Predator ? criminal. We’re hardwired as predators by natural selection. You can take the human out of the wild, but you can’t take the wild out of the human. For proof, see Friday evening in a bar where people look for mates: every trick of the predator can be observed. Joe Horn stalked his prey, but you applaud him. Yet you’re so stuck on “predators bad” that you can’t recognize that it’s not being a predator that’s bad, but being a criminal.

Who defines “criminal” (traditionally the government)? What criminals should be shot? Who should shoot them? These might be entertaining questions, but you’re so insistent on words meaning what you say they mean that you’re failing either to communicate or to entertain.

So go ovinely forth. Watch Law and Order. Listen to talk radio. Be scared. It’s what the government wants.

You’re done here. It’s not that you’re wrong, but that you’re shallow.

You accuse me of being no better than a criminal because I have strong opinions on crime, because I think a criminal should pay for his actions. I’m not surprised really since you need a good supply of low lives to make a living. I doubt you are moral at all.

The distinction IS absolutely between predators and non-predators. Playing with context doesn’t fool anybody.

Merriam Webster – predation
1. the act of preying or plundering
2. a mode of life in which food is primarily obtained by the killing and consuming of animals

Dictionary.com – predation
1. depredation; plundering.
2. act of plundering or robbing.
3. predatory behavior.
4. a relation between animals in which one organism captures and feeds on others.

Dictionary.com – predator
1. Zoology. any organism that exists by preying upon other organisms.
2. a predatory person.

No we’re not all predators sexually, socially and in commerce, maybe you are. You may wish it so, but no we are not all criminals. Sexual, social, and commercial exchange is not predation. Rape and theft is. And no it is not about going too far, that’s a criminal’s mind set. It is not okay to steal from your neighbor a little, rape a little, beat innocent people a little.

And it is not about rule breaking. Whether rules are just depends upon who makes them, usually and unfortunately by people of your ilk. Since you claim to be anti-totalitarian here’s a quote you can pretend to respect.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. – Thomas Jefferson

You are no better than the criminal who feels that he can decide who lives or dies. You may have more legal cover, but morally you’re the same. Your “reciprocity” would drag us all down to the lowest moral level.

You claim intolerance of predators, but we’re all predators. Not just as hunters, but sexually, socially, and in commerce. Your complaint is with those who go too far. That’s fine, but the distinction is not between predators and non-predators, but between rule-breakers and non-rule-breakers.

A criminal who murders someone in some alley obviously feels he can decide whether his victim lives or dies. Killing in defense of self or property is not a matter of wisdom, but reciprocity. You don’t need wisdom when someone is visibly and obviously doing you or your neighbor harm. Legal nonsense aside of course.

‘Predator’ in the context of crime among human beings does not have a double meaning. It is dishonest to equate a hunter killing a deer in the woods with a human stalking another in order to murder, rob or rape. Both are predators, one is criminal. Any honest person can see that.

You’re right that humility and respect for life are not universal. Some people think, like you do, that they have the wisdom to decide who lives and who dies.

So now it’s not predators you’re intolerant of, but a particular type of predator. We could continue splitting that particular hair, but I doubt that you’ll ever catch on.

I don’t think Horn should regret his decision. Humility and respect for life is by no means universal among people. It is not a fundamental part of everyone’s character. Neither is respect for property. Pretending that all people are worthy and somehow good inside perpetuates crime. It is a mistake and it is wrong. Some people will be civil with each other and some will be criminal. I cannot in good conscience value both the same.

Equating hunting an animal for food in nature with existing as a criminal, an intraspecies predator in a human society preying on it’s own kind is not honest. A person who steals the rightful property of another person is a social predator and a criminal.

Respect for the sanctity of human life is a fundamental part of a person’s character. Humility is a fundamental part of a person’s character. Having neither doesn’t make you right, it just makes you shallow and annoying.

It’s easy to demonize someone by calling him “predator”. Human beings didn’t get to the top of the food chain by grazing or scavenging, though; we are naturally predators, no matter how desperately you would like to pretend otherwise. Calling criminals “predators” is a bit of programming from those who would like us all to act like sheep.

If you’re going to comment here, please try to think a little deeper.

Thanks.

It’s not really a castle doctrine case — it’s a defense-of-property case. And Joe Horn wasn’t asked to protect his neighbor’s home (nor was he required to have been asked).

I live in Houston, and depending on quite a few things, the wait for police to show up can be very long. According to some, police don’t even show up at all (I’ve never seen this happen myself).

So the law makers come up with a new law that’s supposed to prevent homeowners from being sued by criminals that’ve broken into a home. Well they certainly worded their law loosely.

But is it REALLY racism, or is it that citizens are sick and tired of criminals not being caught, returning to a successful neighborhood for more stolen goodies? If those illegals hadn’t been shot by Mr. Horn, and the police hadn’t arrived in time to catch them, what are the chances they’d be caught later? If they left DNA, would they even be in the system to check against since they were illegals?

So they’d rob another house, maybe in the same neighborhood since they got away with it already, and what if the next home had people in it?

Citizens that obey the law, and work and save for their stuff are not only being robbed by criminals, including illegal citizens, but we’re also having our lives placed in danger by these worthless criminals. There’s not enough police to keep up with them, then they get out of jail after a short period of time.

Perhaps the grand jury was also tired of our protection system being broken.

I’m sure the lawmakers didn’t plan on their Castle Law loosely enabling neighbors to shoot criminals fleeing from the home they robbed, but I think the Grand Jury’s decision speaks for most law abiding citizens in Texas. The more liberal states can continue to allow criminals to do whatever they want with minimal punishment, IF they’re even caught. I would have no-billed Mr. Horn myself, just because he was asked to protect his neighbor’s home while he was out of town, and the law was gray’ish about how he over-protected his neighbor’s home.

And I’ll never cry and moan about a criminal losing his life or injured by a home-owner, because every home owner, and their family, is in mortal danger for most robberies (that wasn’t the case with Mr. Horn’s shooting, but if a criminal was inside a home with someone in it, we must protect ourselves against assumed threats — they are criminals!)