What's your opinion? Did it sound like the home owner had a truly life threatening situation on his hands? Wasn't he close enough to shoot the kid in the arm or hand? What about a warning shot?
It seems to me these castle-doctrine guys are hiding behind the law which in certain circumstances is a license to kill. What they're really operating on is outrage and disgust that some punk would dare to violate their sacred space. Fear of their life has nothing to do with it.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Wasn't he close enough to shoot the kid in the arm or hand? What about a warning shot? "
ReplyDeleteHollywood nonsense.
I remember when I was a teenager I used to hang around with other people who had what they thought was a good strategy if you had to chase down some perp who broke into your house.
ReplyDeleteSee, once you whacked 'em, in the yard or whatever, you just had to make sure that you dragged them ("them" invariably being the dark savages from teh ghetto) back into and then back out of the house so's you could tell the cops that they had pushed you into a position from which you could not retreat and then run outside to die after you popped them.
Man, I can't wait until they start giving the same "castel doctrine" hunting licences to WalMart and the other big boxes. I can see it now:
Investigating officer:
"So, then, the perpotweener grabbed the DVD and ran for the door and you did what?"
Rentakillercop:
"Well, I made sure that I had a clear lane of fire (no management or middle-class or higher folks in the way) and drew my sidearm and fired 13 rounds for effect--I know I only hit him twice but "those people" are freakishly good at cuttin' and runnin'!"
I.O. "Well, son, I know you must feel terrible, but you did the right thing. We simply can't have criminals preying on poor, defenseless citizens and corporations.
Nice group, btw, but I think you need to have your laser sigth calibrated it seems to be a little high and wide right."
Very entertaining scenario, democommie. Somehow, I think it is less likely than the outcome of most such crimes: a homeowner is burglarized and possibly killed by an intruder because they don't have a gun or are afraid to use it. Would it make you feel better if the homeowner had been the victim, here? I'm sure there are enough such scenarios that turn out the other way...
ReplyDeleteOr, perhaps if the cops had been called and THEY killed the perp, would that be more to your liking?
Terms like "Rentakillercop" and "perpotweener" also make your arguments so much more sophisticated.
FatWhiteMan:
ReplyDelete"Hollywood nonsense"
So, you're saying the guy was a bad shot or that there's no alternative to shoot to kill?
Beerme:
Do you say, "Gunzme" after you've had a few pops? Despite the thousands upon thousands of merKKKins like yourself who are killed each and every day by the HOMEINVADIN' HORDES FROM HELL, most of them never make the news. I credit the restraint of our highly professional news media, 'specially FOX.
You wanta know what would make me feel better? Would I feel better if the homeowner had been killed? Well, no, you fucking moron, I wouldn't. I wouldn't feel a whole lot better if the perpoteen hadn't been killed--I'm not really having "feelings" about this, except one of disgust for troglodytes who think that their homegoods are worth more than the lives of would be thieves.
"you just had to make sure that you dragged them ("them" invariably being the dark savages from teh ghetto) back into and then back out of the house
ReplyDeleteTampering with evidence doesn't usually turn out to well for the homeowner. Its not like officers or the forensic team don't check.
"Wasn't he close enough to shoot the kid in the arm or hand?
FWM has it right. People don't train to shoot moving playing cards (same size as a hand/ankle). People shoot to stop, not to kill. And by stop that's 2 shots to the thoracic cavity. Dieing might just be a consequence, but its not the goal.
And I must ask, if a gun pointed at you with person behind it telling you to go away isn't good enough for you to leave, then what's the answer?
"What about a warning shot?"
Warning shots, much like loading a 12ga into a shotgun (pump noise), gets innocent people killed. There's no reason to let the bad guy know where you are and that you're armed. If anything, the 1st warning for the bad guy should be looking up into the loaded gun as you say, STOP! or GO AWAY!
Mike, you may not like castle doctrine and that's fine. Just so long as a homeowner can't be sued civilly by the bad guys family when the homeowner has been cleared of criminal wrong doing.
Now if you don't want people shot and killed for doing the dysfunctional things they do, what's your solution?
Dump more people into the system? Arrest, processing, incarceration, parole, etc for the better part of each person's adult life?
And if so, are you in favor of closing schools to pay for the increased prisons we're constantly building? That's California's plan and its not working out to well for us.
"Wasn't he close enough to shoot the kid in the arm or hand? What about a warning shot? "
ReplyDeleteBoth of which are illegal. Are you advocating that gun owners break the law?
Anonymous asked, Now if you don't want people shot and killed for doing the dysfunctional things they do, what's your solution?
ReplyDeleteMy solution is to reverse the castle doctrine which allows homeowners to get away with murder.
A teenager trying to break into a house is NOT a capital offense. There must be the strongest possible evidence available to indicate the homeowner's life was in jeopardy before he can kill the kid.
Sure, home burglary is not a capital offense, but up to what point do you suggest should a home owner hold back using deadly force against a burglar? Until the home invader commits a crime that does deserve capital punishment? Unfortunately, by then, the home owner would be dead.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather keep castle doctrine on the books and have regular educational campaigns informing the criminally inclined of the very real occupational hazards they must deal with when committing crimes against law abiding citizens.
I don't agree with what this home owner did, but I'm also not crying for the stupid choice of a criminal.
"My solution is to reverse the castle doctrine which allows homeowners to get away with murder.
ReplyDeleteThe trend nationally is to go the other direction. Castle doctrine in states are increasing.
A teenager trying to break into a house is NOT a capital offense.
Any teenager coming through a window with a crossbar in hand is indeed a threat.
There must be the strongest possible evidence available.......
Which is subjective and already part of castle doctrine. Shooting him before he was totally inside and an 'immediate threat' was over the top but by no means is a homeowner obligated to get physical or even obtain a wrinkle in their shirt over an intruder.
You tough guys like to feel so superior to the criminals and the stupid drunks and the kids who break the rules. Blow them away. It's their own damn fault.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the castle doctrine is growing in popularity doesn't make it right.
"You tough guys like to feel so superior to the criminals and the stupid drunks and the kids who break the rules."
ReplyDeleteShould we let criminals (thats what this kid was) be the ones to feel "superior"? I still havent read any legal or sane way to deal with this situation from any of you who disagree with this shooter. Warning shots dont work and are illegal, anything less lets the intruder continue breaking into the house. The shooter makes it seem like he loaded his pistol loudly to scare the kid away, behind the shooters house is nothing but tall weeds(possibly a field) so it's not a "loud" neighborhood. If the kid didnt run at that point then there is every reason to believe that the kid is going to break in and things are going to get worse for the shooter.