arma virumque cano (et alia)
So a six foot, 250 pound, drunk guy tries to break into a home, having already tried to enter through another door and being told he was at the wrong house, and you have a problem with the owner shooting the drunk? Are you an alcoholic? Does this hit too close to home? Your sympathy for home invaders makes no sense. Rather than complaining about gun owners, you should be counseling people not to get drunk in public.
Of course you believe every word uttered by the shooter. But don't you think that a guy who is trying to justify his actions would not down-play the danger he faced? In fact, wouldn't he tend to exaggerate a tiny bit - or a lot - how much danger he was in and how much fear he had? Isn't that human nature?
The biased article cited a CBS article which didn't make the homeowner look worse. So after trying to break into the front door where he was told he had the wrong house, he tries to break into the side door. I can't speak from experience on this, but do drunk people often break into their houses when the door won't open for them? The drunk is very lucky he only got shot in the leg. "Shortly before 9 p.m. Saturday, the drunken 41-year-old man allegedly tried to break through the front door of a home in the 900 block of Rutgers Avenue, near Otay Lakes Road.He broke a side gate and tried to get in again through a sliding glass door, according to Chula Vista police.The homeowner, who was inside with his family, repeatedly told the man to leave, called 911 and armed himself with a handgun, police said.As the intruder was attempting to break through the home's sliding glass door, the homeowner shot him once in the left leg, police said."http://www.cbs8.com/story/25424464/chula-vista-resident-shoots-drunken-intruder
It blows my mind that anyone would side with the drunk with this example. If the homeowner broke the drunks leg with a baseball bat to stop him from entering, then hey all is good because a gun was not used? The homeowner tried to reason by yelling that he was at the wrong house, 2 locked doors and a locked gate did not stop him - there was not going to be any reasoning with him once inside. Perhaps the homeowner should have armed himself with a pot of coffee and a hug. Your logic on which person is actually the victim in this example blows my mind.
There is no mention here about the drunkard being confused thinking it was his house. Is bring drink automatically an excuse to commit breaking and entering to you?
In your feverish attempt to support the shooter, I suppose you overlooked this."Authorities determined that the man lives several houses down and had wandered to the residence, apparently in a drunk and confused state, thinking it was his own. Police also confirmed that although they lived close, the two men were not acquainted."
Seriously, Mike, what would you have this guy do? He shot him in the leg, so this isn't even a "he didn't have to die" case. It's either that, or let a guy who is threatening to hurt/kill you into your home with your family. So you think he should have opened the door and let him in instead?
So, you accept that your "no mention here about the drunkard being confused thinking it was his house" was wrong? There was mention of that, right?I question if the shooting was really necessary. After a home owner shoots someone, he is naturally going to exaggerate the threat in order to justify what they did. "Tried to break through a sliding glass door" means exactly what? Did he break the glass and enter? Did he just look like he was about to do it? Was the shooting really necessary? See what I mean? Of course you immediately believe everything the shooter said and presume the drunk guy was "threatening to hurt/kill." That not only justifies what this guy did but by extension justifies your own decision to carry a gun and plan to use it at the first opportunity.
Sure, I accept the first part. As I said, I didn't see the text accompanying the video.Maybe you didn't read the whole thing. You would have read there was a confrontation at the front door, he then broke down a fence and was trying to break the sliding glass, they called 911, he continued to gain entry, so he shot him in the leg (there is no mention of that leg being on the other side of the glass). Now, I ask you the same question: what would you have him do at this point? Invite him in and offer him a cup of coffee until the cops show up? Seriously, what is the correct course of action in MikeB302000land?You go off on this "naturally he must be exaggerating" claim with zero evidence and side with the rip roaring drunk who claims he didn't know what house it was. Why aren't his claims exaggerated to you?
And what's with this "first opportunity" crap? The first opportunity would have been at the front door, not after breaking down a fence and going to the back door, and a call to 911 placed, repeated attempts, etc.And are you contending that he shot him through the glass, even though there is no mention of that? Is that the fact you are fabricating to call this a bad shoot?
Doesn't "ATTEMPTING to break a glass sliding door" sound a little strange and ambiguous to you. The guy was a veritable threatening mountain of a man, and drunk to boot. I really don't see lethal threat in his actions, only drunken shenanigans. And I've explained many times why I suspect so-called defensive shooters of exaggerating afterwards. What would you do, downplay the events in an attempt to be humble?
It said he continued to gain entry when he was shot in the leg. That means his leg was inside the door. It would be abundantly clear if it wasn't because you'd have shattered glass from the bullet, and there is no mention of that whatsoever. Even if the reporter overlooked that detail, the cops wouldn't. California isn't exactly gun friendly, yet the cops described the drunk as "lucky to be alive", implying that deadly force would have been justified.Regarding you baseless claims that the shooter had a reason to exaggerate, don't you think the drunk off his gourd who got shot trying to break into someone's house would also have a reason to exaggerate? Why do you take his word over the family man who is at home with his wife and baby on a Saturday night?If you're going to make up facts to claim this wasn't a legitimate DGU, why not go for broke and say he chased him down the street and fired two shots into his buttocks?
I must remind you that you are talking about falsifying a police report, which is a serious crime. It is not worth embellishing, unless the crime he is covering up is even worse. Is that what you think? That he's covering up an attempted murder and the police are too incompetent to figure out that he shot someone through a glass door at first opportunity?
Yes, that's exactly what I think might have happened. What, all of a sudden you're touting police competence? How many times have I posted stories of armed home owners shooting unarmed people under questionable circumstances for which they were not charged? You make it sound like it never happens.
So you are saying the drunk was outside when the homeowner shot him through the glass, and the police could figure that out?
I don't know. Maybe the homeowner opened the sliding glass door and shot the guy. The point is if the drunk guy entered the house through the glass door the story would have said that. Drunken man crashes through glass sliding door and is shot by homeowner.
I did miss that, because I only watched the video. What's your excuse for missing the parts about how he first calmly explained the man had the wrong house, and the threats made, breaking of doors, baby in the house, etc. In your feverish attempt to defend violent breaking and entering, you seemed to miss these points.
I'm opposed to shooting people unnecessarily and then exaggerating the threat afterwards to justify what you've done.