It’s not that you should feel guilty, but that, if you’re a mentally-healthy human being, all of the evidence suggests that you would.

If you were the kind of person who would kill someone over $5 and sleep soundly afterwards, you’d probably belong (and eventually wind up in) either in prison or under heavy psychotropic meds.

Otherwise, I’m with you: Stop those who would use the threat of violence to take our hard-earned money. All of them. Including the government.

People who use violence to take other people’s money are absolutely disgusting human beings. And, to be honest, I don’t really care what happens to them when they work their evil trade. As a society, we need to make sure that these predators are stopped.

In order to understand Texas statutes you have to think like a Texas Legislator, which for most of us requires either a prefrontal lobotomy or heavy drugs.

9.43(1) and 9.43(2) are disjunctive. In order to use deadly force in protection of someone else’s property (in addition to the requirements of 9.41 and 9.42; it doesn’t have to be a night time crime because a burglary can be committed during the day in Texas) you must reasonably believe that the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft . . . to the tangible, movable property; or (2) that: (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property etc. etc. etc.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,steele

For the hypothetical, I was assuming the client said that the theives turned towards him and he wasn’t sure if they had weapons, or were going to try to charge him, when he fired — moving the case from defense of property and shooting someone who is retreating to an arguable case of self-defense of the person. If you change those facts and this is genuinely a case of a retreating theif shot in the back, under CT or MA law, he’s got major problems, even if the retreat rule doesn’t apply due to a stand-your-ground or castle law.

As to guilty feelings — normal but doesn’t tell us much. The police authored research on officer-involved shootings say it is normal for most people to feel intense guilt over even a clearly legally justified shooting and to have lots of second thoughts. For a normal person, one has broken one of the biggest taboos — taken a human life — which is likely to cause all sorts of psychological and moral issues. Sleep distrurbance, eating troubles, nightmares, sexual disfunction — all normal after-affects of a self-defense incident.

It was asked earlier in this discussion whether a criminal’s life is worth less than than of a law-abiding citizen. As far as I’m concerned, the answer is an unqualified yes, it is worth less. That’s just my opinion, though.

As for Mr. Horn regretting the incident, I can understand that. It can’t be easy for him to know he ended two lives, and everything he’s gone through since then could make anyone question if they did the right thing. I don’t know how I’d have handled things, how I’d feel about those events, if I’d killed the guy who mugged me. I only know I would have if I could have.

As far as I’m concerned, the only people who were in the wrong in the Horn Case were the burglars.