arma virumque cano (et alia)
How exactly are you suggesting that they have gotten away with anything since it hasn't been decided by the prosecutor's office. This sounds in many ways like your earlier posting of the woman in Florida who kicked in the door. As the article mentions, this sounds like more than just some sort of stranger breaking in. And I'm sure it will likely be decided on forensic evidence, which takes time to process. The article does suggest an interesting quandary. Its often suggested here and about that the number of defensive gun uses is too small to justify keeping a gun in the home, much less carrying in public. Yet when there is a rash of criminals picking the wrong house to break into, then the term vigilantism is bandied about. And while it is right and proper for each shooting to be looked at with due diligence, care must be taken to not let public opinion cloud the judicial process. Each case needs to be determined by evidence. A good example of this is the decision made by Angela Corey to bypass the Grand Jury and go right to trial, resulting in the acquittal of George Zimmerman. So far, there aren't a whole lot of details about any of these shootings mentioned in regards to decisions whether to prosecute. And I don't know how long the process normally takes. I did find some interesting information about one of the incidents by way of I think a link to another link from the original article,"Police took the homeowner, who has a valid concealed pistol license, to a local precinct for questioning. The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office will determine if the homeowner will face charges. Neighbors say the same home was broken into twice on Friday." http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/25066699/detroit-homeowner-fatally-shoots-2-suspected-intruders Cant say if they're the same guys, but if someone broke into my place twice in one day, I might feel justified in having a weapon handy.
I can't believe you're using the Zimmerman verdict as a example. For me, it's right up there with O.J.Simpson's first one.Having a weapon handy is one thing, but using it too quickly is another. In most of these cases we see a dead kid, unarmed, who was most likely NOT a lethal threat. The homeowners acting with the law on their side are playing it safe and killing the POTENTIAL threat, the POSSIBLE threat, just in case.
In Zimmerman's case, he was screaming for help with a guy on top of him, knocking his head into the sidewalk for 40+ seconds. Is that going to the gun too quick?
"I can't believe you're using the Zimmerman verdict as a example. For me, it's right up there with O.J.Simpson's first one." Actually, I was using the Zimmerman prosecution as an example of allowing public opinion to control the judicial process. For example, if Corey had sent it to the grand jury, she could have gotten a preview of the potential acquittal and still gone to trial after reshaping her strategy. Instead, she rushed to trial and Zimmerman was acquitted, even with the overt help from the media and withholding evidence from the defense. Or it might have shown that there was insufficient evidence and avoided the loss.
?????If the Zim case outcome had been controlled by the public, or even the media, the guy would be in jail for life.
Actually Corey allowed media and public opinion to affect her decision to bypass the grand jury process, as I said in my last comment. His acquittal showed that the process itself worked.
Sure,if you agree with letting killers go free and I know you do.
TS, Zimmerman was an armed racist bully who should not have been where he was. He had no right to be there following the kid who was minding his own business and walking home. But, I'm sick and tired of rehashing this one.
There's a simple way to avoid this: Don't break into someone's home. The mother said that nothing in the house was as valuable as her kid's life? What about the life of the home owner? Breaking into a home is a violent act. It indicates the potential for further violence.
I caught that statement by the mother as well. Too bad she did not teach her son that nothing in the house was as valuable as his life - maybe he would not have lost it by breaking in to steal stuff or harm the occupant.
Yes, Greg, POTENTIAL violence. It's not right to kill someone over that. The criteria are higher - except of course with the new movement towards more and more castle doctrine impunity.
When someone has broken into your home, that person has already committed an act of violence. At that point, you have seconds at most to wonder whether more violence is coming. I shouldn't have to be beaten or killed just to satisfy your sympathy for thugs.
Those seconds are critical. What you've told us is you wouldn't wait at all. That's what a lot of these guys do, and it's wrong.