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.
You response is laughable. The OP made no stipulation on what was being broken into, or the state of the criminal. Perhaps you are not aware of "due Process". You just can't shoot a criminal because, for example, he broke into your store, but when confronted surrenders, or if you go in behind him, shoot him dead while he drinks a free Gatorade. Sad you can't see that, or do you just want to shoot people.
I think that it depends. If the intruder is clearly unarmed, 5 fit, 100 pounds, you are a strong young man and nobody is in the house except of you - don't shoot.
If there are kids or women - shoot him down.
You response is laughable. The OP made no stipulation on what was being broken into, or the state of the criminal. Perhaps you are not aware of "due Process". You just can't shoot a criminal because, for example, he broke into your store, but when confronted surrenders, or if you go in behind him, shoot him dead while he drinks a free Gatorade. Sad you can't see that, or do you just want to shoot people.
Huh?
The op clearly says they broke into someone's home.
In Texas if you break into someones home, the law is clear that you have the right to shoot them until dead. its called the Castle Doctrine.
The op didn't specify where or what was being broken into. What if he broke into your detached garaged, or your tool shed. Do you still feel you have a right to kill them, to protect your rake, or, perhaps, your power mower. The OP didn't place limits, but made a Carte Blanche statement, and I am pointing out how stupid it was, and you are helping me do that. Thanks for helping me illustrate the absurdity.
In Texas if you break into someones home, the law is clear that you have the right to shoot them until dead. its called the Castle Doctrine.
More people need to understand the difference and be able to delineate between the two. They are used interchangeably so much these days - that people don't really know the difference any more.
It is the law at that point to find out if you had that right and for people to investigate the "scene" The bodies the placement and the physical evidence.
If you bury and burn bodies... I question what happened and the story line. The families should question the legal process on why the bodies were moved etc.
The op clearly says they broke into someone's home.
To do what? Bake him a cake?
Have somebody read this quote to you.
"My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death."
So in your world, mere decision to do a crime "like" B & E, you are rightfully dead man walking? I'm glad you're not in charge of anything!!!!
There's a case right now in SC where 2 guys broke into another guys house to rob him. They apparently weren't armed, but the home owner was and shot both of them dead.
He then went one step further by burning and burying the bodies in his back yard. (not sure why, but he did).
The intruders families are now trying to sue saying they didn't deserve to die because they were unarmed.
My stance is, once you decide you're going to engage in a criminal act like breaking/entering, your forfeit your rights and are assuming any and all outcomes that might result, including death.
This story reads a little differently than the story you told.
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.