Another +1 for the homeowner!

imported post

TFED12 wrote:

SNIP I still don't understand CITIZENS comment that "Breaking and entering and burglary are not capital offenses". Does that mean that you would not shoot them ? Does that mean you would shoot someone who WAS trying to commit a capital offense against you?

Not trying to argue....just don't undertsand.

Click to expand...

My comment about breaking and entering not being a capital offense was to give perspective that itdoes not rate death as an official penalty. Thus wanting someone to die for it is extreme. Shaky ground to rely on society's opinion as expressed in the law, true. But it starts to fill in the picture.

As to personally shooting a B & E or burglar, not in a million years.

First, I don't know that the burglar is evil and dangerous to a degree that warrants death. There is no way I can know that, if all he is doing is breaking and entering or burgling. I'm not willing to use lethal force on another human being who may be undertaking his first or second felony. Maybe he's a career criminal who includes rape and murder on his resume. But, I have no way to know as long as it remains aB & E or burglary.

Second, the legal jeopardy of using lethal force on another person is huge. The books are full of people unjustly or incorrectly prosecuted for defensive lethal force. Massad Ayoob has practically made a career of defending such people as an expert witness. Even if found not guilty, the costs of a criminal defense can bestaggering. Then there is the civil lawsuit by the surviving criminal or the deceased criminal's family.More money. And stress. Lots and lots of stress while one wonders if he is going to jail for ten years, or whether he will spend the rest of his life digging out from under it financially.

The burglarcan have the damned television and the stereo.They're not worth$20-50K in legal fees.

I've even installed a laser on my primary defensive handgun. Two reasons. One, help me hit the target. Two, there are reports that thelittle red dot snaps some bad guys back to reality and makes them stop. Getting him to stop without having to shoot is an ideal outcome if you ask me.

No thank you. I will not pull the trigger on another human being unless it is completely, absolutely, unavoidablynecessary to prevent grave bodily injury or death. If heoffersme anotherwise unavoidable threat ofgrave bodily injury or death, and I can see my target and what is beyond, I will perform the indicated response.

imported post

ItsMyRight2Carry wrote:

SNIP Now hopefully he'll get what he deserves in prison..BIG BUBBA

Click to expand...

Over the top. No one deserves this.

If that's his style and he wants it, its one thing. But to say its deserved implies its punishing and necessarily undesirable.

Please refrain.

imported post

CITIZEN,

Thanks for clarifying your opinion. I got it through my thick head now.

But, I do have one question. If you are in an areawith a Castle Doctrine, are you going to ask the intruder if he is there to just pick up a few things? Or is he there to pick up a few things and if you catch him in the act he will shoot to kill you in that split second that you are trying to determine his intentions?



Like I said, I understand your opinion. But it seems to me in the situation, you may be dead before you can determine the intruders actions.

Although, I am sure as a well trained home defense guy, you would slip around the corner with gun drawn and Laser on and see what his next move would be.

Good luck and Peace be with you.

imported post

sounds as if some of you don't understand that when you shoot some one, the intent is to seriously injure that person, rendering the person incapacitated (dead). by shooting you are saying by inference that you want that person dead.. or you would not us a weapon like a pistol, you might use a broom or stick or maybe a wiffle ball bat.

shooting some one and not wanting them harmed seriously, does not equal each other. this is why carring is a serious thing, not to be taken lightly. i fully expect that if i have to de-holster my weapon and use it, the results will be death on the receiving end. i wander how many hunters shot deer and expected the deer to be unharmed or slightly harmed..or a soldier to the enemy. i was allways tought that what ever i pointed a weapon at, i was meaning to destory it, so becareful what you point at.

i was tought in my concealed handgun class that if you did not fear for you life or your familys', you could not use your weapon. you never shoot to wound, (unless you a sniper engaging in war). so by intent you wanted the person dead!

also, if you can be shot and killed for occupied home invation this is a capital crime, maybe not to the courts if tryed but the robber is still dead.

jim

imported post

TFED12 wrote:

CITIZEN,

Thanks for clarifying your opinion. I got it through my thick head now.

But, I do have one question. If you are in an areawith a Castle Doctrine, are you going to ask the intruder if he is there to just pick up a few things? Or is he there to pick up a few things and if you catch him in the act he will shoot to kill you in that split second that you are trying to determine his intentions?

Like I said, I understand your opinion. But it seems to me in the situation, you may be dead before you can determine the intruders actions.

Although, I am sure as a well trained home defense guy, you would slip around the corner with gun drawn and Laser on and see what his next move would be.

Good luck and Peace be with you.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked. I was thinking you might. Not that exact question, but something that exposed the cracks between well-established law and the state of defensive doctrine which has evolved, it seems to me,faster than the law can keep up.

It comes down to tactical knowledge, I think.Also, there are far too many possible scenarios.But lets hit a few to illustrate tactical knowledge weighed against the state of the law, which means primarily"how much will I haveto explain to an investigator or jury for them to understand and agree Ireally was in danger?"

In one situation,all the elements of AOJ are clearly present such that if it were recorded in video and audio, the only explaining would be to point out on the video screen, "See his gun pointing at me."

In another situation, say the burglar has a knife and is 20' away when he starts walking towards me making verbal threats.Maybe one has to explain a little more, for example, the 21-foot rule, to show the degree of danger that actually existed.

Then there might be the situation where the danger wasnot at all clearto a third party:Say a bad guyin the upper hall, at the other end of the hall, with his back to me, with a gun in his hand. Why didI shoot him in the back? Now, since it is not common knowledge or nearly asobvious, I have toexplain to the third parties that the gun shows the bad guyhas already decided what he is going to do if he encounters the homeowner--me. And,if I first give a verbal challenge, I can so startle him thathe canspin around and loose a shot before I can react and shoot him mid-spin. Action beats reaction.

Separately, Castle Doctrine does not necessarily change the on-the-scene dynamics of defensive lethal force in the home. Its intended to prevent unjust or incorrect prosecutions and frivolous lawsuits against the defender. The ones I've read included words like "reasonably feared for..." whichhas always been a component of the common law anyway, as I understand it. For example, in Virginia we essentially already have Castle Doctrine based on the common law, even though there is no Castle Doctrine statute. The only thing we need it for is to close the door to unjust prosecutions and frivolous lawsuits. These are very important in their own right; but it wouldn't change that we can shoot when we need to. Even in states with must-retreat laws, you can defend if it is unsafe to retreat, or so I understand.

As to what I woulddo, Castle Doctrine would not change my approach.Back to tactics. I would not pre-emptively shootabsent AOJ andjust because he's breaking a window or jimmying a door or I've encountered himto our mutual surprise when I walk into my living room. Assuming I did not havethe elements of AOJ present, I'd at least move to cover.If no cover, I'd at least moveto put distance and obstacles between us.Then adjust my handling to the exact situation in front of me as it develops. I'd call police if time permitted.

Also, remember "reasonable fear."Just being fearful something might happen might not be enough, depending on the case law or how the Castle Doctrine statute is worded in any given state.

IfI was awakened at night. Say I heard a window breaking, I may not even poke my head out of the bedroom door. I might yell through the locked door, "I've got a gun! Get the (rhymes with pluck) out! Police are on the way!" Here is where tactical knowledge comes into play. I have read the datum I am about to give. It is therefore available to me to use tactically.Itis a statistic around the gun world somewhere. Here it is: inencounters between armed citizens and criminals, the armed citizens only pull the trigger in something like roughly one out of thirteen encounters. The rest of the time, the citizen only displays or refers to his gun. Ah ha! So, criminals are scared for their skin. Good! I can use that. I have a 12 out of 13 chance the bad guy will run if I just yell that I have a gun. Or rack the slide on the shotgun, etc. Judgement applies, though. If stealth and surprise seemed advisable to maintain a tactical advantage or safety in a certain situation, I might not announcemy gun.

I would do anything I safely could to avoid having to shoot. Including, if I amthe only one home,running out the front door while he is breaking in the back door. For example, he ignored me yelling I was armed and had called police. Yep. Out the front door I go. If I was in the country, I might even jump in the truck and start driving. He can stay awhile and enjoy leftovers from the fridge for all I care.

The possible consequences of shooting are just toosteepmorally,legally, and financiallyto shoot without it being absolutely necessary.

So, what this really boils down to is knowledge of the possibilities. The more you know, the better you can judge what to do. Otherwise you're just scared and maybe assume more danger than there is and possibly get prosecuted, sued or both. Or, you miss danger signals or miss grasping that a situation is as dangerous as it really is and get hurt or dead.

So, the lesson is to read, study, watch videos, take classes. Gun handling is one thing, an important thing. Learning when to use it and defensive tacticsis a broader subject and just as important if not more so.

imported post

I'm glad this was opened to debate...Monday morning quarterbacking is great isn't it???? Now you're using your noggins. Get back with me when you're faced with the decision to shoot the BG in the leg or the chest, because you have plenty of time to sit down and thoroughly think that decision over. Let me know how that works out for you...Ask me, I'll tell you how it worked out for my family...Maybe when you're in the situation with a 9mm placed to your head, facing a robbery for something that will yield a $20 crack rock, your thoughts on the BG may be a little different...Hopefully when you ask his intentions, he won't respond with a hollow point to your chest or head, or your child or wife's chest or head...Nice healthy debate is always good for the mind...Carry on...


"Over the top. No one deserves this.

If that's his style and he wants it, its one thing. But to say its deserved implies its punishing and necessarily undesirable."

All of a sudden I'm the bad guy...LMFAO:celebrate He definitely deserves it...I don't care if he wants it or not, if he breaks into my house and tries to violate me or my family, he MORE than deserves a nice a** raping by Bubba for many, many years...Replies like this are what have gotten this country in the shape it's in. Let's be PC and not be mean or insult the BG. We don't want to hurt his fragile little feelings. It's a tough economy, he's just trying to get by...Give him a break. Maybe Obama's new tax plan will spread my money down to him, keeping him from unnessicarily robbing me. It's the trickle down effect...We should ALL contribute...Right????

imported post

ItsMyRight2Carry wrote:

I'm glad this was opened to debate...Monday morning quarterbacking is great isn't it???? Now you're using your noggins. Get back with me when you're faced with the decision to shoot the BG in the leg or the chest. Let me know how that works out for you...Ask me, I'll tell you how it worked out for my family...Maybe when you're in the situation with a 9mm placed to your head, facing a robbery for something that will yield a $20 crack rock, your thoughts on the BG may be a little different...Hopefully when you ask his intentions, he won't respond with a hollow point to your chest or head, or your child or wife's chest or head...Nice healthy debate is always good for the mind...Carry on...

Click to expand...

Huh?

Is this maybe a case where we've each failed todifferentiate what the other was talking about?

For example, an empty-handed burglar is just an empty-handed burglar. But the instant he offers the immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of grave bodily injury or death hetransitions from being a mere burglar toan about-to-bemurderer/aggravated assaulter/malicious wounder.

imported post

ItsMyRight2Carry wrote:

SNIP if he breaks into my house and tries to violate me or my family, he MORE than deserves...

Click to expand...

Whoa.

Who said anything about violating you or your family? Noticing this I checked back over an earlier post of yours.You included a threat to your family.

Yet there is no indication in the OP news story that the burglar offered any threat to the homeowner.

I've been operating on the idea of just a burglar. Just a breaker. Nobody threatening the homeowner, nobody offering the homeowner violence.

Have you maybe added in the idea of physical threat yourself? Its not in the news story.

imported post

"Whoa.

Who said anything about violating you or your family?"

The moment he steps foot into my house, attempting to rob or harm me and my family, makes it a violation to me and my family...The last time I checked, I don't remember inviting anyone into my house to help themselves to everything I've worked hard for...

You stated: "Yet there is no indication in the OP news story that the burglar offered any threat to the homeowner." Are you serious???? So the BG was just leasurley taking an afternoon stroll through the innocent homeowners house, just seeing what items he might not need, and helping himself to said items...LMFAO That's the best line of the night!!!!! You're killing me...No pun intented (disclaimer, I didn't intent for you to try to kill me for speaking my mind and posting in the forums. I'm sure gun is bigger than mine).

LOL...Have you interviewed the victim? There was no threat to the victim, huh? The fact that he was in the victim's house, wouldn't be considered a threat to you? I guess you're right. I would take your advice and "might even jump in the truck and start driving. He can stay awhile and enjoy leftovers from the fridge for all I care." Uh, no thanks....

Why even own a gun? If someone breaks into my house, I will do whatever is necessary to protect myself and my family. Almost every other member that has posted in this forum has stated the same thing.

You're right, "Yet there is no indication in the OP news story that the burglar offered any threat to the homeowner." There again, the case is under investigation, obviously. Do you think the Fay. PD is going to convey to the media that, for example, the BG said "I'm going to you cut your f-ing throat, while wielding an 8" knife that he just stole out of your kitchen?" Is it standard policy for the PD to disclose to the media or the public as to what the circumstances of the crime were? The answer to that one is a clear and definite "No."

You have no clue what happened in that house when 2 guys broke in and attempted to rob the innocent homeowner. Again, I stand by my stance by stating the BG got what he deserved. If you disagree with that, then you're obviously on the wrong side of the coin...

Again, I'm just the good guy, all of sudden made out to be the a-hole, heartless BG, for protecting myself, my family, and everything I have worked hard for. There again, I'm just speaking my mind. Feel free to remove me from the site should you disagree...I've obviously crossed the lines here trying to prove my strength and character...LMAO Give me a break!

The fact that you're defending the BG disgusts me...You should go to the closest Sheriff's department and exchange your gun in for a $100 gift certificate to Target. Maybe you can invest in a security system...

imported post

ItsMyRight2Carry wrote:

"Whoa.

Who said anything about violating you or your family?"

The moment he steps foot into my house, attempting to rob or harm me and my family, makes it a violation to me and my family...The last time I checked, I don't remember inviting anyone into my house to help themselves to everything I've worked hard for...

LOL...Have you interviewed the victim? There was no threat to the victim, huh? The fact that he was in the victim's house, wouldn't be considered a threat to you? I guess you're right. I would take your advice and "might even jump in the truck and start driving. He can stay awhile and enjoy leftovers from the fridge for all I care."

Why even own a gun? If someone breaks into my house, I will do whatever is necessary to protect myself and my family. Almost every other member that has posted in this forum has stated the same thing.

You're right, "Yet there is no indication in the OP news story that the burglar offered any threat to the homeowner." The case is under investigation, obviously. Do you think the Fay. PD is going to convey to the media that, for example, the BG said "I'm going to you cut your f-ing throat, while wielding an 8" knife that he just stole out of your kitchen?" Is it standard policy for the PD to disclose to the media or the public as to what the circumstances of the crime were? The answer to that one is a clear and definite "No."

You have no clue what happened in that house when 2 guys broke in and attempted to rob the innocent homeowner. Again, I stand by my stance by stating the BG got what he deserved. If you disagree with that, then you're obviously on the wrong side of the coin...

Again, I'm just the good guy, all of sudden made out to be the a-hole, heartless BG, for protecting myself, my family, and everything I have worked hard for. There again, I'm just speaking my mind. Feel free to remove me from the site should you disagree...I've obvioulsy crossed the lines here trying to prove my strength and character...LMAO Give me a break!

The fact that you're defending the BG disgusts me...You should go to the closest Sheriff's department and exchange your gun in for a $100 gift certificate to Target. Maybe you can invest in a security system...

Click to expand...

(yawn)

I understand you have strong sentiments on the subject, but I'm gonna need you to start differentiating if you want me to continue talking with you.

First he is attempting to hurt you or your family. Then his mere presence isevidence of an attempt to physicallyinjure you or your family, since he wasn't invited to help himself to the possessions.

Then, in reference to the OP story, there is no difference between the level of threat offered by mere burgling and AOJ. Mereburgling seems to mean AOJ to you, based on your post.

Then, somehow, since the story omits discussion of AOJ-level threat, we're supposed to assume AOJ-level threatwas present. Nevermind there have probably been numerous teens who have committed burglary over the centurieswho would run like scared rabbits at the first sign of confrontation. The story clearly says the homeowner was alerted to themonce they were inside taking things. They didn't come looking forthe homeowner. They didn't initiate the actual literal confrontation. This doesn't make them right, nor the homeowner wrong; but it tends to lead away from AOJ. It certainlymeans ithad not yet reached the point where a confrontation was unavoidable. Also, its clearthey weren't committing robbery. This was not a home invasion, either. We're also supposed to ignorehowever many reports ofhomeowners shooting or saying they would shoot a mere burglar. "Drag the body back in the house" is practically a cultural cliche.

While it may not be SOP for a PD to always report every detail of an encounter, we've had plenty where enough was presented that it was either clearthat AOJ was present,or there was enough information presented that one didn't have to make large assumptions to get the missing pieces.

You're right, I have no clue whether AOJ was present. Around here we base the discussions on what is reported. And if we make assumptions, we say so. But one thing seems certain. Police or the press rarely miss a chance to report a bad guy with a gun, knife, or other weapon. And there is no such in the OP. Anti-gun press making it look like an unjustified shoot? Who knows? But its not in the story.

As to my jumping in a truck anddriving,while othersprotect their family, its pretty clear I wrote if no one else was home.

Nobody said you were an a-hole for defending your family. We said you're over the top for saying people deserved something.

I'm defending bad guys?Where?Treating some bad guys differently thana serial killer coming at me with chainsawis defending bad guys? All bad guysare equally bad? If making any distinction is fair, then making all possible, relevantdistinctionsis fair.

imported post

The softer we are on crime, the bolder these gonna-be, wanna-be inmates are going to be. It is as simple as that. I would know, I get to look at them all day and hear them brag about their burglaries and breaking/entering crimes. I see no remorse on the faces of these prisoners who get caught. I have had to hear true stories of burglars who as a rule of thumb executed all of the individuals/families inside homes just to make sure there were no witnesses to their crimes. Usually, rape was involved if women were known to be inside.

Simply put, breaking/entering and burglaries are gateway crimes to other crimes they just haven't gotten around to do.

Please make your domicile an unwelcome place for those who seek unlawful means of access and entry. This doesn't always have to be accomplished with weapons but things like fences, window bars, etc.

imported post

I think Citizen has ItsMyRight2Carry pretty well covered right now, so I'll leave that one be.

sounds as if some of you don't understand that when you shoot some one, the intent is to seriously injure that person, rendering the person incapacitated (dead). by shooting you are saying by inference that you want that person dead.. or you would not us a weapon like a pistol, you might use a broom or stick or maybe a wiffle ball bat.

Click to expand...

45disco, I'm not sure where you came up with this. If I ever have to shoot anyone, it will not be because I want them to die. It will be because I want to live, and I feel that shooting them is the only way to ensure that. If my shot misses and hits them in the leg, but that's enough to stop them from threatening me, then so be it.

Using a firearm does not automatically communicate a desire to kill. It can, but not always. Again I say, if any of you feel the desire to kill another person, or feel joy when another person dies, criminal or not, then you need help.

imported post

DreQo wrote:

I think Citizen has ItsMyRight2Carry pretty well covered right now, so I'll leave that one be.

sounds as if some of you don't understand that when you shoot some one, the intent is to seriously injure that person, rendering the person incapacitated (dead). by shooting you are saying by inference that you want that person dead.. or you would not us a weapon like a pistol, you might use a broom or stick or maybe a wiffle ball bat.

Click to expand...

45disco, I'm not sure where you came up with this. If I ever have to shoot anyone, it will not be because I want them to die. It will be because I want to live, and I feel that shooting them is the only way to ensure that. If my shot misses and hits them in the leg, but that's enough to stop them from threatening me, then so be it.

Using a firearm does not automatically communicate a desire to kill. It can, but not always. Again I say, if any of you feel the desire to kill another person, or feel joy when another person dies, criminal or not, then you need help.

Click to expand...

i never said anything about wishing some one dead. i stated that by inference when you shoot some one or something the results is dead/serious injury or you would not shot them. any way you slice it," ONEs need to live" in an armed confrontation, results in serious injury or death to one or both party involved. i feel that any person that uses a weapon in the manner it was designed to be use, with the results, it was designed to have, should fully understand that the weapon was used deliberately and willfully to do harm to the person or object. if one has to convince his conscience "that it was an accident, (non intentionally)" that person might as well carry a wiffle ball bat.

you should probably give and example for "Using a firearm does not automatically communicate a desire to kill."(not in the confines of target shooting) and that will be a hard argument to convince the general populous and not to mention the court system. you should think about why tazers are used by law enforcement officers, and i quote"a better alternative to the life of a suspect than a pistol"

i have no trouble dealing with the fact that when i discharge a round into an attacker(foreign or domestic) that i mean bissuness, not "well i shot you but.. I... really didn't mean for you to be injured or die". i would say "what a poor desicion to gamble with your life that way". one has to understand that the "ME OR HIM" mentality carries with it willfull intent.

i know for a fact that if you are in court on a self defence charge and you say i only intended to wound the attacker (mainly use of a firearm), the prosecting atterny will have a field day with that. i know i would, and you will probaly beheld liable, if not criminaly, civilly.

"Again I say, if any of you feel the desire to kill another person, or feel joy when another person dies, criminal or not, then you need help". i take offence to this statement, based on the fact that your interpitation of my writings would mean this . thanks for not giving me( an upright citizen) the benifit of the dout. i would say that by jumping to that conclution and hastily responding this way is very hurtfull to our socety. you are not writing on this forum to any murders or killer or any criminals for that matter. ( i hope and pray)

jim

imported post

Citizen wrote:

DreQo wrote:

ItsMyRight2Carry wrote:

Unfortunately the injuries weren't life threatening.  Sounds like the homeowner gave him a break...

Click to expand...

It is never, EVER fortunate when a person dies.  That statement is disgusting, and it makes us all look bad.  If you feel joy when someone dies, criminal or not, I'd suggest you find professional help.

Click to expand...

+1

Its over the top, IRM2C.

Breaking and entering and burglary are not capital offenses.

While entitled to your own opinions, we'd appreciate it if you kept these to yourself rather than posting them on an open forum for all our enemies to see.

I see above you've already back-lipped DreQo when he called you on it.  I'm not interested in debating it.  I'm not interested in educating you on public relations or image.  Whether you try to justify your post further will tell us all we need to know about your strength of character.

Click to expand...

+100

Citizen wrote:

Look, its not a big deal that requires lots of defensiveness or evasion. We just want you to stop making us look like savages, giving ammunition to our enemies, the anti-gunners. Please, keep your baser instincts to yourself.

Click to expand...

+1 to this, too.

Citizen wrote:

No thank you. I will not pull the trigger on another human being unless it is completely, absolutely, unavoidably necessary to prevent grave bodily injury or death. If he offers me an otherwise unavoidable threat of grave bodily injury or death, and I can see my target and what is beyond, I will perform the indicated response.

Click to expand...

+1

Citizen wrote:

ItsMyRight2Carry wrote:

SNIP Now hopefully he'll get what he deserves in prison..BIG BUBBA

Click to expand...

Over the top. No one deserves this.

If that's his style and he wants it, its one thing. But to say its deserved implies its punishing and necessarily undesirable.

Please refrain.

Click to expand...

+1 Man, Citizen's just racking them up today.

imported post

Custodian wrote:

 The softer we are on crime, the bolder these gonna-be, wanna-be inmates are going to be. It is as simple as that.

Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that. I don't agree with your simplistic appraisal nor your implied "solution". And your appeal to authority is less than worthless.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Custodian wrote:

The softer we are on crime, the bolder these gonna-be, wanna-be inmates are going to be. It is as simple as that.

Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that. I don't agree with your simplistic appraisal nor your implied "solution". And your appeal to authority is less than worthless.

Click to expand...

not to justify custodian, but the "authority" is one reason crime is on the rise, when you(implied to criminals) can murder some in the usa and plead to manslaughter and get probation, when you(implied to criminals) can rob some one and get a slap on the wrist and out in less than 6 months, when you(implied to criminals) can rap some one and then accuse the victim of being in the wrong place and get your sentence reduced, when you( implied to criminals) can kill people with you car while drunk and get a 2500$ fine, 1 year in jail, is "less than worthless" . the statistic of criminals, state that 80 % if not higher, of criminal that were interview were more afraid, while committing a crime, of an armed victim(home owner/business owner) than they were of our justice system.
to further my thought , let us just ponder why it is that we (general populous) don't commit crimes. i even would go as fair to say, why we(general populous) haven't carried out out lawless desires in the heat of a moment. it is obviously b/c of the law, but to us the punishment is too great. one does not place there hand in a fire, why, b/c of the consequences. why should deliberate crime be any different?

imported post

LOL, Citizen, your arguments have no base...Your arguments are full of assumptions: as you stated "if we make assumptions, we say so." You've clearly failed to do this...

"Mereburgling seems to mean AOJ to you, based on your post." I never once stated this. There's clear distinction betweeen mere burglering and AOJ. An assumption.

"They didn't come looking forthe homeowner." An assumption based on very short, possibly media biased article.

"They didn't initiate the actual literal confrontation." An assumption based on very short, possibly media biased article.

"ithad not yet reached the point where a confrontation was unavoidable." An assumption based on very short, possibly media biased article. Although, I don't like to assume, I would make the assumption that some type of confrontation had occured, or was inevitable, but there again, we weren't there and we don't have the police report to use as a reference.

"Also, its clearthey weren't committing robbery." The article clearly states "heard the burglars as they tried to take several items." not to mention they're charging the BG with felony larceny." I'm not sure what your definition of robbery is, but that statement, in my mind, would overwhelmingly define robbery.

"This was not a home invasion, either." Once someone uninvited and unlawfully enters my home, I see it as an invasion of my home. Maybe the legal definition of home invasion is different than mine. Would I shoot them for this very reason? Absolutely not! There again we can "Monday morning quarterback" this all we want, but faced with the real threat it's sometimes hard to say what the outcome would be.

"Around here we base the discussions on what is reported." It seems to me that you've clearly failed to do this with your numerous assumptions...

"We said you're over the top for saying people deserved something." There again, once that BG makes the decision to invade someone's home or violate someone, he assumes the responsibility of his actions, whether it be getting his a** kicked, shot, tripping down the stairs and breaking his leg, or getting manhandeled by Bubba. The consequences are deserving of his actions...

"I will not pull the trigger on another human being unless it is completely, absolutely, unavoidablynecessary to prevent grave bodily injury or death." I never once stated otherwise.



As for dreqo stating over and over that "if any of you feel the desire to kill another person, or feel joy when another person dies, criminal or not, then you need help," I'm going to have to agree with 45disco on this one by taking offence to a statement that merely makes an interpretation of someones forum posting. If you personally knew me, I think you would quickly retract the implication that I fell joy when someone dies. As I previously stated, I've worked in Emergency medicine for over 10 years, and I've seen countless people die. I've never once felt joy, and I never will, no matter what the circumstances of the death are. It's not something anyone should be subject to, but that's life...Would I feel bad if a BG was brought into my ER shot in the chest while attacking and raping a homeowner's wife or family member? Probably not, but I certainly wouldn't feel joy if we were unable to save his life. I don't recall a single person in this forum state anwhere that they would feel joy when someone dies. Your comments are WAY over the top, offensive, and uncalled for...

Hopefully the consequences of the BG's idotic decision to break into someone's house and attempt to take possesions that someone has worked very hard for, and don't belong to him, will teach him a lesson. Statistics tend to say otherwise...

BTW, nice post Custodian...

imported post

If someone comes into my home, forcibly or by stealth, I have no idea what their ultimate goal is, but I know that I did not give them permission and they are up to no good.



The most precious things I have in this life are in that home and it is my duty to protect them.



As protector I must assume that any such non invited guest is a threat to those I hold dear.



I would do anything in my power to stop that threat. I will stop that threat as quickly and as efficiently as I can.



If the threat dies in that process, I am sorry for their family and those who will be hurt in their passing, but that will have no influence on my duty to stop that threat.



Anyone who determines to protect himself or his loved ones with any method that is likely to cause death, which all firearms are, must be ready willing and able to deal with that as a possible outcome of his actions.

Anyone who determines not to use such force in the protection of himself or his loved ones has to be ready willing and able to deal with the potential death of those he loves, as a possible out come of his actions.

You can argue about the semantics all you want but those are the cold hard facts.

If someone breaks into your home and you use a firearm in the defence of your home....someone is likely to die.

If someone breaks into your home and you do not use a firearm in the defence of your home....someone is likely to die

The difference is who that someone is....



As for me and my house....I chose it not to be me or mine.



Tarzan

imported post

Wow, this thread is not off topic at all!

As a Bible believing constitutional Christian, I can respond to soft stance on crime with this scripture:

"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Ecclesiastes 8:11

Because criminals and crimes are not quickly and harshly punished, evil men get more evil and bolder.

imported post

Godscreation wrote:

Wow, this thread is not off topic at all!

As a Bible believing constitutional Christian, I can respond to soft stance on crime with this scripture:

"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Ecclesiastes 8:11

Because criminals and crimes are not quickly and harshly punished, evil men get more evil and bolder.

Click to expand...

hear! hear! A-MEN! i don't recall AIKEN getting probation or a year to think about the next job, for stealing. think about what GOD did when the temple was robbed and what happened to the folks that did the stealing. Anania and safirria, for lying and stealing..?