Did you read my post or the news story Willie?

Horn's house was NOT being "burglarised" so your question is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Now perhaps you can read my post and respond accordingly.

BTW a certain clique on this board would go berserk if you bastardised their name, as you just did to mine!

But that's ok I won't press charges

So why do you call me Willie, huh? Talk about bastardizing a name, you do the same to mine. Don't deny that. You such a mean man, Gary.

Since you dodge a lot of posts, I will do the same. My question is relevant.

1. When did they add the "and your neighbour's" clause??
It depends on how well you know your neighbor. If this guy can prove he "knew" his neighbors well, I would not convict him even if charges were brought. Jury nullification would be in effect.
Jury Nullification
Even if the charges are levied, the guy won't be convicted by 12 jurors. And his legal team would be probo for the exposure.

But you are right, this looks shakey legally.

2. Irrelevant - he ignored police instructions, isn't that a felony in Texas too?
Are their 911 operators police officers? Ours aren't. It's an easy job to get. They don't necessarily know the law.

3. Yes it is - he clearly stated he was going to kill them before he left his house, that's pre-meditation.
If he had surprised them and shot them as they tried to attack him , that would NOT be pre-meditation.

I disagree. I think he saw burglars, and he thought he was protecting his neighbors house. The story I read said he called the police with them on the way in, and they didn't make it before they were on the way out. I wish I had neighbors like him.
Legal Definition of Premeditation
I don't think this rises to pre-meditation.
4. Maybe you would, but that would be allowing anger to prevail over common sense and human decency.

The same common sense and decency they didn't use before they broke into my house. "Cap em" I say.

Nobody is denying that these two cadavers were scumbags, or that burglary would make anyone furious.
The question is whether that justifies their summary execution.

I say it does in this case. They rolled the dice and lost.

It is a typical tactic of the Jewish mentality for argument. If you can't refute the message you have to attack the messenger.

Question, you didn't answer the question, question, you didn't answer the question, which signifies a head banging motion at the wailing wall.

At Gary's core is no basis for right or wrong, only his interpretation of the "Rule of Law", because "GOD said".

Because you don't understand way mens rea is and what it means and how it is legally defined.

He was told to stay in the house, he lft the house with a gun, he loaded and cocked the gun before leaving the house, was told to stay inside by an employee on the police, he ignored the warning any responable person would conclude that it was not out of the realm of possibility that he went out there to shoot them.

I have made a link in this thread as to what constitues justfiable homicide.

here is mens rea and wilfull blindness. Malice aforethought is actually a concept of the British Common Law btw

(a) subjective where the court must be satisfied that the accused actually had the requisite mental element present in his or her mind at the relevant time (for purposely, knowingly, recklessly etc)(see concurrence); (b) objective where the requisite mens rea element is imputed to the accused on the basis that the reasonable person would have had the mental element in the same circumstances(for negligence); or (c) hybrid where the test is both subjective and objective. The court will have little difficulty in establishing mens rea if there is actual evidence, say because the accused made an admissible admission. This would satisfy a subjective test. But a significant proportion of those accused make no such admissions. Hence, some degree of objectivity must be brought to bear as the basis upon which to impute the necessary component(s). It is always reasonable to assume that people of ordinary intelligence are aware of their physical surroundings and of the ordinary laws of cause and effect (see causation). Thus, when a person plans what to do and what not to do, he will understand the range of likely outcomes from given behaviour on a sliding scale from inevitable, probable, possible to improbable. The more an outcome shades towards the inevitable end of the scale, the more likely it is that the accused both foresaw and desired it, and, therefore, the safer it is to impute intention. If there is clear subjective evidence that the accused did not have foresight, but a reasonable person would have, the hybrid test may find criminal negligence. In terms of the burden of proof, the requirement is that a jury must have a high degree of certainty before convicting. It is this reasoning that justifies the defences of infancy, and of lack of mental capacity under the M'Naghten Rules and the various statutes defining mental illness as an excuse. Self-evidently, if there is an irrebuttable presumption of doli incapax or the accused did not have sufficient understanding of the nature and quality of his actions, the requisite mens rea is absent no matter what degree of probability might otherwise have been present. For these purposes, therefore, where the relevant statutes are silent and it is for the common law to form the basis of potential liability, the reasonable person must be endowed with the same intellectual and physical qualities as the accused, and the test must be whether an accused with these specific attributes would have had the requisite foresight and desire.

1. Purposely - Express purpose to commit a specific crime against a particular person; for example, to shoot an arrow at someone and hit him.
2. Knowingly - Knowledge that one's actions would certainly result in a crime against someone, but did not specifically intend to commit that crime against the particular victim which one is accused of injuring; for example, to shoot an arrow at A but hit B. This also covers the concept of willful blindness. Willful blindness is where a person knows that something is very probable, but avoids investigating to gain that knowledge. Often used against drug mules, who knew that it was highly likely that there was contraband in the vehicle, but refused to look.
3. Recklessly - Knowledge that one's actions had an unjustifiable risk of leading to a certain result, but did not care about that risk ("reckless disregard"), and acted anyway; for example, to shoot an arrow in the air in a crowded place. Under the MPC, barring contradictory statutory language, recklessness is the minimum mens rea that will lead to criminal liability. This covers the "depraved heart" state of mens rea, which is an extreme disregard for human life. Examples include playing Russian Roulette, street racing, and other highly dangerous activities.
4. Negligently - Did not intend to cause the result that happened, but failed to exercise a reasonable duty of care to prevent that result (which includes failing to become aware of the risk of that result.) The above is the tort standard of negligence. In general this is not enough for criminal liability. Criminal negligence is a "gross deviation" from the standards of normal conduct and includes a substantial and unjustifiable risk. For example, one might be negligent for failing to put up a fence to keep children away from your pool. This will not lead to criminal charges. Criminal negligence might include keeping a vicious dog tied to a tree with twine.

Some commentators like to add on a fifth uncodified level, which exists in practice if not in the idealized Model Penal Code, which is, after all, merely a guide for states to follow in the development of their own criminal code. It should be kept in mind that the MPC is, in and of itself, not the law of the land anywhere, though many states have followed it to some degree or another.

1. Strict liability - Strict liability is usually for "public welfare" offenses, like parking tickets, environmental regulations, and other such things. § 2.05(2)(a) of the Model Penal Code states where the mental state of the defendant bears no relevance to the prosecution of the offense then it is not a crime but a violation (and thus only enforceable by fine or forfeiture and not by imprisonment); the act itself is enough for conviction. Strict liabilty is rather rare in criminal law, but it does happen. For instance, statutory rape is a strict liability crime in some North American jurisdictions. Therefore even if the defendant believed the child to be over the age of consent, the defendant is still guilty of statutory rape if the child is underage even if the child lied about his or her age.

Satute Law: A person commits murder if he (1) purposely or knowingly (2) causes the death of a human being.
Common Law: (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to cause the death of a human being with malice aforethought. (b) A violation of this section is murder in the second degree.

Wilful blindness or recklessness

In such cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused foresaw but did not desire the particular outcome. When the accused failed to stop the given behaviour, he took the risk of causing the given loss or damage. There is always some degree of intention subsumed within recklessness. During the course of the conduct, the accused foresees that he may be putting another at risk of injury: A choice must be made at that point in time. By deciding to proceed, the accused actually intends the other to be exposed to the risk of that injury. The greater the probability of that risk maturing into the foreseen injury, the greater the degree of recklessness and, subsequently, sentence rendered.


This means if he could reasonably forsee that his behavior would result in the death of another human being he is guilty of 1st degree murder..I don't think he would be charged under this but what he did was with malice

I am sorry but how idiotic do you have to be to know that when you see a crime being committed against property ( as opposed to a person) and the police have been called that going to confront the people with a gun is probably going to result in someone being killed...the police btw arrived within moments of him shooting them so he must of heard the sirens...but he shot them anyway. These guys are scumbags but we have a legal system, if we say its OK for this guy to leave his home after he called the police and was told by a person trained to handle these situations to stay inside whats next??? Vigilanteism undemrines the structure of our society just as much as stealing someones TV and no matter what you say your double standard is obvious

You know why they tell you not to confront criminals. Because you don't know if they have a gun and you could end up dead..what would your family do..your wife would have to hire a babysitter.

We'll see. It's obviously not as cut and dry as you would like. Charges if any are 2 weeks away. Here's a blub from a google...
Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor.

If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in his favor, LaFon said.

"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.

The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.
Lawyers live for this stuff.

It is William, Gary, William. You know that. Savvy!?