richard wrote
HeyBub wrote
richard wrote

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the back?

Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University
of Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of wild
west lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, moveable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime, or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery..., and
(3) he reasonably believes that
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means, or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor to... risk of death or
serious bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary
and were fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above. Joe is in his
60's and the two squints were young, strapping males. Even if Joe
could catch them in a foot race, and even if they were unarmed (the
weren't - they had pry-bars and other burglar tools) the chance of
death or serious bodily injury is a reasonable expectation, thereby
meeting the requirements of (3)(B).

So, Joe simply sicced old double-barreled Betsy on their asses.

I'm sure Joe didn't have a Texas Penal Code checklist on hand so he
could mark off the nuanced requirements of the law.

He simply saw his duty and he did it.

All true, except for a couple of things.
Joe Horn failed to comply with a directive from the police department.
"Do not go outside."

The cops dont get to issue any such 'directive'

The 911 person said this how many times? 3?

That aint even a cop.

And Joe still acted as a vigilante?

The law allows that.

Also look at (3)(a). There were officers in the area.

But not on site.

This law is designed to protect citizens from prosecution who live in
very rural areas where enforcement may not be so readily available.

How odd that it doesnt say anything like that.

(3)(b) also includes the words "other than deadly".

There's an OR between them. Its there for a reason.

(2) also uses the words "to prevent" and "during the night time".
IOW, BEFORE the act is actually committed. Or at most, in the process.

Wrong. (2)B covers it completely.

The law does not give a person the right to "Shoot and kill".

Wrong. Thats precisely what it does. The words deadly force are included for a reason.

It gives the citizen authority to hold and detain.

It also give the citizen the authority to use DEADLY FORCE and says the explicitly.

Joe Horn shot two people in the back. By doing so, he violated this law.

No he didnt.

The only reason he is not being prosecuted is because the news
media has touted him as some kind of wild west vigilante hero.

Nope, because he didnt breach that law.

Had Joe Horn been black, he'd be in jail.

Irrelevant, he didnt breach that law.