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.
Yep. Castle Law allows you to shoot to eliminate a threat. People should be allowed to protect themselves. It doesn't give you a carte blanche to put a bullet in their brain once they are no longer a threat and clearly had no means of being a threat.
I think I'll be the person that decides if I'm feeling threatened. Just because a person is on the ground does NOT mean they are no longer a threat.
I'm not saying that I would ever shoot someone in this situation. But I refuse to glorify the criminals that perpetrated the act. If you break into someone's home, you MIGHT get killed. Even at my most drunk or stupid, I can understand that concept.
Advice for American hand gun owners who are hyped up to the point they think they are at war with their human environment. LEAVE...if you are in an area where you actually think you need a gun to survive and maintain personal and material security...You are totally stupid. Go to an area where you can be with your own kind. Be with people that are civilized - kind...gentle and have a good dose of intelligence...abandon these neighborhoods that are dangerous...Let the crazed monkeys live with their own kind and let them exterminate each other.
Some times you have to practice avoidance. There surely must be places in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA where there are civilized pockets....Why would you live in fear and raging anger with a loaded gun under your pillow?
People who shoot home invaders had better ask themselves this question - Do I belong here? If you don't - LEAVE. To think you need to be in a constant state of warfare..and that it is normal to live like a well armed third world geek....stay and suffer...Life is to short...Clean house - get rid of people who should not be part of your life...get rid of them through re-location. If my human environment became savage....I would be gone. Only an idiot would stay and fight a battle they can never win- no matter how well armed.
Brilliant liberal logic. How long to you think it will take the criminals to find those unarmed areas? Shall we all hold hands and sing to peace?
I notice you put NO responsibility on the criminals. They should be asking - Do I belong here? If I don't-LEAVE. And when they do, I'll make sure and send them your way. After all, they have nothing stopping them there, right?
I'll tell you something, My stuff doesn't mean that much to me. If someone breaks in to my house and takes it, well then I'll get some new stuff. I pay insurance for that very reason. I would just never even assult someone in defence of STUFF.
Same here.
I totally understand defending myself or my family against physical harm, but to kill someone over a......tv?
Quote:
I doubt anyone would break in anyways. My dogs would sound such an alarm the neighbours would call the cops.
No kidding.
I have dogs. I have a LOT of dogs. I have a lot of very LOUD (and protective) dogs.
My dogs would make so much noise, not only would it alarm the neighbors, they would probably hear them in the next county.
Great - and then after you execute an already-incapacitated individual, you can enjoy your lengthy prison sentence that you as a murderer will get and justly deserve. You have a right to defend yourself, but even in your own house, you do not have a right to vigilantism. Here in America, we have a concept of the rule of law.
You have way too much macho bravado for your own good, tough guy. Seems that your sense of morality and rationality were left out. Get that in order before you end up behind bars.
Firstly, not a guy, genius. So yes, I feel a little more vulnerable than a man would. Should I weigh my options before I shoot that the teenagers hyped up on drugs won't gang up on me and take me out? Nope, if I feel threatened, then they need to leave NOW.
So now it's moral to side with criminals? Explains the situation in Gaza a little more, I'm thinking....
This sounds like the use of excessive force to stop the crime as well as murder for avenging the attempted robbery. As far as I know you are morally, if not legally, as this is not military combat, required to warn the intruder that you are armed and they must stop or you will shoot. If they stop and put their hands in the air you do NOT shoot. If they reach for a weapon you have the right to drop them right there. In any case you do not keep your victims around for a day or so after.
This guy is in really deep s**t with the law. That is the way it should be.
Brilliant liberal logic. How long to you think it will take the criminals to find those unarmed areas? Shall we all hold hands and sing to peace?
I notice you put NO responsibility on the criminals. They should be asking - Do I belong here? If I don't-LEAVE. And when they do, I'll make sure and send them your way. After all, they have nothing stopping them there, right?
Lets keep on the rails, and don't drive into the field
The man laid in wait
the man shot person A and hid the body.
the man waited some more
the man shot person B
The man walked up to person B, out of ammo, switched to handgun and shot 4 more times
Man dragged person B to corner
Person B still breathing, man puts gun UNDER chin and blows brains out
I have no idea how this has anything to do with self-defense or even gun ownership. This is some crazy old man that needs to be removed from the streets.
Yeah, right up until the "coup de grâce."
You don't get to "finish em off."
Remember this guy? Oklahoma City Pharmacy Shooting
The pharmacist was charged with first degree murder for "finishing one of em off."
Yup.
A person has the right to defend, but not an automatic right to kill.
A case that happened here years ago is an example.
An older fellow who owned a small shop and lived upstairs heard his shop's front door glass breaking early one morning. He armed himself with a pistol, went downstairs, and confronted the guy who broke in. The man was prepared to fight until he saw the pistol. When he did, he ducked low and tried to escape through the broken door.
The shop owner shot in once in the buttocks, which stopped the intruder cold, halfway out of the doorframe. The shop owner then called the cops. Due to the early hour and the evidence that the door was broken from the outside, and because the shop owner ceased his shooting and immediately called the police, he was never charged with anything.
The intruder later tried to sue him in civil court for the medical expenses. The suit never went to trial as it was turned back by the judge, and the case was appealed. The State Supreme court ruled that since the intruder was halfway inside, the shop owner acted correctly in self defense. If the man had made it to the public sidewalk outside the door, the shop owner could nor have legally shot him.
A person has the right to stop an intruder by any means available, but not to kill the intruder once stopped. In my state, that apparently means the intruder only has to be partway inside the property.
If he had shot and killed them outright, no harm no foul. He had no idea why they were there, maybe to steal,maybe to kill. But emptying a gun into them is questionable. Not calling the police immediately is questionable. I'd shoot any intruder in my house and finish them off if there was any question they might still be a threat. One shot, four shots, whatever it would take. But I'd be on the phone to the cops immediately.
A couple of dead burglars will help decrease crime in the area but he probably didn't do gun owners any good.
Something doesn't sound right about this. Are they sure they were there illegally and maybe not lured there? Bad kids, crazy old guy, they want something from each other, he gets mad, they **** him off, he shoots one and then has to shoot both. That might be a scenario.
. But I refuse to glorify the criminals that perpetrated the act..
The funny thing is it may turn out some posters here glorify the real criminal, the guy who shot the kids. It turns out a day later the cops only showed up because a neighbor reported suspicious activity, the guy didn't call the cops at all.
Some of you are already convinced the kids were involved in a crime when there are many suspicious questions arising.
Clearly, you're the one lacking critical thinking. You can't even follow your own line of thought.
And yes, I am completely familiar with the case.
Not a single person here has said it would be easy, nor has anyone said there would be no sleepless nights.
You're just making up stuff.
You still haven't explained how it's justifiable to murder an intruder well after they have been incapacitated and pose no threat. Your position on this is immoral and illegal.
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.
Excessive Force
