Diuretic
Permanently confused
The law is a two-way street. When it was tighter, it was used to convict on technicalities that created the push to loosen it up. Prior to the change, the old saying here was "if you shoot them, make sure you kill them and drag the body into your house."
The problem is not with the law itself. It's with the people allowed to interpret and MISinterpret its intent. Intent no longer applies to law. It gets lost in the game of words. There will never be a lawyer-proof law.
In this case, lawyers didn't even need to touch it. The sentiment of the people is obvious, they just chose a poor example to display their exasperation with crime and illegal immigration.
Lost in teh message of villifying Horn and the grand jury is our elitist representatives in government aren't doing anything to reflect the will of their constituents. They know what's best for us.
I have some sympathy for the latter point. It used to be that law was what our rulers used to run their bailiwicks (eg check out the real rationale behind the famous Carriers Case in England) but when we booted out the rulers and we thought we were getting democracy it seems that it was a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But having said that we have to agree on a few basic rules. I mean "self defence" should mean "self defence" (or defence of another's life/safety) and not be construed as a hunting licence for crooks. That's the disconcerting message in the Horn case. Does every Texan think they can just go out crook hunting now?