Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they should be prosecuted. Unless the intruder was trying to physically harm the home owner and put them in danger, there is no need to shoot someone. People shoot too quickly these days and they always shoot to kill. No one should die for trying to steal a TV or jewelry or whatever. Go to jail, yes, but killed no.
Good plan!!
I'll wait until the intruder outlines his/her plan to rob me before I shoot!
It's not usually what happens. A theif is just after materialistic things they can either sell for money or keep cause they can't buy it themselves. Most theives are not looking to hurt a person. They want to get their product and get out. This is why most home invasions happen during the day, when people are at work or out. This crime does not warrant death. Yes, I've been robbed before. It sucks, but I did not wish death to my intruder. I wished him a lifetime of bad karma, but not death.
I find it distrurbing that so many people DO think stealing and/or damaging property deserves not only the death penalty, but that that penalty should be dealt out by an average citizen with little or no accountability. Seriously effed up to me.
The problem is that when you find someone in your home, you have no way to determine their intentions.
You don't know if they are armed with a knife or a gun. You don't even know how many of them are in your home yet. Are they big enough to overpower you without a weapon at all?
Professionals that teach home security / self defense, advocate vigorously that you never speculate about the intention of a home invader.
Stealing does not deserve the death penalty, however the fact that you are willing to be perceived as a threat to a family just by being a home invader may very well lead to your death and the death of your cohorts. Many people have been killed by trusting a bad guy.
If your instinct tells you that the strangers in your home are 100 percent harmless, go ahead and gamble.
But guessing when you really don't know their intention can be catastrophic for your family.
Exactly, the issue is you don't know if their intent is to just get materialistic possessions and leave or if their intent is worse. You also have no idea how they will react when cornered. A non-violent burglary could turn into a murder real fast if they burglar panics and gets violent. An originally non-armed burglar can arm himself with something from the household in a split second. Like others have said you likely only have a few seconds top to react. Personally, I would never shoot anyone simply over a TV, however the TV is not the issue. The issue is my mine and my families safety. I am not going to gamble on families safety on behalf of a burglar. I would much rather have to explain why I shot then not shoot and spend the rest of my life regretting it, if I have a life to live.
Realistically, what if i didn't shoot and he over-powered me and got to my wife or (hypothetical) kid and injured or killed them? I greatly value their lives much more than the burglars.
Exactly, the issue is you don't know if their intent is to just get materialistic possessions and leave or if their intent is worse. You also have no idea how they will react when cornered. A non-violent burglary could turn into a murder real fast if they burglar panics and gets violent. An originally non-armed burglar can arm himself with something from the household in a split second. Like others have said you likely only have a few seconds top to react. Personally, I would never shoot anyone simply over a TV, however the TV is not the issue. The issue is my mine and my families safety. I am not going to gamble on families safety on behalf of a burglar. I would much rather have to explain why I shot then not shoot and spend the rest of my life regretting it, if I have a life to live.
Realistically, what if i didn't shoot and he over-powered me and got to my wife or kid and injured or killed them? I greatly value their lives much more than the burglars.
This is where taking the home defense classes help. First, you have to assume an intruder is armed .... especially if your alarm is going off and they are still in the house. But the second thing is that you avoid confrontation if possible because then you have as much chance of getting shot as they do. So if you can get out through a back door or window then you do that. The third thing is you don't go looking for the intruder(s) .. that is surrendering home field advantage. You get yourself into a defensible position, call the cops and wait. You only shoot if they come to you.
This should be completely justified in my view. If you awake to find a stranger in your house, an immediate assumption should be that the stranger is armed and dangerous and intends to do you harm.
I think they should be prosecuted. Unless the intruder was trying to physically harm the home owner and put them in danger, there is no need to shoot someone. People shoot too quickly these days and they always shoot to kill. No one should die for trying to steal a TV or jewelry or whatever. Go to jail, yes, but killed no.
You're so sweet.
Remove those rose colored glasses and face the real world. If someone had the audacity to break into your private home, they are not there for a dance lesson, they are there to create a criminal act.
I would not want to have to shoot another human being, but if I had a gun and someone broke into my house and we were actually face to face, ideally I would want to place them under a citizen's arrest and call the cops. But if they acted violently against me in my home, I would shoot them.
No, I don't think home owners who shoot burglars should be prosecuted. The burglars are trespassing with criminal intent and getting shot is an occupational hazard for criminals. Why should a home owner be required to first determine the level of harm the burglar is willing to inflict instead of defending themselves and their loved ones against a threat to their safety?
This is where taking the home defense classes help. First, you have to assume an intruder is armed .... especially if your alarm is going off and they are still in the house. But the second thing is that you avoid confrontation if possible because then you have as much chance of getting shot as they do. So if you can get out through a back door or window then you do that. The third thing is you don't go looking for the intruder(s) .. that is surrendering home field advantage. You get yourself into a defensible position, call the cops and wait. You only shoot if they come to you.
But killing someone and shooting a gun are, he doesnt get a free pass because of the circumstances, he just wont be found guilty
Neither are against the law in the situations we are talking about...so no he doesn't get a free pass because NO laws were broken by him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
This is where taking the home defense classes help. First, you have to assume an intruder is armed .... especially if your alarm is going off and they are still in the house. But the second thing is that you avoid confrontation if possible because then you have as much chance of getting shot as they do. So if you can get out through a back door or window then you do that. The third thing is you don't go looking for the intruder(s) .. that is surrendering home field advantage. You get yourself into a defensible position, call the cops and wait. You only shoot if they come to you.
Thats possible in some situations but most people have kids scattered in 2 or more different bedrooms and in some cases on the other side of house. If you think I am gonna hole in my bedroom closet or jump out the window and run when I have kids then you are sorely mistaken. My first reaction would be to confront and stop the intruder, my kids lives may very well depend on how fast I can do that.
Had she tried to leave the house, he would have caught her. The nearest neighbor's house was too far away.
I don't think charges were ever possible in this case in Oklahoma. The law is clear on this. They were taking their time to fully investigate because once they decline to file charges they also provide immunity from any civil action and they also cover any court fee and lawyer fees associated with defending against any civil action. So they just take their time and double check everything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
