Yeehaw. Shoot first ask questions later, that's the way they do it in Texas anyways.
Maybe this hick could've shot to wound if he was sold on shooting two people?
In my opinion, murder is murder.
If we allow people to take the law into their own hands, that is a slippery slope. It doesn't appear from this story that the burglars were even in this man's house. I understand the need some feel for protection, but if you're on the phone with dispatch, and they say to stay in the house, maybe you should stay in the house.
I will never defend a burglar, but stealing shouldn't constitute murder.
I think the message it sends is one of becoming vigilantes. Police are there to enforce the law, not neighbors. Neighbors should call the police and get a description of the suspects and let due process prevail, not shoot to kill.
I don't own a gun, nor would I ever point it at someone or shoot them if I so choose to own a gun one day. That said, I respect those who do have guns per the constitution, I would just hope they use it in a responsible manner.
In my opinion, this is not using a gun responsibly!

I look at it this way 2 burglers are down, But your right stealing does not constitute murder, and they were not murderd they were killed while stealing there is a difference.

The reason I used the word murdered is from the line in the story, "Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back."
I understand the difference you make between murder and killing, and it is an important one, as murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries.
You're right, there is a difference, but in this case I believe the difference is in the details. The details that this grand jury saw it as lawful. I would think other grand juries may see that differently.
The man told the dispatcher that he was going to kill the men.
Isn't that aforethought?
Again, I'm not defending burglars,, they were wrong, but should not have been "killed" for that.
I also think this is an interesting part of the case, "Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town."
He shot the men in the back. That's an interesting way to view mortal danger.
And
"It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house."
I don't know, it's an interesting story to say the least.
On another note, the story doesn't say the burglars stole anything.
Just as there is a difference between killing and murder, there is also a difference between burglary and theft. Theft is stealing something, burglary is the unlawful entrance of a place.
(I wrote stealing, and I meant burglary in the previous post.)

The two men shot were illegal immigrants from Columbia:
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/916/story/226625.html

And, it sounds like some race issues have come up, and there may be another lawsuit to follow:
http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/735812.html

Here's a pretty straightforward editorial from the Houston Chronicle, as well, that's interesting: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5868797.html

It's a really interesting case since it touches on a bunch of tabu topics - illegal immigration, race, gun laws...all wrapped into one big mess.

That's one opinion, Cindy, and I share another.
What could Horn have done?
Stay in his house as the dispatcher asked him to do. His life wouldn't have been in danger, police were on the way and he could have helped with the description of the men. In this case, Horn's property was never in need of defense.
Horn acted as a vigilante.
I understand that pesky little amendment, Cindy, I just didn’t think it was written to justify taking the law into one’s own hands, although, I understand the Second Ammendment is often interpreted in different ways.
I think the editorial Joanna pointed out discusses that fairly well.
I understand the law was upheld in this case, but that doesn't mean the law is affective. The law wasn’t designed to protect a vigilante.
This law is what should be in question, along with Horn's lack of judgment. The law should be made more clear to define when and who can be shot, if that is the law.
Again, the editorial points that out.
Our courts are set up to support due process.
People are innocent until proven guilty.
Acting in a manner in which Horn did, simply doesn't support that right.
There was no due process. These men were seen by a citizen as immediately guilty and were going to be brought to justice by a man who was acting irrationally at the time.
Two men were killed for their idiotic action of burglary.
Another man has to live with the fact that he killed two humans.
I simply don't think burglary justifies killing.

What gets me about this is they were shot in the back and they were stealing from a neighbor. They were not robbing this guy, but a neighbor he didn't even know. Yikes. I agree with dbmasters, the intent to kill is clear and uncool. He didn't choose to scare them away but rather be the judge, jury and executioner... I saw something about this story before and am shocked to see that he was cleared.

Neither do I, crneighbor. It was a comment I made in response to wording in Cindy's post, which is why I wrote it that way.
I think the second amendment is important in that it is our right as Americans to bare arms if we so wish.
As I said in my first post:
"I don't own a gun, nor would I ever point it at someone or shoot them if I so choose to own a gun one day. That said, I respect those who do have guns per the constitution, I would just hope they use it in a responsible manner."
I believe in the right to bare arms. I just don't believe that right gives a person a free pass to kill.
Horn used a 12-gauge shotgun. You are going to kill with a gun like that.
And if the law was upheld correctly in this case, I just wonder where this law could be taken by others in the future, if it is not clarified.
In my opinion, a law like this if taken to be open-ended and up for interpretation, is dangerous. It lends itself to a shoot first ask questions later mentality.
That is not what the justice system in our country is about.
Horn had his day in court and the court ruled he was within his right to shoot (in Texas). That said, the other two people didn't have their day in court because Horn took it upon himself to be the judge, jury and executioner.
That's wrong.
My point is that in this case, I think Horn acted irrationally and took the lives of two people in the heat of the moment. He had 911 on the phone and said he was going to kill the men, while the dispatcher begged him not to. He shot the men in the back! I believe that's wrong whether a law protects a person or not.
I also understand doing whatever you can to protect your family and self. I get that and I am right beside you in thinking the same way.
But these men were not in Horn's home. They were not a threat to his family. But look at the outcome.