Joe Horn is a poor example. His mouth got him in trouble. If he had simply called 911 and reported the burglary, then confronted and shot them, I doubt he would have even been charged.
Here's a tip. A 911 operator is ALWAYS going to tell you not to shoot the perp. Leave them out of it. Just report the facts. And yes, I would shoot a burglar, and I would have no compunction about doing it and no guilt feelings afterwards. There is nothing morally wrong about shooting someone who is committing a crime. Our society has taught us that, but it's a lie.
You need to remember. Almost 80% of people shot with a handgun in this country survive. So, when you pull your weapon and shoot someone, you are shooting to stop them, not to kill them. As a CHL it is never our intention to kill anyone. (Nor is that the LEOs intention, BTW.) It's to stop the threat. Period.
If you call 911 and say, "I'm going to shoot this guy" or "I'm going to kill this guy", you might as well call a lawyer next, because you have confessed to intent to harm someone. Now what matters is whether shooting them was really truly justified under the law or you just wanted to shoot someone. And if I was a prosecutor, that's EXACTLY the argument I would use against you. And your own words would buttress my case. You might still get off because what you did was legal, but it won't be cheap.
Having a CHL is for DEFENSE, not offense. Keep that in mind, and you will be much less likely to end up fighting for your life in the legal system.
Texas Penal Code 9.21(a) reads "Sec. 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified
if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process."
9.22 reads
Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
Imminent harm does not only mean physical harm to you. It means harm to you, to another person
or property.
Remember what they did to rustlers in the old west? Do you think they felt bad about it? I'm not saying take the law into your own hands, but if you've caught someone stealing property, the law states that you can use deadly force to stop the theft AND to stop the actor from escaping with the stolen goods.
Saying property isn't worth shooting someone over is an expression of the liberal mindset, which has infected far too many Americans. The next logical step (and some have already taken it) is that shooting someone over physical abuse isn't justified, shooting someone hurting another person isn't justified, shooting someone hurting you isn't justified. Someone recently posted here about a woman who said she couldn't shoot someone if they were killing her. That's the terminus of this kind of thinking. Is that really where you want to head? If so, why do you carry a gun? And what will it take for you to draw and shoot when seconds count?
Thank you! That's exactly what I was thinking about when I responded to this post originally. My CHL instructors showed us the news video during class and we had a lengthy discussion about it. 
