They definitely picked the wrong house to break in to!

[Thai]

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 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.

This is all looking back...and we're not even sure what the real intentions were for you guys to give these invaders the title of being a "victim of circumstances." Why are we defending these home invaders? They were trying to pawn stuff? They were looking for food? Really?! Watching too much of La Femme Nikita? This is what you guys are using to make these teens into victims and heroes??!!

This mind-boggling crap reminds me of the immediate social hanging of Joe Horn and President Obama son's killer (George Zimmerman).

More often than not, it is these same folks who defend these "victims of circumstances" that cry the loudest when the same sh!t happens to them!

Yes, the post-shooting antics were wrong with this home owner and likely will result in jail time. We should separate the shooting into two events. The first event is him defending himself and his home. The second event is what happened afterwards. However, the liberal view that these kids were "innocent" in wandering into this guy's home UNWELCOMED is ridiculous. Anyone who knowingly invade into another person's home is scum of the earth! Pure and simple. They are there to do much wrong. There is no way for the homeowner to gauge the invader(s) evil intent in the heat of the moment. Holding a conversation to see if he/she is here to take my wallet or kill me is moronic.

The act of shooting home invaders (teens or old farts) to defend oneself and our home should be protected from stupid liberal interpretation.

 

[KidVermicious]

My tactic would be to aim in on the door, rack the action on my 870, and make some noise. I think you will hear running feet and a few crashes as they fall over furniture, each other, and whatever else is in the way to get the hell away from your house. Not pretty and doesn't sound as cool as saying I'd make them "beg for as bullet," (??) but my goal would be for these folks to GTFO - not to make everyone on the internet admire my self-claimed proclivity to violence.

Exactly. Thank you so much for being one of the few voices of reason in this otherwise re****ed thread.

"One Shot One Kill".

Screw THAT, what a stupid thing to say. If I've got 11 rounds in the clip, he gets like 5 or 6 of them at least :lmao:. If (god forbid) I'm ever forced to put my sights on somebody, they're going to go DOWN. One shot one kill my ass, gtfo with that internet tough guy BS.

 

[superman3043]

Man, this discussion is still going on? It really looks like everyone is stating the same thing over and over again. Main points to take away:

1) I think everybody agrees that we're willing to do whatever is necessary to protect our homes and families.

2) MOST of you agree that this individuals actions might be considered on the excessive side. Those that don't find it easy to say, "well I would have done this and that", but the truth of the matter is, nobody knows how they will react until they're put in the situation. Those of us that are versed and trained in the use of firearms understand that you practice certain situations to develop the muscle memory required to react without thinking or hesitating when faced with said situation, but those same people will tell you that when actually faced with a "fight or flight" situation it's just as easy to forget all of that training as it is to respond appropriately. There's only ONE way to know what you would do in a situation like this.

and 3) You don't got to be Stonewall Jackson to know you don't want to fight in a basement!

 

[ndcent]

This is all looking back...and we're not even sure what the real intentions were for you guys to give these invaders the title of being a "victim of circumstances." Why are we defending these home invaders? They were trying to pawn stuff? They were looking for food? Really?! Watching too much of La Femme Nikita? This is what you guys are using to make these teens into victims and heroes??!!

This mind-boggling crap reminds me of the immediate social hanging of Joe Horn and President Obama son's killer (George Zimmerman).

More often than not, it is these same folks who defend these "victims of circumstances" that cry the loudest when the same sh!t happens to them!

Yes, the post-shooting antics were wrong with this home owner and likely will result in jail time. We should separate the shooting into two events. The first event is him defending himself and his home. The second event is what happened afterwards. However, the liberal view that these kids were "innocent" in wandering into this guy's home UNWELCOMED is ridiculous. Anyone who knowingly invade into another person's home is scum of the earth! Pure and simple. They are there to do much wrong. There is no way for the homeowner to gauge the invader(s) evil intent in the heat of the moment. Holding a conversation to see if he/she is here to take my wallet or kill me is moronic.

The act of shooting home invaders (teens or old farts) to defend oneself and our home should be protected from stupid liberal interpretation.

The penalty for burglary isn't death, Rambo Limbaugh.

 

[Thai]

The penalty for burglary isn't death, Rambo Limbaugh.

How can you tell in real time the intent of home invader if you are the home owner? I like to hear your method on this. Do you let the invader rape you first then ask questions later?

 

[ndcent]

How can you tell in real time the intent of home invader if you are the home owner? I like to hear your method on this. Do you let the invader rape you first then ask questions later?

You can't.

I would shoot until the threat was stopped and dial those three magic numbers. If they died from their wounds, fine with me.

I sure as hell wouldn't execute them though, which you seem to be foaming at the mouth advocating.

 

[Thai]

I sure as hell wouldn't execute them though, which you seem to be foaming at the mouth advocating.

Where am I foaming?? When did I condone this guy's post shooting antics?? I simply don't give a SH!t about these teens. The homeowner's post shooting actions are stupid...BUT that does NOT make these dumbass teens saints!! Please try and comprehend this very point before posting.

 

[ndcent]

Where am I foaming?? When did I condone this guy's post shooting antics?? I simply don't give a SH!t about these teens. The homeowner's post shooting actions are stupid...BUT that does NOT make these dumbass teens saints!! Please try and comprehend this very point before posting.

It also doesn't make them worthy of execution, which by saying (over and over again now Mr. Redundant) that you don't give a damn about them, would at least imply you're okay with their murder.

You're foaming in that you're name calling dead teenagers. I mean we all very much get that you have no value for human life, Keyboard Cowboy.

Continuing to drive that home repeatedly though makes you sound as demented as Smith.

 

[Thai]

Giving these kids moronic excuses for breaking into one's home is even more demented, don't you think? For someone as level headed as you (or claim to be), you can surely see the nonsense of what you wrote before.

 

[ndcent]

Giving these kids moronic excuses for breaking into one's home is even more demented, don't you think? For someone as level headed as you (or claim to be), you can surely see the nonsense of what you wrote before.

I think you're taking my remarks, that were in response to WFO, out of context and spinning them too hard though your NRA machine.

WFO said: "entering a home with the intent of causing harm"

My response citing one possible reason they had broken in could be drug addiction, which also seems validated by the news reports, is hardly providing a "moronic excuse" for these executed kids.

You seem intent on keeping your kill-em-all blinders on while objecting to any and all speculation about their intent as "liberal trash." So yes, I like to think I'm more level-headed than that.

 

[Thai]

Hindsight is 20/20. At that moment, you simply don't know. That's my point. And no one will ever know the teens' TRUE intentions when invading into this guy's home. Judging this guy's INITIAL action as bad simply because you NOW assume that these teens were just naughty and not bad is hilarious.

 

[02SE]

The penalty for burglary isn't death, Rambo Limbaugh.

How can you tell in real time the intent of home invader if you are the home owner? I like to hear your method on this. Do you let the invader rape you first then ask questions later?

You can't.

I would shoot until the threat was stopped and dial those three magic numbers. If they died from their wounds, fine with me.

I sure as hell wouldn't execute them though, which you seem to be foaming at the mouth advocating.

So which is it?

You say the penalty for burglary isn't death. Then resort to what seems to be intended as derogatory name-calling.

So you are ASSUMING that their intent was burglary. You, and in fact no one except for the dead home invaders knows what their intentions were. Maybe they didn't even know?

Thai asks how you can tell the intent of home invaders at the time.

You acknowledge that you can't, and that you would shoot until the threat was stopped. That would most likely result in their deaths. Which would effectively be executing them.

So does that mean that you would kill them, if they were only there to burglarize your place?

That contradicts your first quoted statement. You can't have it both ways.



Another thing, do we know for a fact that the homeowner even had a phone? I know of a few people that were tired of Telemarketer calls, and got rid of their landline, and also don't feel the need for a cellphone. The article states that he asked his neighbor to call the Police.

Finally, making any sort of judgement about whether the homeowner was justified or not in his actions based on a Journalist's version of events, is not evidence that would be admissible in any court. It amounts to hearsay only.

Hopefully the facts will come out in court, and if the homeowner is deemed to be liable, he will be held accountable.

 

[RandyDaytona]

I would shoot until the threat was stopped and dial those three magic numbers.

This, exactly.

If you're shooting at someone, it is with the intent to kill that person.

NOT this. You shoot center-mass, to stop the threat. Look for the officer who testifies that he is trained to "shoot to kill" or that this was the intent in a given scenario and you'll find the one who's actions are instantly no longer covered under the law and the agency's use-of-force policy and who's going to get fired, criminally prosecuted, sued, or all three. Same goes for civilians.

You shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. That means even if you wound them and they surrender, run bleeding from your house, simply stop moving, whatever. Follow them and shoot them as they're running away? Murder. Shoot them once more, when they're no longer moving or no longer coming towards you? Murder.

The law has held that. It says you don't get to be the law and dole out executions, whether you're in your own house or not.

Do you get to defend yourself? Absolutely. But when you shoot someone again and they're no longer a threat, you've gone beyond "defense." You've switch to "offense." And as soon as you do that - whether the person is a prior criminal, drug user, or all around bad person - you're committing assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[02SE]

You shoot center-mass, to stop the threat.

Yes, you attempt to shoot center mass. And a gun is considered to be a deadly weapon. If you are shooting at someone, it is considered to be using lethal force.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that you are shooting at someone, it is with the knowledge that "while trying to stop the threat" the result could very well be the death of the individual(s) you are shooting at.

So I will concede that I should have worded my prior statement of "If you're shooting at someone, it is with the intent to kill that person."

To this:

"If you're shooting at someone, it is with the knowledge that you are aware that the other person might die, as a result of your using lethal force".

 

[02SE]

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.

More gun control advocate hypocrisy. You can't make this stuff up. :lmao:

Illinois lawmaker running for Congress out on bond after gun charge - Yahoo! News

 

[Thai]

This is hilarious: Christopher Lance Moore, Alleged Burglar, Called 911 When James Gerow Held Him At Gunpoint

I love Texas! Mental note...need to get shotgun!

 

[ndcent]

So which is it?

You say the penalty for burglary isn't death. Then resort to what seems to be intended as derogatory name-calling.

So you are ASSUMING that their intent was burglary. You, and in fact no one except for the dead home invaders knows what their intentions were. Maybe they didn't even know?

Thai asks how you can tell the intent of home invaders at the time.

You acknowledge that you can't, and that you would shoot until the threat was stopped. That would most likely result in their deaths. Which would effectively be executing them.

So does that mean that you would kill them, if they were only there to burglarize your place?

That contradicts your first quoted statement. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, I can have my cake and eat it too. Let me explain why, and I'll keep it short.

I would simply shoot until threat was subdued. Is subsequent death occurs, that's not murder or execution. Your use of superlatives such as "most likely" and "effectively" to exaggerate my intent is in absolutely no way akin to murder or execution, period.

Succinct and easy!

Also, what you call "derogatory name calling" is really just good natured ribbing at my board favorite ultra extreme conservative. Plus it's the internet, in an off topic forum made for this kind of thing.

Another thing, do we know for a fact that the homeowner even had a phone? The article states that he asked his neighbor to call the Police.

Good point, from the sound of it he very well may not have had a phone, but he sure had neighbors and not ones who magically appeared the next day either.

Finally, making any sort of judgement about whether the homeowner was justified or not in his actions based on a Journalist's version of events, is not evidence that would be admissible in any court. It amounts to hearsay only.

My judgements rely more on the Smith's statements to police and the court documents versus an account by a journalist. Statements he made like "already hurting," "If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again," "I want him dead," "a good clean finishing shot," etc.

Hopefully the facts will come out in court, and if the homeowner is deemed to be liable, he will be held accountable.

We agree at last. See, that wasn't so hard!

Here are the charges is you were curious for more detail:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/137017714/LittleFalls

Lastly, I agree with the police spokesperson...weird!

News Distribution Network - Shared Video

<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=1&VID=23899714&freewheel=69016&sitesection=twincities&w=424&h=320' height='320' width='424' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>

 

[Thai]

Don't mind ndecent, he is the forum's self-proclaimed court jester. He often tries to be funny by making sarcastic comments only to fall on his face...repeatedly. And when he tries to make a serious point (as above), you just have to feel sorry for the guy out of pity. His spew makes no sense at all.

You almost want to shout out..."dance jester dance!! Dance!"

 

[ndcent]

Don't mind ndecent, he is the forum's self-proclaimed court jester. He often tries to be funny by making sarcastic comments only to fall on his face...repeatedly. And when he tries to make a serious point (as above), you just have to feel sorry for the guy out of pity. His spew makes no sense at all.

You almost want to shout out..."dance jester dance!! Dance!"

What's the saying, Mr.Minivan?

If you can't beat'em, make non-sensical humorless remarks or something?

 

[02SE]

The penalty for burglary isn't death, Rambo Limbaugh.

Yes, I can have my cake and eat it too. Let me explain why, and I'll keep it short.

I would simply shoot until threat was subdued. Is subsequent death occurs, that's not murder or execution. Your use of superlatives such as "most likely" and "effectively" to exaggerate my intent is in absolutely no way akin to murder or execution, period.

Succinct and easy!

Fair enough. And I also agree with your explanation. But in order to not sound like a hypocrite, your first statement might better be amended to "The penalty for burglary is sometimes justifiable death". Because that is the very real possibility of your scenario.


Thanks for the embedded video. It sounds like the homeowner will have a very tough time proving his actions were justified.