Of course all this is a matter of fact for a jury to decide, and they heard the evidence and decided to convict White. He is sympathetic in my book, but a jury said what he did wasn’t just. That’s the system. I can see a jury fairly finding that he was just and unjust – that’s the court system.

As for Horn, I understand he was under the impression that his home was threatened by these two criminals. Well, at least that’s what he says. The police were slow in coming, so I don’t blame him for having no faith in their swift arrival. As for going outside to challenge the threat, that could reasonably be construed as wiser than waiting indoors – if the criminals indeed did come inside, the closed quarters could conceivably make the situation inside more dangerous.

I can see how his decision to take matters outside (with his weapon) could reasonably be seen as a smart move. It can go either way, really.

Horn and White may indeed have been a bit trigger happy, and the system found different fates for the different men. They may have indeed been wrong, or maybe they may have been right. They both got fair shakes in the judicial system – that’s all we can expect.

Defending property is another, separate issue, but if you claim that fear for your safety or your life is your main concern, then staying in the house and calling the police seems like it would have been the wiser course of action for him — and Horn — resorting to deadly self defense, only if necessary.

You’ll never catch me mourning the loss of worthless punks, but I can’t help the creeping suspicion that maybe Horn and White are probably in the wrong on this one.

As for his self defense argument, it does appear to be a question mark. His account of the story is that he was concerned they would come to his home next.

And he does seem to give them fair warning with “Move (and) you’re dead!” I suppose they moved, and in doing so turned around, which explains the bullets in the back.

This works for me. Crooks should be afraid to dare violate someone’s home. Indeed they should be afraid to break the law. In this case, there are a couple of criminals who will never violate someone’s home, or break the law, ever again.

The world is a better place in my book.

I will say, though, that his self-defense argument is unconvincing. As is his lawyer’s claim that they charged him, yet somehow both ended up getting shot in the back.

The actual law aside, how you feel about this story boils down to the question of whether or not you agree “property’s not worth killing someone over.” My gut says yes, but if I thought about it, the practical answer might well be no.