They definitely picked the wrong house to break in to!
- Thread starter Millerad1651
- Start date
RandyDaytona
New member
That concept works great on a license plate frame, but not in an actual situation where you're reacting, trying to make choices, probably dealing with an adrenaline dump, etc.
Unless you happen to be a former SEAL or Steven Seagal...
And even then, if that round is placed in a location OTHER than center-mass, you're probably going to find yourself shopping for an attorney because it WILL be argued by someone (assailant's family or prosecutor) that you were not shooting with the intention of simply stopping the threat.
There's no such thing as "shoot to kill" in the American justice system. Whether it's a home invasion or being present during a 7-11 robbery. We still actually have to defend the range drill of firing three successive rounds: two to the chest, then one to the head (in case an assailant is wearing body armor, a la the LA bank robbers). People still go nuts over that drill, alone.
Firing center mass to stop the threat is the goal. But if you fire a single round at an intruder and it's a head shot, you'd better be ready to argue that your aim sucks and it was an accident.
Of course, having a gun collection, license plate frames proclaiming your willingness to kill someone, and posting about that same philosophy on the internet probably won't make your attorney's job any easier...
WFO_Racer
New member
I'm a old fart who has had a life full of some interesting life experiences. One is being shot at close range. Myself and my young sons are lifelong hunters. My youngest not even a teen has earned the nickname of "baby sniper" for his talent behind a trigger at long distance. Not wanting to get into a sword fight on the inter webs but the things we do for fun, do not sit well in my liberal state. Be it all types of weapons not just firearms but hand to hand ( my lil dudes will never post on You Tube that a bully has picked on them, but they have been training since they could walk) But I will say you can defend your home and get a praise from law enforcement after the fact.
All I said was that entering a home with the intent of causing harm creates some life changing experiences for the actors. Every is free to solve the problem their own way.
As a father, and a husband, (here in TX) I would shoot first, ask questions later, however I wouldn't 'execute' them if they were incapacitated. I feel bad for the kids parents, and families, I really do. But at 17 I knew damn well better not to break into a strangers house, and if I did, those repercussions were nobody's except my own. And as for not calling the cops for a day, that is a bit odd, but like the aforementioned, stress does weird things to people.
You made me LOL @ I didnt chase him because its too hot. You should've been like ''GTFO noob, its too hot for this ****"
ndcent
New member
My guess in this case is these teens were in search of valuables to pawn to support their drug habits, were unarmed, and probably not there to rape and kill anyone.
But hey, whatever makes you feel better about rejoicing in the slaughter of humans.
Violence bro, yeahh!!
Thai
Elite Member
Wow, a lot of assumptions and guessing there! Typical liberal trash. How does the homeowner know that the kids were there for those petty things and were unarmed??? Even after downing one person (girl), how did the owner know the other person was unarmed also???
Are we supposed to read minds now?? Are we to assume that anyone who breaks into our homes as innocent carefree loving individuals who just believe in the concept of "redistribution"???
Huh?! WTF?! Sorry, if anyone who breaks into my house, then I assume the worst intentions. Assuming anything else is just plain stupid IMHO.
Btw, I liked your post because it shows the pure ignorance of the liberal crowd! I also love Bob Costas recent idiotic spew on Sunday Night Football halftime show! Moronic.
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
No one likes to take a life. No one...well, except few crazy folks (murderers). But to assume that we live in Care Bears land is dumb.
I do believe in defending oneself (and family) against imminent lethal threat as last resort to the fullest legal degree. I would not go after someone who is running away...I am not a cop nor pretend to be one. I do not go outside my family zone to rescue someone unless I see no other way to help that person from a lethal threat...and that person in need must be close enough for me to provide help (aka right in front of me)...and only as a last resort.
I do believe in defending oneself (and family) against imminent lethal threat as last resort to the fullest legal degree. I would not go after someone who is running away...I am not a cop nor pretend to be one. I do not go outside my family zone to rescue someone unless I see no other way to help that person from a lethal threat...and that person in need must be close enough for me to provide help (aka right in front of me)...and only as a last resort.
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.
Last edited:
ndcent
New member
Your bias is showing. You're only calling out my remarks as assumptions and then hypocritically making assumptions yourself that I'm liberal because you don't agree with them/me. Which while trite and tiresome at this point, I can handle it.
I agree completely! If someone breaks into my house they will get a led implant. It's that simple.
It's always easy for someone to sit on the side line and judge something when they weren't in the heat of the moment themselves. I agree 100% with that man shooting those kids. They broke into his house. They didn't have to be armed with a gun to show threat. The fact that they broke into his house shows enough threat for that man to need to defend himself.
I do disagree with his methods though. Shooting a survivor of his gunshot in the head is wrong and his attitude towards the matter afterwords is wrong. After the intruder was shot and more or less disabled, he should have called 911. What he did after he defended himself is MURDER.
Last edited:
ndcent
New member
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.
yes. no problems with his initial actions of protecting himself. it does not matter why those intruders were in his house and he has no obligation to find out if they are armed. he certainly crossed the line when he executed them. he should, and probably will, pay for his actions. anyone who has posted on this thread that they would happily execute anyone, or said they would do the same thing, are either liars or psychopaths. that being said, i feel no sympathy for the home invaders in this case.
ndcent
New member
yep. it will be poetic that this now criminal, as he finished off the one criminal under the chin, will have his cell mate finish off on his chin.
Hmmm
Attachments
Clone of the Mean
New member
This guy never made it into my house, I surprised him when I came out expecting to see my neighbors dog. I coach linebackers for a local HS here and right away I was thinking "right fire middle blitz" on this guy..... Lucky for me I saw the rake nearby. He got away, but bloody as hell. You gotta realize asphalt here in the summertime exceed 160 degrees! I was done chasing him after 10 seconds. The police never found him.
02_SE_Runner
New member
Just dropping a comment in to the OP. I do believe shooting them was a good thing to do if they broke into a house for self defense. But I do understand that many people/teens/kids do have trouble living and if I read correctly it was Thanks Giving, maybe they just wanted some food to eat. I do know it was wrong way to solve their problem, (if that was their problem) but they still should have not broken in, and the man shouldn't have executed them either. Maybe just a crippling shot so they don't get away would have sufficed.
A gun is considered to be a lethal weapon. If you're shooting at someone, it is with the intent to kill that person.
The only place you might hear about placing a 'wounding shot' is in some unrealistic movie, or from someone that doesn't understand that firing a gun at someone is always considered to be using deadly force. If a 'wounding shot' were ever a viable option, then it would correctly be argued that using a firearm at all was excessive force for the situation.
Even the best trained Military personnel and civilian Police Officers can have a hard time placing accurate shots, during the heat of a life-or-death situation.
I remember one situation one of my Cop buddies told me about; He and several fellow Officers were responding to a shots fired call. They show up at the house, and as they are getting ready act, this little drug-dealing gangbanger bursts out of the front door, shooting. Four Officers that had all qualified very highly in marksmanship, and trained regularly in weapons handling and tactics, drew their guns and fired. The suspect went down. Subsequently it turned out that none of them had so much as grazed the little punk, and in fact he had just pissed his pants and fainted.
I'll say it again, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE INTENTIONS OF THESE PEOPLE WERE. We can speculate that they were harmless young people maybe out soliciting donations for the Red Cross. Or maybe selling Girl Scout Cookies.. But their actions indicate that they could have had very bad intentions. According to the article, this wasn't the first break-in at his place.
If they did have bad intentions, and the homeowner had called out that he was armed, maybe the young people's reaction to that might have been to set the place on fire with the homeowner trapped downstairs.
Then instead of reading about two home invaders that were shot and killed during a break-in, we could be reading about how a guy that had previously suffered numerous break-ins at his house, died in a house fire under suspicious circumstances.
See, we can play this "what if" game endlessly.
Hopefully the truth can be determined at the inevitable trial.
02_SE_Runner
New member
I understand that he shot to kill. But was it also necessary to shoot them again once they have been shot? The girl (if I read correctly) got shot rolled down stairs then got shot more times in the chest. We're those shots after necessary?
Was it necessary to shoot multiple times? I wasn't there. None of us was.
None of us have all the details. All we know is the story some possibly biased journalist reported. Hopefully all the facts will come out in court.