• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man found in WI basement covered in BBQ sauce

soloban

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
255
Location
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
imported post

448044999_bf10e2affe.jpg
 

SQLtables

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
894
Location
Secretary MOC, Inc. Frankenmuth, , USA
imported post

Man, I forgot about this discussion.

To all of you who don't agree with the fact that I think it's stupid to "hold somebody at gunpoint until the police arive", I'm sorry. You are definitely entitled to you opinion, and I wish you the best if you are ever in a similar situation. If you pull a gun, you better damn well fear for your life, or your families life, at which point I have no clue why you wouldn't pull the trigger.

Again, we weren't there, we don't know all of the details...

Really? How many people have you shot in your house?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Was it a joke? If it was, I'm sorry, I'm slow.


Only have two problems with just holding him there.... 1. He knows where you live, you will not be able to get info on him. 2. He obviously will be getting off as a nut case defence, so no justice.
Strongly Agree.


If you are the type of person who can kill because it is a little more convinient or you don't want to have to stand there with the heavy shotgun cause you are getting borred or this is finaly your big chance to kill a man and not go to jail than I never want you for a neighbor. Castle laws or other may make killing anyone in your home legal, but never in all cases moral. It is not for the law to instruct us in our morality. Unless this man got real compiant real fast I would likely shoot. But the ball would be in his court. If I take a mans life I firmly beleve GOD will ask me on judgement day why did I kill one of his children. If I don't have a JUST AND RIGHTEOUS reason I will be found lacking and cast out of the sight of GOD. Castle law may in most cases protect the innocent home owner but we have a duty to ourselves to act at all times in the most moral manner possible. I think the castle doctrin of protecting the home owner in all cases of wrongfull entry shooting is acceptable even if some who are to quick to kill are shielded also. But that doesn't mean I am going to come onto this forum and tell you it's OK to kill without cause.-Jay
It's not a matter of convenience. If you had read my posts, you would have noticed that it is all about the safety of my family.

Of course no laws make a decision on morality, but they do make it a hell of a lot easier for me to defend my family. Like I said before, you do what you want, but I hope that I will be capable of doing what is needed to protect my family. On the other hand, hopefully I never even have to find out.:uhoh:
 

Jason Rogers

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
83
Location
Lorton, Virginia, USA
imported post

SQLtables wrote:
It's not a matter of convenience. If you had read my posts, you would have noticed that it is all about the safety of my family.

Of course no laws make a decision on morality, but they do make it a hell of a lot easier for me to defend my family. Like I said before, you do what you want, but I hope that I will be capable of doing what is needed to protect my family. On the other hand, hopefully I never even have to find out.:uhoh:

I would never fault a man protecting his family. In the news report the man was held at gunpoint untill police arived. I got the impresion, from your post andgiven the exact same circumstances, you would have shot. This was demonsterably not neccesary in this exact case. If I misread your post or found in it a tone that was not there, I apologise.

I salute your resolution in this panty wasted age to vigorously and agresivly protect your family. It is your highest duty as the man of your houshold. I only, respectfully and from a sense of brotherhood, offer the best advise I can give.-Jay
 

SQLtables

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
894
Location
Secretary MOC, Inc. Frankenmuth, , USA
imported post

Jason Rogers wrote:
SQLtables wrote:
It's not a matter of convenience. If you had read my posts, you would have noticed that it is all about the safety of my family.

Of course no laws make a decision on morality, but they do make it a hell of a lot easier for me to defend my family. Like I said before, you do what you want, but I hope that I will be capable of doing what is needed to protect my family. On the other hand, hopefully I never even have to find out.:uhoh:

I would never fault a man protecting his family. In the news report the man was held at gunpoint untill police arived. I got the impresion, from your post andgiven the exact same circumstances, you would have shot. This was demonsterably not neccesary in this exact case. If I misread your post or found in it a tone that was not there, I apologise.

I salute your resolution in this panty wasted age to vigorously and agresivly protect your family. It is your highest duty as the man of your houshold. I only, respectfully and from a sense of brotherhood, offer the best advise I can give.-Jay

I can't say for sure what I would have done, we weren't there.

That being said, I probably would pull the trigger (I think, again, hopefully I never have to find out if I'm even capable). Hindsight is 20/20. It TURNED OUT that it wasn't necessary to shoot the idiot, but who could have known this at the time? I bet if it would have been reported that the bad guy was shot immediately upon being discovered, most people here would have agreed with the action. It's easy to say you shouldn't pull the trigger AFTER we see the outcome.

I don't like to risk the safety of my family to protect some idiot who won'tlay off the sauce. I do see everybody's argument, and I respect it 100%. I just think differently I suppose.

When I took my CPL class, the instructor ran through a scenario about the biggest guy you've ever seen throwing your trashcans and smashing your car outside, and then beating on your door screaming at you, and then knocking your door down and stepping through the doorway, and then advancing towards you... etc.... He asked who in the class would shoot at which point in the scenario. There were about10 of us in there, and another guy and I were the only two thatsaid we would pull the triggerat the point he stepped through the doorway. I stand by that decision. I was completely amazed at the number of people who said they would wait until they saw hewas pulling something shiny out of his pants...
 

SQLtables

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
894
Location
Secretary MOC, Inc. Frankenmuth, , USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:
The homeowner did not have the four points of self-defense according to the story:

1.) The homeowner was not the aggressor and was a reluctant participant, however, the intruder did not seem to be aggressive either, at least not directly toward the homeowner. That's not to say the intruder could not have become aggressive, but the fact is that in this case, and as reported, the intruder was not aggressive.

2.) The threat was not immanent. The attackercould have charged up the stairs, but did not. The stairs afforded the homeowner time to decide if shooting was necessary, in this particular case.

3.) The homeowner did not face death or great bodily harm. The intruder did not threaten the homeowner, as far as I know. While that situation could have changed and did warrant the homeowner holding the intruder at bay,the situation as presenteddid not warrant the homeowner shooting the intruder.

4.) The use of deadly force was not necessary. The homeowner did have time to try non-lethal tactics, and they were successful.

In this particular case, the homeowner acted appropriately. Had the situation been different, the outcome may have been different, but the facts show the homeowner make appropriate choices.
Again, factsthat WE have the benefit of analyzing AFTER the incident is over. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to agree to disagree.
 
Top