internet.Skepticism about his wild claims
contributed to his narrow defeat in the State of Florida.

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 2:30pm | #

Wait, what does a shooting in Texas have to do with corn syrup? Were the two Columbians high on HFCS or something?

jimmydageek | December 26, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Not neccessarily all. However, ones where a fleeing, unarmed, dead victim result generally should result in an arrest, even if charges aren't deemed appropriate in due course. That is especially true in this case in light of what was said during the 911 call.

Again, you're assuming things here. Horn said he didn't know if they were armed or not. He said that they had at least a crowbar, which could be used as a weapon. He said that they had approached him on his front lawn "I had no choice, man".

Recap: Were they unarmed? Maybe, but he did see them with a crowbar, so possibly NO. Were they fleeing? A person comes at you with a crowbar, you pull a shotgun - at the same moment the attacker reassesses the situation and figures your shotgun might hurt more and turns away while you pull the trigger - I would answer NO.

Of course, I'm assuming a lot as well in the scenario above. So again, do we arrest him with the possibility that he did nothing wrong?

"It's possible that he was legally defending himself in his own yard, but let's arrest him anyway and let the courts sort it out"

Is that how you think it should be handled?

robc | December 26, 2007, 2:34pm | #

joe,

Panama and The Balkans arent really the same. One was about kidnapping one guy. The other was about, well, Im still not sure. Protecting a country or sorta weakening another or something. Stupid nation building, I think. Powell's method sounds great for the way we should fight wars on those very rare occassions we do. Take your time, load up with everything you got and crush the enemy mercilessly. A 6 month deployment and then roll over Serbia in short order would have worked just fine.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 2:36pm | #

Please allow me to resume my earlier conversation.

Dave W. wrote:
"Yup. My Con Law prof (now a high level judge, I believe) heartily endorsed the Supreme Court's idea that the 10th amendment was a tautology. I counterargued after class that even the statement "A Is A" implies that A exists and exists to a meaningful extent. I am sure that he thought I was a States Rights Nut. I am, and dang proud of it!"

I am very glad that you defend states rights. Now, if you do defend states rights, by logical extension you should also defend the right of Texas to not prohibit firearms ownership and to create its own laws surrounding their use even if the Federal government does not approve of these laws (unless a bullet crosses state lines which it did not in this case)

Guy Montag | December 26, 2007, 2:36pm | #

PIRS,

The River Walk helped keep me sane when I was on break during Tech School.

The River Walk reminded me of Gatlinburg with bigh giant troughs instead of roads.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. | December 26, 2007, 2:36pm | #

Powell was against getting involved in the Balkans from the beginning...

There is some precedent here.

George Washington | December 26, 2007, 2:38pm | #

There is some precedent here.

FF, you should check out my farewell address too.

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 2:39pm | #

Why did Powell argue that you need tanks to defend a helicopter deployment? Can't you do that with aviation assets? Was he putting his US Army cap on or was he not so subtly trying to influence policy?

I think choppers are under Army control, not Air Force. IANAMG but I think the Army probably has strict rules about deployment, and the rule probably says "NO CHOPPERS WITHOUT TANKS" or something like that. If that's the rule, then I'm not surprised he said "no can do ma'am".

The military sort of has a bureacratic mindset, if you didn't know that already.

Cara Lutetia | December 26, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter,

Check out Big Bend National Park sometime.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Guy Montag, when were you there? I was there in 2000. It might have changed.

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter | December 26, 2007, 2:44pm | #

Guy Montag, did you mean Gatlinberg TN?

Cara Lutetia | December 26, 2007, 2:44pm | #

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter,

I alos like San Antonio, BTW.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:46pm | #

robc,

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you about the military doctrine.

Powell, and the anonymous poster above, misrepresented Albright's statement, to make it look like she was making a statement about when the United States should use force, when she was saying nothing of the sort.

That's my only point here. Powell was probably right about how the military, with the equipment, organization, and doctrine it had at the time, could operate. Albright was expressing frustration that, for all the money and effort spent on building it up, it was still so slow.

A lot of people agreed with her, which is why the Stryker was developed, for example.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 2:46pm | #

Now, if you do defend states rights, by logical extension you should also defend the right of Texas to not prohibit firearms ownership and to create its own laws surrounding their use even if the Federal government does not approve of these laws (unless a bullet crosses state lines which it did not in this case)

Generally speaking, I want laws of defense of property to be made at the state level just like the Texas law is. OTOH, if I were a journalist living in Texas, I certainly would have pointed out the idiocy of the Horn case by now.

A person comes at you with a crowbar, you pull a shotgun

I think it takes a gunnut to believe that the two men with the crowbar (if they really had one) were approaching the standing in his yard with the shotgun. I also think it would take a gunnut to forgive the shooter (and the cop!)for lying about something like that.

PLant Immigration RIghts Supporter | December 26, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Cara, I just looked it up. It looks fascinating. I will have to take a trip there. Thanks for the tip.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:48pm | #

I thought San Antonio had canalwalks, not riverwalks.

Lowell has both, btw.

robc | December 26, 2007, 2:49pm | #

joe,

Im not disagreeing with you about the misrepresentation of the statement. Im just saying that the "correct" interpretation makes her an idiot. Thats my only point here.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:50pm | #

As for the Joe Horn case, you don't get to claim self-defense or defense of another when YOU grab a gun and go out of your safe, secure house to confront THEM.

Cara Lutetia | December 26, 2007, 2:52pm | #

Plant Immigration ...,

Some nice panoramic images...

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 2:53pm | #

As for the Joe Horn case, you don't get to claim self-defense or defense of another when YOU grab a gun and go out of your safe, secure house to confront THEM

He doesn't need to claim self-defense, in Texas you can shoot in defense of property as well. I would think all he has to do is present plausible evidence that he thought they were stealing, and he's good to go. Especially seeing as they were, you know, stealing.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:53pm | #

robc,

Why is she an idiot to think the military should be able to deploy faster for emergencies?

A lot of people thought that - so many that they developed the Stryker platform and the Stryker Brigade, and expanded the Special Forces.

We had an army meant to sit in Western Europe and fight off a Red Army assault. A big, slow, cumbersome army.

She was right - in the post-Cold War world, our army needs to be quicker.

Guy Montag | December 26, 2007, 2:54pm | #

PIRS,

It was close to 2000, maybe a year or so either side and yes it reminded me of that Sevier County Tennessee town.

E,

I think choppers are under Army control, not Air Force. IANAMG but I think the Army probably has strict rules about deployment, and the rule probably says "NO CHOPPERS WITHOUT TANKS" or something like that. If that's the rule, then I'm not surprised he said "no can do ma'am".

The military sort of has a bureacratic mindset, if you didn't know that already.

Depends on the helicopter, but the Air Force helicopters are mostly search and rescue. The attack, utility and heavy lift ones are mostly Army with some in the Marines and Navy.

Not sure of your 'bureacratic mindset' includes little things like, you know, securing the airfield where the aircraft park to make sure they don't get mortared from the surrounding dominant terrain, or that folks can't just walk up to them and toss grenades inside. That really falls into basic force protection and you do want the proper mix of people and weapons for that.

Nigel Watt | December 26, 2007, 2:56pm | #

A big "Fuck all y'all" from this Texan.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:56pm | #

Episiarch,

No, in Texas you can defend YOUR property rather than retreat. This wasn't his property, nor even his current location. The Castle Doctrine is about not letting people drive you off your own property. You can't shoot a guy if you see him pick somebody's pocket, even in Texas. So that's one problem.

Second, he didn't defend, he attacked. He went after them.

de stijl | December 26, 2007, 2:57pm | #

A person comes at you with a crowbar, you pull a shotgun

Just like a Columbian to bring a crowbar to a gunfight.

joe | December 26, 2007, 2:57pm | #

Even the Fuck Y'alls are bigger in Texas.

SIV | December 26, 2007, 2:58pm | #

Why the Joe Horn threadjack?

I'll bite. The 911 tape indicated the operator/dispatcher told him not to go outside for his own safety. He was under no obligation to follow any instruction/order from this person.
One or both of the perpetrators was reportedly shot from a distance of less than 7 feet. Considering age and physical condition of all parties involved this suggests the perps approached Mr Horn initially. If I was his neighbor I would thank him.

Guy PIRS,


The River Walk reminded me of Gatlinburg with bigh giant troughs instead of roads.

I was there last month and the Gatlinburg comparison was my first and lasting impression.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 2:58pm | #

My understanding of the Texas law is that it allows defense of property. At least according to the Cop Talk board, it allowed defense of property at night at first and was recently expanded to allow defense of property in the day. Whatever the law said, we are talking about specific (and recent) statutes here, and not the commonlaw.

A couple interesting issues are raised. One is whether it is a good idea to allow deadly force to protect property at all. Another is how far this prerogative to use deadly force extends both in geography and time. If I see a guy with a stolen watch and I know that the true owner lives in the same Texas city as me, then can I shoot the guy dead to get the watch back.

Sadly, I don't think we will get to these issues above the fold. Mr. Sullum is under the misimpression that just because guns are easily accessible does not mean that ppl will slide into using them too casually. I am pretty sure the Horn case is in the I-Can't-see-you zone as far as hims is concerned.

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 2:59pm | #

I hope Joe Horn is acquitted, and if I ever have to move to Texas I want to buy the house next door to his.

jimmydageek | December 26, 2007, 3:00pm | #

I think it takes a gunnut to believe that the two men with the crowbar (if they really had one) were approaching the standing in his yard with the shotgun. I also think it would take a gunnut to forgive the shooter (and the cop!)for lying about something like that.

1. I'm not a "gunnut". I don't own a gun, nor do I plan on buying one in the near future.
2. You don't know the facts of the case, and neither do I.
3. I don't forgive the shooter or the cops for anything.
4. I also don't jump to conclusions regarding guilt or innocence in this case.
5. You do.
6. Regarding 4 - that's the grand jury's duty to sort this out and (probably) charge Mr. Horn with something.

And, joe, I don't disagree with that at all. He should have stayed in the safety of his house. However, was it a crime for him to go outside of his house into his yard? no. With a shotgun? no. Do we know exactly what transpired in the yard afterwards? no. Regarding DW's comment - should the guy be arrested? no (at least not yet).

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Don't get pissy, Guy. First of all, do you deny that the military is very bureacratic? Secondly, my comment referred to the fact that rules in the military are supposed to be followed (for instance, for the reasons you cited) and Powell couldn't break them just to get stuff someplace faster.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Thanks Cara! I really want to go!

Of all of the functions of the Federal Government the national parks are one of three functions I consider to be benevolent. They preserve natural beauty, they do not have the inherent ability to point guns at people and no one is forced to go there. I wish I could earmark where my federal tax dollars went. I would send it there, to NASA and the Library of Congress.

Guy Montag | December 26, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Joe Horn? In my book, if he thought the thieves were armed and he blew them away that is self defense enough for me. I wish TN and VA would change their laws to that standard instead of my having to inform my attackers that they are "scaring me to death" and aske them to leave me alone.

Even if they are breaking into my vehicle on my property in front of me I must let them be unless they threaten my life. The threat of a bloody nose is not enough to shoot them.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Guy Montag,

Given the military capabilities of the Serbs, the air power available to the coalition, and the capabilities of even plain old American infantry, I have to say that Powell's insistence that Abrams tanks, and only Abrams tanks, could provide adequate security for the bases looks a lot like either bureaucratic by-the-bookism, or a deliberate attempt by a uniformed military commander to mislead the civilian leadership in order to win a policy fight.

Guy Montag | December 26, 2007, 3:02pm | #

E,

I am not the one getting pissy and yes, they can be quite bureacratic, especially in the office building where I work.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Nigel Watt, I have nothing at all against Texas. I liked what I saw of Texas. I liked the people I met there.

robc | December 26, 2007, 3:03pm | #

joe,

I cant think of a situation where we need to be able to fight a war in under 6 months. Hell, it will take that long to get congress to pass a declaration of war, unless we have a Pearl Harbor type event. Even then, it took us forever to get up and running in Europe.

In most "emergencies", marines and special forces are what is needed. If your goal is to crush an enemy army, patience is a virtue.

She was an idiot for thinking we had the capability. Even the Stryker needs outside support when it is going up against heavily armored units. We didnt spend trillions to be able to respond fast, we spent trillions to guarantee we can defeat any military willing to meet us in the field of battle.

thoreau | December 26, 2007, 3:04pm | #

Jennifer-

I don't know enough about the facts of the case and the Texas laws to know whether he violated any laws. Nor do I know enough about the facts to judge whether there should or should not be a law against what he did.

But I do know enough to say that he's an idiot with a gun, and I wouldn't want to live next door to an idiot with a gun.

Not every act of stupidity should be illegal, but that doesn't mean I want to live next door to the people who do those acts of stupidity.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:05pm | #

jimmydageek,

I will allow how it's tough case, but if you pick a fight with a stranger - you throw the first punch - and you end up killing him in "self-defense," you carry at least some of the responsibility.

Nobody had to die here. People should not go looking for lethal confrontations.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:06pm | #

I hope Joe Horn is acquitted, and if I ever have to move to Texas I want to buy the house next door to his.

You must be really careful with your keys!

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:06pm | #

And spare me the justifications for why these two deserved to die.

We've got judges and juries to make that decision.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:08pm | #

Nor do I know enough about the facts to judge whether there should or should not be a law against what he did.

Let me help, T.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 3:10pm | #

But I do know enough to say that he's an idiot with a gun, and I wouldn't want to live next door to an idiot with a gun.

I like the idea of living next door to someone neighborly enough to keep an eye on my house for me when I'm not there. And returning from vacation to find the chalk outlines where a dead thief once lay beats the hell out of returning to find my house emptied and my life's possessions gone.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:10pm | #

robc,

I cant think of a situation where we need to be able to fight a war in under 6 months.

Kosovo. If we were going to stop the ethnic cleansing, we couldn't wait half a year.

We didnt spend trillions to be able to respond fast, we spent trillions to guarantee we can defeat any military willing to meet us in the field of battle.

Defeating main-force militaries willing to meet us on the field of battle is not the extent of the actions our military may be called on to perform. There needs to be something in between Operation Overlord and a helicopter full of SEALs.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:10pm | #

“And spare me the justifications for why these two deserved to die.

"We've got judges and juries to make that decision.”

OK Joe, suppose you were picked to be on his jury. Knowing what you know now (I know facts would come out in the trial we do not have now) but knowing what you know now how would you vote and why?

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 3:11pm | #

Nobody had to die here.

True. The theives could've gone out looking for honest work instead. Too bad. If reincarnation is real, maybe the lesson they learned at the end of this life will carry over into their next one.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:12pm | #

Jennifer,

I think the point is that a guy this dumb and irresponsible can't be counted on to only create chalk outlines of "evildoers."

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:12pm | #

. . . where a dead thief once lay . . .

should statutory rapists get the death penalty too?

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:13pm | #

PIRS,

What jury? What trial?

I would not have sentenced the two burglars to death. Probably a multi-decade prison term. Burglary at night is some bad business, but it's not a capital offense by itself.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:13pm | #

"True. The theives could've gone out looking for honest work instead. Too bad. If reincarnation is real, maybe the lesson they learned at the end of this life will carry over into their next one."

Great answer Jennifer! They were the first ones to initiate force against another person.

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:14pm | #

joe:

If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role." (Link here)

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 3:15pm | #

I think the point is that a guy this dumb and irresponsible can't be counted on to only create chalk outlines of "evildoers."

I find nothing dumb or irresponsible about protecting your neighbor's property from a thief when your neighbor's not around to do it himself. I find it admirable.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:15pm | #

There are many in this world who deserve life, Jennifer Baggins, and many who deserve death. Will you give it to them?

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 3:16pm | #

I would not have sentenced the two burglars to death. Probably a multi-decade prison term. Burglary at night is some bad business, but it's not a capital offense by itself.

Neither is assault, but while I would never vote for the death penalty for a man who's been arrested and put on trial for assault, neither will I criticize the neighbor who shoots him dead while the assault is actually being committed.

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Joe, OK, so you would have sentenced these two burglars to jail. Now, what would happen to them if they tried to escape? Force would have been used against them to put them back in prison. The more force they used to escape the more force would be used against them. If they resist enough, they die. These two burglars were trying to escape. The morality of an action is not dependent upon having a tin star.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Jennifer,

RTFA, for God's sake.

The guy was told that there were police on their way, they are going to be looking for armed men, and he shouldn't go outside with a gun. So he goes outside with a gun.

Sure, that's a real Einstein right there. No way someone like that could ever be a threat.

And hey, evildoers got killed.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:19pm | #

Assault can quite possibly end in death.

Leaving a place you just burgled cannot.

"Defense" requires that someone could actually be harmed.

jimmydageek | December 26, 2007, 3:19pm | #

I will allow how it's tough case, but if you pick a fight with a stranger - you throw the first punch - and you end up killing him in "self-defense," you carry at least some of the responsibility.

Nobody had to die here. People should not go looking for lethal confrontations.

For the most part, I don't disagree. But what do you consider "throwing the first punch"? Mr. Horn stepping outside of his home to defend his neighbor's property? I know, he didn't have to, but it might have been perfectly legal for him to do so. As to whether or not legality makes it "right" can be disputed. However, it's a whole 'nother story if he just went out there and started shooting.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:20pm | #

neither will I criticize the neighbor who shoots him dead while the assault is actually being committed

doesn't that strongly of depend on the degree or severity of the assault?

Mr. Sullum: I hope you are reading this. See, people really do come to have casual attitudes about shooting others. I have not been making that up!

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:20pm | #

joe, the guy claims--and can be heard on the recording saying as much--that they came into his yard. If they approached me in the same way, you bet your ass I'd shoot them.

Yes, he may be lying. But you've got a living 70-year-old man looking out for his neighbor's property on one hand, and two dead thieves who can't tell you if he was lying or not on the other hand.

And he is being put before a grand jury to determine if he acted within the law; that's why you were asked how you would go if you were on that jury. So what's your answer?

Jennifer | December 26, 2007, 3:21pm | #

The guy was told that there were police on their way, they are going to be looking for armed men, and he shouldn't go outside with a gun. So he goes outside with a gun.

Kudos to him for not being fool enough to obey when he hears "Sit back and let Big Daddy Government take care of everything. By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that cops are not obligated to protect people or prevent crimes from happening; all they have to do is make a half-assed attempt to catch the perps later. Hope your neighbor's homeowners' insurance premiums don't go up too high after he files a claim for his property that was stolen."

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:23pm | #

PIRS,

If they tried to escape, they would not be immediately fired upon.

If somebody had tackled these guys - something akin to the force used on an escapee - we wouldn't be having this conversation. If a passerby had pointed a gun at them and said "Freeze," we wouldn't be having this conversation. If they had been tackled, it turned into a brawl, and one of them had hit his head on the curb and died, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it had turned into a brawl, one of the burglars pulled a knife, and somebody shot him, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If a corrections officer saw a prisoner clipping a fence and shot him to death, that C.O. would be charged with homicide. (Well, no, his buddies would set something up so he could claim defense, but you get my point.)

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:24pm | #

"Assault can quite possibly end in death. Leaving a place you just burgled cannot. "Defense" requires that someone could actually be harmed."

Joe, assuming that this property was justly acquired; the owner had to spend a portion of his life in order to acquire it. He had to work at some kind of productive activity. If a burglar steels his property he steals a portion of that person's life. This is defense.

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:24pm | #

Leaving a place you just burgled cannot.

"Defense" requires that someone could actually be harmed.

First of all, the property owner is being harmed. Secondly, the law allows for shooting people who are commiting even simple burglary. You may not like that, but that is the law. The only reason this guy could get in trouble is that it wasn't his property. Had it been, he could have shot them at any time, and without even being threatened, because they were stealing.

Again, you may not like that, but that's the law there.

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:24pm | #

Now, what would happen to them if they tried to escape?

I think it is pretty clear that the police arriving at the scene could not have shot the escaping men. That is considered a matter of constitutional law (Garner case, IIRC).

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Yes, he may be lying. But you've got a living 70-year-old man looking out for his neighbor's property on one hand, and two dead thieves who can't tell you if he was lying or not on the other hand.

when people shoot the witnesses, I take that as a signal to look at their story with enhanced, rather than diminished, skepticism.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 26, 2007, 3:26pm | #

And he is being put before a grand jury to determine if he acted within the law

Epi, It's trite, but I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Dave, would you approve of this shooting if the perps were HFCS producers?

Look InThe Mirror | December 26, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Not everyone in Texas agrees with state sponsored killing. However, one of them is troubled by the unrelated and unreasonable attacks posted here. He figures that since the attackers must think their are no idiots in their states, they must be the idiots where they live.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:27pm | #

Episiarch,

If I was on that grand jury, I'd try to see if the government made its case that the guy was not in fear for his life or otherwise threatened when he shot the burglars. If the government could not do that, I wouldn't vote to indict.

If they could - if the evidence was strong that he was not being attacked or approached, but went after the burglars because he has a Jennifer-esque opinion about the relative value of human life vs. property and decided to take it on himself to make the world a better place - I'd vote to indict.

jimmydageek | December 26, 2007, 3:27pm | #

Even that's not clear, DW. You keep assuming things. Stop doing so and other issues will fall into place.

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:28pm | #

Epi, It's trite, but I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

Of course, and I agree. I was merely explaining to joe that he will in fact have to go before a grand jury for his actions.

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:29pm | #

If they could - if the evidence was strong that he was not being attacked or approached, but went after the burglars because he has a Jennifer-esque opinion about the relative value of human life vs. property and decided to take it on himself to make the world a better place - I'd vote to indict.

Even if the law--as I explained above--allows for shooting people who are only committing burglary?

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:30pm | #

the law allows for shooting people who are commiting even simple burglary.

Do you think they should extend the law to trespassers? That is a breah of property and security, too.

jimmydageek | December 26, 2007, 3:30pm | #

The fact that the case will be going to a grand jury is something that DW keeps missing here. He wants immediate arrests, guilty or not.

robc | December 26, 2007, 3:31pm | #

joe,

Kosovo. If we were going to stop the ethnic cleansing, we couldn't wait half a year.

It isnt our job to prevent ethnic cleansing. I still cant think of a situation we need to respond in less than 6 months.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Kudos to him for not being fool enough to obey when he hears "Sit back and let Big Daddy Government take care of everything.

Two people are dead, Ms. Tuff Guy Of The Internet. That should enter into your thinking some where. Yeah, kudos, two more evildoers for you to snicker at.

By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that cops are not obligated to protect people or prevent crimes from happening; all they have to do is make a half-assed attempt to catch the perps later. Which has nothing to do with this case. The police were on their way, to the point where the dispatcher was worried that Horn would either get in the way of the arrest or get shot.

Hope your neighbor's homeowners' insurance premiums don't go up too high after he files a claim for his property that was stolen. I'm not sure how to argue with someone who openly admits that she values stuff more than human life.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:33pm | #

"If they tried to escape, they would not be immediately fired upon."

Firing is by its very nature immediate. One cannot file paperwork through a bureaucracy between the time a bullet leaves a chamber and enters a person's body. Police can and do fire upon people they believe to be armed – including escapees from prison. Crowbars can be deadly, pipes can be deadly. Burglars are often armed. I think he was justified. The world has two fewer burglars thanks to him.

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:34pm | #

Do you think they should extend the law to trespassers? That is a breah of property and security, too.

Maybe Coke and Pepsi employees, too, right Dave?

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Episiarch, PIRS,

The law doesn't allow to end other human beings' lives over material goods. The "property defense" castle doctrine is about allowing people not to retreat when they are in their own home when someone breaks into it. It's not really a "property defense" law, but a recognition that such a circumstance - the invasion of an occupied dwelling - is likely to end in the harm (actual harm, not stuff) of innocent people.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:40pm | #

"I'm not sure how to argue with someone who openly admits that she values stuff more than human life."

I value INOCENT human life more than stuff. But the life of tax collectors and other thieves is another matter

Dave W. | December 26, 2007, 3:41pm | #

The fact that the case will be going to a grand jury is something that DW keeps missing here. He wants immediate arrests, guilty or not.

Well, let's make clear how I feel:

1. BIGGEST PROBLEM: Texas law requires not just that a burglary is being committed, but that the shooter knows beyond reasonable doubt that a burglary is being committed. If the Texas law doesn't require that kind/level of intent, then it really should. It is clear to me that Joe Horn didn't have that kind or level of intent. Therefore, he should be sentenced to death for murder and the penalty should be carried out within 6 months.

2. NEXT BIGGEST PROBLEM: Texas seems to have more than its share of racist gunnuts. This means that Horn, the policeman who witnessed the shootings and the neighbors probably lie. That really sucks. It means that the true facts will never be known and justice will never be done. For my own self, I solved that problem by leaving Texas.

3. SMALLEST PROBLEM: Texas really shouldn't allow deadly force in defense of mere property in any circumstances for the reasons joe says.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:41pm | #

This thread really does support the point, made above, about the low value put on human life.

Hey, if I hadn't killed that guy, I wouldn't have a teevee! I might miss Matlock!

Isn't it great when evidoers get gunned down on your street? Yee-haw!

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:41pm | #

joe, I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one. I just looked up some castle doctrine laws and they say you can shoot when somebody else is in the commission of a "forcible felony", and then list such felonies, and include burglary and robbery.

ed | December 26, 2007, 3:41pm | #

My only concern is that some yahoo C&W star in a ridiculous hat will write "The Ballad Of Joe Horn", whose rousing melody will eventually and forever sell pickup trucks during NFL games.

robc | December 26, 2007, 3:44pm | #

joe,

The "property defense" castle doctrine is about allowing people not to retreat when they are in their own home when someone breaks into it.

That is not (completely) true. I hate when this comes up, its like otherwise smart people forget we have 50 states with 50 different laws.

For example, KY's law, which I know best, does allow me to use deadly force for solely the protection of property. Yes, it does allow it in the case you mention, but it also allows me to shoot an arsonist trying to burn down my barn, for example. That has nothing to do with self defense (and, in fact, was just added to the KY law in the last few years, originally you could only use deadly force on an arsonist who was burning down your dwelling, not any building you own).

Episiarch | December 26, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Hey, if I hadn't killed that guy, I wouldn't have a teevee! I might miss Matlock!

joe loses the argument, and so he resorts to "I am more morally upright than you...DON'T YOU SEE HOW MUCH I VALUE HUMAN LIFE?!?"

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:46pm | #

If you value human life, I recommend you not sacrifice it by committing a burglary. Once you cross that threshold, you take your chances.

robc | December 26, 2007, 3:46pm | #

That was me responding to joe, not joe. Doh.

joe | December 26, 2007, 3:46pm | #

PIRS,

Firing is by its very nature immediate.

You would do well as one of those SWAT Team guys Radley is always on about.

Among more civilized people, you sometimes find actions between seeing a bad guy and killing him, such as yelling "Stop!," holding him at gunpoint, rendering him harmless, or getting the other C.O.s to help you grab the guy.

I don't think it's coincidence that the people claiming "defense" keep ending up talking about how good it is that these two were killed.

It's not too much different from those who started out talking about "defending" our country from Saddam's WMDs, and didn't miss a beat when they learned there was nothing to defend us from.

It was never about defense, it was about the universal wonderfulness of watching "good guys" kill "evildoers," and the warm feeling some people get from that.

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter | December 26, 2007, 3:47pm | #

Joe, I cannot speak for Episiarch, but for me, this is more about morality than it is the law. I would rather people act morally and violate the law than follow the law and act morally. According to the law the agencies within the Federal Government can do things that other groups of human beings cannot do. An agency within the Federal Government can set up a Ponzi scheme and force people to “invest” in it. If Bank of America were to do this it would be called illegal.

Guy Montag | December 26, 2007, 3:47pm | #

PIRS,

Um, one point you might want to make in your discussion is that there was no judge or jury there to advise the law abiding citizen with a spot decision on defending the property of his neighbor and his own life from an approaching thief could result in some out-of-State Leftists demanding he become an example for how strongly Manhattanites feel about the real crimes committed by "whitie".

BTW, let it be on record that I am against the death penalty in prison. Capping a threat on the lawn is a whole different issue.

thoreau | December 26, 2007, 3:47pm | #

Jennifer,

Like others have said, I don't want to live next door to a guy who runs outside with a gun when he knows that the cops are on their way and they're looking for armed men.

Also, even if the judgement call that he made was indeed correct (we'll leave aside the ethical