An old, fat man, with an habitual drinking problem, shot in the back and killed two much younger, illegal alien men, as they were running away, after exiting a neighbors home through a window, carrying a bag of stolen loot. He did this after having called 911 and being advised not to confront these men. He did it even though there was a plain clothes police detective parked in front of the house, having heard the police dispatchers alert, with further police in route and helicopters overhead. He did it even though both burglars were unarmed and in no way threatened his person or property. He did this in the State of Texas, knowing that the law had recently been changed to allow him to carry out this act, under sanction of law.
The right to possess fire arms brings with it responsibility. These two men were robbing an empty house and that is a crime but a crime against property only. If the residents of the house had been there at the time, then it would have been home invasion and the use of deadly force would have been justified. They were not. It was not. Maybe you think it's stupid to get all sentimental about the lives of what are probably two irredeemably habitual felons. The fact is though, they might as well have been two barefoot boys named Huck and Tom, stealing a pie off a kitchen window sill. Shooting them in the back would have been just as legal in the State of Texas.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to have whatever weapons they feel are appropriate, to protect themselves and their property. What I'm saying is, they better be able to justify their actions in a satisfactory manner, after having committed homicide. Taking a life is a serious thing. It can't be undone. There is no compensation that is adequate for it.
The State of Texas decided not to prosecute this man, for these killings. I wonder what they would have done if it was Huck and Tom he killed,