Quote:
Originally Posted by ant-ny
a man (or woman's) home is his castle; his safehaven from the rest of the world. it is the place where one should feel safest and most protected. to unlawfully breach that, in my opinion, is an attack on the occupants. it does not matter to me why that intruder is there or what their purpose is. it is unreasonable to expect the homeowner to engage the intruder in conversation to discover their intentions. for me, if someone breaks into my home, i can only assume their intent is to threaten or harm myself or my family. once i encounter them, i am under no obligation to order them to leave or try and negotiate with them. they have about one half a second to either turn around and beat feet the hell out of my house on hit the deck and completely surrender. if not, i will do what is necessary to protect my castle and my occupants. not doing so is a disservice to my family, who i vow to protect. i do not belive in executing someone. i will use whatever force is necessary, by whatever means, until i am convinced my family is no longer at risk. how anyone could not agree with this logic would be beyond me.
|
I 100% agree. I don't see anyone arguing in this thread against the use of deadly force to protect their family and I would do the same as you described with my .40 cal. And we're discussing the issue after the fact with many of the details described and some still don't get that, weird.
What is obnoxious here is the few internet tough-guys grasping at straws to somehow defend the executioner in the story as is typical with that rah-rah I'm so badass on the internet meme schtick.