Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SD67 on February 11, 2008, 04:08:38 AM
-
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/02/10/1202578584205.html
Complete and utter BS.
-
This is what happens when liberals are in charge!
At least the intruder's not Muslim. Then you would have turn his hospital bed five times a day so he could pray to Mecca.
-
Here in Oz, The Liberals are our right wingers. The left belongs to the Labour Party and then there are the way left wacko's like the NDP, Greens, Democrats and the ultra right wingers The National Party, The United Australia Party and the Family First party.
But predominantly the system is bipartisan, Labour and the Liberal/National coalition ( the Libs generally don't have the numbers on their own and the Nationals get a lot of the country vote.)
However it was the Coalition under the leadership of King Johnny that took away our guns:cry Pretty much all parties favour big government, and all our politicians purport to be serving their electorates while pandering to the biggest contributors.
-
"This is what happens when liberals are in charge!"
Plug you head out of your ass? Hard? Just head for the light!!! Quick!
No, seriously. The story tells that the younger man allegedly tried to break in. Note: a l l e g e d l y.
If he really was trying to break in there should be no problem providing evidence of mechanical damage to the door. Even with that there was no right to outright shoot at him. Even officials are required to warn offenders of consequences of their actions.
If you could just shoot people standing on your porch without any consequences some professions would become quite dangerous. If a you find a guy in your house with a screwdriver in his hand hes either a burglar and you have a right to defend yourself if he tries to threaten your life, or he might be an unfortunate electrician and you suffer from amnesia.
But the story certainly provides a good kindling for typical O'Club BS(TM). :D
-C+
-
:rolleyes: What was the guy doing at the back door of the guys place in the middle of the night?
-
Agreed, defending your own home...
-
Dunno, wrong door, he was having a piss? Is that a reason to kill somebody? The guy shot him in the lower part of the body but some idiot might as well aim for the head if there was no consequences.
While I am able to defend my home I'd call the police and let the intruder know that I know of his presence and if he enters I would shoot. I would end up in court no doubt and probably get a some marginal fine which would hurt much less than the 44Mag bullet hole in his leg. Welcome again.
-C+
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
:rolleyes: What was the guy doing at the back door of the guys place in the middle of the night?
he was an unfortunate electrician, just trying to fix the porch light, obviously..:rolleyes:
if I had been the homeowner I probably would not have shot him on the porch, but once he steps into my house under those circumstances, he's fair game.
Joker
-
middle of the night and breaking into the back door?
no one here is seriously thinking it was the electrician at the wrong address are they?
If the guy would have died from the gunshot wound then there would only be one story.
Even here.. Many cops will tell you that if you shoot someone breaking in.. make sure he falls inside.. if he doesn't... drag his body in.
lazs
-
There was a similar incedent in Adelaide as well as south of Brisbane a few years back, though the intruders were both cold by the time the cops turned up.
Both of the home owners never got charged for this although there were a few bleedin hearts on the break and enter shouldnt be a death penalty.
Also an incedent at Redcliffe north of Brisbane, the home owner was thoughtful enough not to kill the intruder, however the intruder dragged the home owner into court and caused all sorts of legal bother for the elderly owner only to get nothing out of his wingeing about being used to stop a 12 gauge shotgun blast.
I am hoping that the evidence supports the break and enter thoery and the home owner walks.
Sharrk..
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
:rolleyes: What was the guy doing at the back door of the guys place in the middle of the night?
candy gram for mongo.....candy gram for mongo....
-
Originally posted by Charge
No, seriously. The story tells that the younger man allegedly tried to break in. Note: a l l e g e d l y.
I do not know if the laws are the same down there, but here in the U.S. the media has to say "allegedly" because the suspect is innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law. Doesn't mean that there is undeniable evidence he did break in, just means he hasn't been convicted yet.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"This is what happens when liberals are in charge!"
Plug you head out of your ass? Hard? Just head for the light!!! Quick!
No, seriously. The story tells that the younger man allegedly tried to break in. Note: a l l e g e d l y.
If he really was trying to break in there should be no problem providing evidence of mechanical damage to the door. Even with that there was no right to outright shoot at him. Even officials are required to warn offenders of consequences of their actions.
If you could just shoot people standing on your porch without any consequences some professions would become quite dangerous. If a you find a guy in your house with a screwdriver in his hand hes either a burglar and you have a right to defend yourself if he tries to threaten your life, or he might be an unfortunate electrician and you suffer from amnesia.
But the story certainly provides a good kindling for typical O'Club BS(TM). :D
-C+
The only one alleging the shootee was just standing on the porch is you. The article didn't state that. The article said he was allegedly trying to break in the back door. There also was no mention about the homeowner (who has the right to be in his own home while the shootee does not) giving a warning or not. The homeowner may well have been yelling for the shootee to leave. There was no indication in the article about damages to the door by the shootee and I fault the reporter for shoddy work there. They should have asked that question and if no answer was forthcoming stated that as well.
The bit about the article saying allegedly has already been covered. To be fair the article should also have used the same term in referring to the homeowner as in having allegedly shot the shootee. Then again using a firearm in defense of your home and life is far more sensational at that location than a mere burglary and assault.
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
I do not know if the laws are the same down there, but here in the U.S. the media has to say "allegedly" because the suspect is innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law. Doesn't mean that there is undeniable evidence he did break in, just means he hasn't been convicted yet.
+1
In 1997, I worked for a Sheriffs Office in rural Oklahoma and our evening shift deputies were called out to a shooting. They arrive to a 76 year old man on the porch (no gun) and a 37 year old man without a face lying just off the porch. Seems the 37yo was an ex-boyfriend of the 76yo's daughter. He was a woman beater so she left him and went to her dad's. Boyfriend came over earlier in the day to beg and plead for her to come home and how he loved her, etc. She was done with him and Dad took over stating to never come back to his property again. Boyfriend got angry but left. He returned about 9pm, causing a ruckus, trying to get in. 76yo walked to the front window, saw angry boyfriend trying to bust in, walked by the telephone to get his 12g shotgun, walked by the phone on his way to the front door. Boyfriend kicked door in, 76yo blasted his face off.
76yo man received 10 years for Manslaughter, a reduced charge from 2nd degree murder. He served one year and paroled only to die a year later.
He was convicted because he walked by the telephone twice and never called for help BEFORE he blasted the jerks face off. Had he called for help, he would not have been convicted. Sheriffs Department was alerted by the neighbor first, then the daughter, after the fact.
I am 100% for the right to bear arms in the protection of my family from intruders. Sometimes, there are circumstances that plead for common sense when you run to get your gun.
:aok
-
"The only one alleging the shootee was just standing on the porch is you."
Reading is a good skill, comprehension may come after that but it is as important as reading.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Dunno, wrong door, he was having a piss? Is that a reason to kill somebody? The guy shot him in the lower part of the body but some idiot might as well aim for the head if there was no consequences.
While I am able to defend my home I'd call the police and let the intruder know that I know of his presence and if he enters I would shoot. I would end up in court no doubt and probably get a some marginal fine which would hurt much less than the 44Mag bullet hole in his leg. Welcome again.
-C+
You go ahead and take that chance.:aok
-
Originally posted by REP0MAN
He was convicted because he walked by the telephone twice and never called for help BEFORE he blasted the jerks face off. Had he called for help, he would not have been convicted. Sheriffs Department was alerted by the neighbor first, then the daughter, after the fact.
Guess, I don't understand the logic that you must call for help BEFORE defending your home. This homeowner should never have been convicted. What law says that I must call for help before I defend my home?
Terror
-
Yup go get on the phone and be killed while talking to the police. Common sense says protect yourself first. The 76 year old was smart enough to know what was going on. The law on the other hand was senseless. Must be one of those criminal protection states. The 37 yo put himself in that circumstance and paid the price.
-
Kinda crazy no?
-
Originally posted by REP0MAN
[B
76yo man received 10 years for Manslaughter, a reduced charge from 2nd degree murder. He served one year and paroled only to die a year later.
[/B]
a 10 year sentence and paroled after one year? your not telling is the whole story.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"This is what happens when liberals are in charge!"
Plug you head out of your ass? Hard? Just head for the light!!! Quick!
No, seriously. The story tells that the younger man allegedly tried to break in. Note: a l l e g e d l y.
If he really was trying to break in there should be no problem providing evidence of mechanical damage to the door. Even with that there was no right to outright shoot at him. Even officials are required to warn offenders of consequences of their actions.
If you could just shoot people standing on your porch without any consequences some professions would become quite dangerous. If a you find a guy in your house with a screwdriver in his hand hes either a burglar and you have a right to defend yourself if he tries to threaten your life, or he might be an unfortunate electrician and you suffer from amnesia.
But the story certainly provides a good kindling for typical O'Club BS(TM). :D
-C+
Oh, well, my but you certainly have some valid points and I find I must moderate my previous post.
I hope the find this guy innocent and throw a ticker tape parade for having the cajones to defend himself, his family and his property from some raging liberal criminal scum that was trying to break in and deprive him, his family or his property of their civil rights! Remember life is a civil right.
If they find the perp was a crook or a drug addict I think they should pin a butterin' medal on his chest at the end of the parade.
Unfortunately, I really think this guy deserves some time in jail though: Judge Drunky sentences this guy to one day in jail for not shooting the poofter in the head and killing the liberal scum criminal drug addict!
HAH. And people think that I'm an ass.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Oh, well, my but you certainly have some valid points and I find I must moderate my previous post.
I hope the find this guy innocent and throw a ticker tape parade for having the cajones to defend himself, his family and his property from some raging liberal criminal scum that was trying to break in and deprive him, his family or his property of their civil rights! Remember life is a civil right.
If they find the perp was a crook or a drug addict I think they should pin a butterin' medal on his chest at the end of the parade.
Unfortunately, I really think this guy deserves some time in jail though: Judge Drunky sentences this guy to one day in jail for not shooting the poofter in the head and killing the liberal scum criminal drug addict!
HAH. And people think that I'm an ass.
lol I agree
-
Originally posted by john9001
a 10 year sentence and paroled after one year? your not telling is the whole story.
Yes, I am telling the whole story. The man was a frail 76yo. He served a year in the County Jail as a Trustee. He wasn't a threat to society. I guess thats the rest of the story. He was in ill health for most of the time he was in jail. I guess I could have worded it better with, he received one year served, 9 years suspended.
Let me paint the picture a little better for those of you who don't see why he was convicted. He walked by a telephone not once, but twice. He said in his statement to the detectives that he heard something at the front door (area) and went to see what it was. He saw the ex outside, by his statement, trying to get into the glass exterior door, which was locked. He walked back to the back/master bedroom area to retrieve his shotgun. The shotgun was loaded before the incident. He returned, past the telephone, to the front door where the ex had gotten the glass door open and was kicking the wooden door. He stated that the ex kicked the door two or three times. Then the door came open and BLAMO! He fired from the hip, twice, from a 3-5' range. Neighbor actually called 911 when she saw the ex trying to get in the glass door. The daughter was dialing 911 when the father shot the ex. Deputies arrived 2 minutes after the daughters call and 7 minutes after the neighbor's call. I remember disagreeing with the decision as well. But the DA told me that there was a 5 minute timeline from the time Dad "had knowledge of the Ex's presence and possible danger at the residence" to the time he actually made entry to the home. Based on the fact that IF he would have dialed 911 when he had this knowledge and the actual response time of the responding deputies. This fact was enough to satisfy the elements of 2nd degree murder. The DA, from what I remember, offered the plea agreement to manslaughter with one year served and 9 suspended.
:aok
-
Well, if hillary is elected, its gonna get more severe, McCain and some liberal had violated our right to freedom of speech in 04 with a law they made regarding T.V. And people WANT McCain to be president.....
Thats the sad part, McCain ASKED john kerry if he could be his running mate in the 04 election and also asked if he could switch to liberal if he could get some high-position spot in the democrat party..........:O :noid
-
Thanks for fleshing that out Repoman, interesting and sad story. One concern I have with the DAs assesment though is, the difference in police response time to "my daughters ex is banging on the door" and "dad just shot and killed my ex" is probably quite a few minutes.
Jim
-
have any of you ever really made a 911 call?
-
Yes. Both times they took > 45 minutes to show up.
-
I have made several 911 calls in my lifetime.
The DA might want to check response times for a 1 year period. Even your 5 buck 8 ball can't determine how long police response might be. But hey to him it is only someone elses life, not his own.
Thank God the guy who shot the two illegals that were robbing a neighbors house here was on the phone with 911. He is considered a hero here.
-
Hard to believe any jury would convict the father for protecting his daughter. What he did makes sense...get the shotgun first and deal with the immediate threat. He told the man earlier not to come back. The implication there is not to come back or be killed. He gave fair warning.
I think I would have called the police after the first incident and let them know there might be trouble later on if the guy came back. That if he tried to break in I would have to kill him as I would be in fear of my life and my daughter's life.
Les
-
repoman.. I can't disagree with the decision more strongly..
I feel that to protect my home and family that the first thing I should do is get the best tool possible in hand... if that tool would have been a phone then I would have passed up a shotgun to get to that phone.
But.. a phone is not a deterrent in any way and so I would not take the time to use it if I were going for the best tool for the job..
The firearm.
I probly would have gone for the shotgun and asked the daughter to call the cops (if it was safe to use the phone.. the phone in a safe place).
Not only is the phone a crap solution as born out by history but.. by this case itself.. the neighbor used the phone and called the cops.. it did no good whatsoever.
The only thing that stopped the crime was the shotgun.. not a phone. spending time to get the worst tool seems counter to best practicable policy.
lazs
-
lol yup if they were so quick to get there they could have saved the criminal. But since they were not quick enough they chose to make a criminal out of the victim instead. Sounds like the DA lives in an upscale protected area and has no idea about true crime.
-
The real question is; Have any of you made a 911 call of angry man trying to break into little old man's home in rural Northeast Oklahoma?
I've lived in Phoenix and understand the response times of a major metro area. This location is NOT one of those places. This county is 762 square miles and as of 2006, has a population of 14,800 people. The call that the two deputies received first was of a man trying to break into a house forcibly. That, at that time, warranted an immediate response with lights and sirens. The county operated, at that time, 4 deputies on day shift, 4 on nights. The county was separated into two sectors, north and south. Coupled with the fact that the north-sector deputies most likely had nothing better to do; their response was direct and immediate.
Sure, there are extra-ordinary circumstances at play here but it goes to show you that the real elements of crime can, and sometimes do, take place when an innocent citizen protects his property with life-threatening means. If you come through my door in the middle of the night, you will get shot at. I will be shooting to kill. Does that mean that I may or may not have that right? I don't know. It completely depends on the situation.
I think we're all in agreement on the base of the issue. :)
-
repoman.. I am sorry but.. unless that department had a 100% record of showing up in less than a minute... I am gonna go for the shotgun first and the phone second.. and probly the shotgun no matter what the record was.
You say "direct and immediate" I say someone trying to come through the front door is a little more "direct and immediate" he could get through in seconds.
I want to have the best tool in hand.. I don't want to lose any concentration on the situation.. hell.. they tell us now that we can't even drive a car and talk on the phone at the same time...
How the hell are we supposed to contain such a situation and talk on the phone... or.. use a shotgun effectively with one hand on the shotgun and the other with a phone held up to our ear?
I respect cops and their job.. I do not trust anyone to take care of such a situation but myself tho.
Like I said.. I would have told the daughter to call the cops. but I wouldn't have let even one hand off that shotgun or even a fraction of my concentration off the situation.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
repoman.. I can't disagree with the decision more strongly..
I feel that to protect my home and family that the first thing I should do is get the best tool possible in hand... if that tool would have been a phone then I would have passed up a shotgun to get to that phone.
But.. a phone is not a deterrent in any way and so I would not take the time to use it if I were going for the best tool for the job..
The firearm.
I probly would have gone for the shotgun and asked the daughter to call the cops (if it was safe to use the phone.. the phone in a safe place).
Not only is the phone a crap solution as born out by history but.. by this case itself.. the neighbor used the phone and called the cops.. it did no good whatsoever.
The only thing that stopped the crime was the shotgun.. not a phone. spending time to get the worst tool seems counter to best practicable policy.
lazs
Lazs, I couldn't agree with you more. I am not disagreeing with anyone here.
There are so many "what if's" involved here. Any element you change can drastically change the outcome for both the Ex, the Dad, the Daughter and the involvement of the DA.
What if he called 911? He would have received the same response. Could the deputies arrive and essentially save the Ex from death and the Dad from jail? I haven't a clue.
What if he called 911 and dropped the phone while he "dealt" with the intruder? Would that have changed things? Beats me.
My point is that in every situation there will be elements like this that will affect the outcome for the bad guy, the citizen and the judicial involvement. There is no way to blanket the situation and say you "wouldda done this" or "wouldda done that".
:)
-
Originally posted by REP0MAN
Lazs, I couldn't agree with you more. I am not disagreeing with anyone here.
There are so many "what if's" involved here. Any element you change can drastically change the outcome for both the Ex, the Dad, the Daughter and the involvement of the DA.
What if he called 911? He would have received the same response. Could the deputies arrive and essentially save the Ex from death and the Dad from jail? I haven't a clue.
What if he called 911 and dropped the phone while he "dealt" with the intruder? Would that have changed things? Beats me.
My point is that in every situation there will be elements like this that will affect the outcome for the bad guy, the citizen and the judicial involvement. There is no way to blanket the situation and say you "wouldda done this" or "wouldda done that".
:)
But there is. By you being a little pansy waffler you are giving credence to those who wish to take away guns and especially those who wish to take away the right to defend yourself.
Either it is alright to KILL someone trying to forcibly trying to enter your house to do whatever he wants, or it isn't. There is no middle ground. There is no weighing the specific circumstances. You either blow his ****ing head off, or you wait and pray that the cops are nearby and able to show up in time.
But let me tell you, ask any victim. That 4 - 30 minutes waiting for a cop is a LONG time.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
repoman.. I can't disagree with the decision more strongly..
The firearm.
I probly would have gone for the shotgun and asked the daughter to call the cops (if it was safe to use the phone.. the phone in a safe place).
Not only is the phone a crap solution as born out by history but.. by this case itself.. the neighbor used the phone and called the cops.. it did no good whatsoever.
The only thing that stopped the crime was the shotgun.. not a phone. spending time to get the worst tool seems counter to best practicable policy.
lazs
Maybe the guy was in a dilusional state of mind and thought that it was his house.
We should take away all the guns and make everyone learn various forms of karate. Problem solved.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But there is. By you being a little pansy waffler you are giving credence to those who wish to take away guns and especially those who wish to take away the right to defend yourself.
Karate is the answer...duh.
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
We should take away all the guns and make everyone learn various forms of karate. Problem solved.
that statement is so wrong in so many ways.
-
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. :D
Regards,
Sun
-
Originally posted by Charge
Dunno, wrong door, he was having a piss? Is that a reason to kill somebody? The guy shot him in the lower part of the body but some idiot might as well aim for the head if there was no consequences.
While I am able to defend my home I'd call the police and let the intruder know that I know of his presence and if he enters I would shoot. I would end up in court no doubt and probably get a some marginal fine which would hurt much less than the 44Mag bullet hole in his leg. Welcome again.
If you are shooting for the leg you have a big problem anyway.
Might as well shoot yourself in the foot. It would be less painful.
-
"I am gonna go for the shotgun first and the phone second.. and probly the shotgun no matter what the record was."
Well it depends of the immediate threat but I think that is the right order too. If the commiehomolibruldrugaddiekosm onautsquirrel (gosh, did I forgot something?) forces him/herself in the house deal with it right away and sort it out later.
"not shooting the poofter in the head and killing the liberal scum criminal drug addict! HAH. And people think that I'm an ass."
Makes sense, doesn't it? :)
-C+
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
If you are shooting for the leg you have a big problem anyway.
Might as well shoot yourself in the foot. It would be less painful.
Shooting someone in the leg can kill the person. Hit the major blood vessel and he bleeds to death real quick.
-
Well if he'd look like not fitting to my political agenda I'd try to hit him in the knee. Less bleeding and in the future you'd recognize the bugger from a limp miles away.
Besides Jackal, if you cannot hit a friggin leg in such short ranges you really should consider ditching the gun and buying some lube instead. After all the bugger HAS to keep his legs to the ground if he tries to move. Hands or head as a target are another matter altogether.
-C+
-
repoman.. I think we agree. I see nothing wrong with calling the cops but.. only after I have secured a means of stopping the intruder.
I agree that in a non tense situation.. if you have icewater for blood.. you could call the cops and drop the phone if things escalated. I believe that in the back of the guys mind.. he probly thought it wouldn't get that far anyway.
very few people even believe it is happening to them.. even while it is happening.. they think it will all end somehow..
like twenty fo.. for instance.. he would be weeping and pleading as he was being stomped to death while trying to show the guy his karate trophy that he won his pink belt with in the non contact dance contest at his local dooooo jooooe.
lazs
-
as for hitting stuff... shooting the guns out of peoples hands and "winging" them and such... unless you really don't need to shoot... have all the time in the world.. that is about as stupid a tactic as I have ever heard.
I would invite you to come with me to shoot moving ground squirrels or jacks. I would love to see this marksmanship. the lone ranger could do it but.. no matter how hard I try... I never seem to be able to hit a moving target the size of a leg with a hip shot with any real consistency.
You may have noticed that even aiming for the torso at close range... It takes cops about 20 rounds to hit someone.
lazs
-
Responding to a call like this I would be completely on the homeowners side. Even if it meant putting an arm around his shoulder and taking a little walk with him.
Force everyone lo learn karate? Hahahahahah, that must be a joke. What if the bad guy brings a gun to a karate fight? Whoya going to call? Jet Li ?
"Most" people would be none to keen to kill an intruder. They may say they would be on an internet forum but killing someone isnt that easy for God fearing people. I believe almost all homeowners who do such things are sincerely in fear of their lives, and the lives of their familys.
Sorry but the Law reads that use of deadly force is use of deadly force. It dont matter if you try winging the BG or shooting the gun out of his hand. Its still "use of deadly force", and even worse, now there may be a bullet richocheting to kill your neighbors kid sleeping in his bed next door.
And all your pretty little groups you shoot at the range might not mean much in a fluid gunfight where the BG aint posing for you to shoot in the 10 ring. At no time ever "shoot to wound". If you have enough reason to shoot at the BG then you better have enough reason to kill him. You either have enough reason to use deadly force or you dont.
Gee Laz, you cop expert, does it take all of us 20 rounds to hit someone or only 157,789 of us? I know coppers that can make me look bad in a combat shoot. And since I can make "you" look bad exactly where does that leave you?
-
agree with rich46 completely on this. well said.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
agree with rich46 completely on this. well said.
lazs
Good, read it again.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
repoman.. I think we agree. I see nothing wrong with calling the cops but.. only after I have secured a means of stopping the intruder.
I agree that in a non tense situation.. if you have icewater for blood.. you could call the cops and drop the phone if things escalated. I believe that in the back of the guys mind.. he probly thought it wouldn't get that far anyway.
very few people even believe it is happening to them.. even while it is happening.. they think it will all end somehow..
like twenty fo.. for instance.. he would be weeping and pleading as he was being stomped to death while trying to show the guy his karate trophy that he won his pink belt with in the non contact dance contest at his local dooooo jooooe.
lazs
Yep! I know that I would be just like them too; not believing it is happening to me. I don't even know if I could actually go get the gun without trying to physically subdue an intruder. I don't know if my reaction would be to run away from the imminent threat to even get a gun. As we've said, so many factors, so many different situations.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But there is. By you being a little pansy waffler you are giving credence to those who wish to take away guns and especially those who wish to take away the right to defend yourself.
You've hit the nail on the head (with the exception of the unwarranted insult). I posted the right to defend your property, not yourself (which means your life). When you can see that there is a difference, we'll chat.
Either it is alright to KILL someone trying to forcibly trying to enter your house to do whatever he wants, or it isn't. There is no middle ground. There is no weighing the specific circumstances. You either blow his ****ing head off, or you wait and pray that the cops are nearby and able to show up in time.
If he is trying to break into your house and there is no imminent physical danger to you or your family; you'd better prey the cops have padded handcuffs. You wrists are gonna be sore.
If you and your loved ones are behind that door, with no other place to go, I agree wholeheartedly; empty the clip in the bastage.
But let me tell you, ask any victim. That 4 - 30 minutes waiting for a cop is a LONG time.
I don't have to ask any victim, I WAS that cop for many years. I not only know and completely understand what a victim is going through while waiting for police to arrive. I can go even further; I know what it's like trying to get to that victim. Knowing they could be in the fight of their life. The thought in your head that an innocent citizen may be breathing his last breathe because it took you an extra 15 seconds to get in the car from your last call. Don't think that I don't understand. Don't think that every cop in America doesn't understand.
:aok
-
don't break into a house down here in Florida, the people are allowed to shoot criminals in Florida.
Florida, the unfriendly to criminals state.
-
rich46.. I agree with you.. I don't know but I think you might be able to beat me in a game of combat shoot. unless of course.. there was no course and you had to use whatever gun was at hand. I never was all that good at games. get bored.
So yeah.. we still agree. Now if you want to show me the real stats on what you "combat" shooters do in a real gunfight.. if it isn't like 7-20 rounds per hit.. then maybe I am wrong.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rich46.. I agree with you.. I don't know but I think you might be able to beat me in a game of combat shoot. unless of course.. there was no course and you had to use whatever gun was at hand. I never was all that good at games. get bored.
So yeah.. we still agree. Now if you want to show me the real stats on what you "combat" shooters do in a real gunfight.. if it isn't like 7-20 rounds per hit.. then maybe I am wrong.
lazs
The problem comes when you group entire groups together and then make blanket statements. Its bad policy all around.
And while Ive always been a believer in practicing on a range, and ANY kind is better then none, the truth is shooting on a range has very little in common with actual gunfights. Even guys who are really good shots on a range can whiff in an actual shootout.
A lot of different things can happen. They can happen to me and they can happen to you. And having actually been in such incidents I can tell you they leave you feeling more humble then you felt before.
-
I'd bet that at one time the idea of opposing an intruder with deadly force was a universally condoned practice. Unfortunately the real world stepped in and the justification became less cut and dried. I only personally know of 3 "home invasions" that occurred to people close to me. None warranted, in my mind, the use of deadly force. Nor were they definitive of the scenarios we have used to make our collective statements.
I get the impression that for the overwhelming majority incidents where the "invader" in fact had malevolent ambitions, the "invadee" did something to bring them there. I know it did in two of my references, in which there was no apparent malice to persons or property but in the case of one somebody lost their life.
As much as I dislike using fiction as an example of real life, it sometimes can help to make an example everyone can grasp. I refer to the last scene in the old film "Sleeping With the Enemy" where the heroin has a subdued and as I recall immobilized ex on the floor and lets him watch her call the police to report that she just killed an intruder.
In the movies grim irony is all well and good, in real life it loses a little luster. In most of the country it's accepted that one may shoot an intruder as soon as they breach the threshold but due to our collective tendency to embellish the truth, it's important to exercise a bit of diligence before we commend the "victim".
Far be it for me to advocate passivity in the case of a person entering another's home uninvited with ill intent, I just don't know how many times it really happens.
-
It does happen. The first homicide I handled as a rookie was of a 79yo grandmother whose apartment was invaded by a burglar. The guy beat her head in with a telephone until she was unrecognizable as a human being and then for good measure strangled her with the phone cord. We figured it had to be a junkie who was sick for the needle cause her underpants werent down around her ankles. She'd been dead for two days before the neighbor called in a "bad smell".
A guy I worked for once had 2 BGs come in in the middle of the night. They killed him with baseball bats, thought they killed his 9yo kid, and then raped his wife before beating her to death. The neighbors called the police when they saw the kid walking around in his underwear bloody from head to toe. We found their car in a housing project parking lot and shortly after arrested the two. They were 2 of the many cold blooded killers that were saved from the needle after our ex-Governor suspended the death penalty.
As far as I know we never pinched anyone for the 79yo grandma. I hope everyone here is prepared to protect themselves and their families. Because 2 to 5 mins IS a long time and things like this really DO happen.
Far be it for me to advocate passivity in the case of a person entering another's home uninvited with ill intent, I just don't know how many times it really happens.
-
Everyone knows these things happen, just ask Sharon Tate. That's not the point I was making.
It's about numbers, and the situational issues. About seeing the forest through the trees.
Fact is, the old lady's case is moot. Too many what if's? The second example I won't even get into. The question is, considering all of the stupid things people do, should we give 'em a free pass because they fit a profile?
Or more simply put: Is it ok to kill someone just because of where they stand and do we assume that all "victims" tell the truth?
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Far be it for me to advocate passivity in the case of a person entering another's home uninvited with ill intent, I just don't know how many times it really happens.
So we should sit down with the intruder, have some tea, and discuss what his intentions are? :huh
"Oh, your just here to rob the place then?"
"Yes sir. Sorry about this, I just want your valuables. Don't want to harm you."
"Well, I'll just pop over to the bedroom, and bar the door. Oh, and do be quick, I shall ring the police. I wouldn't want you to get caught."
"If you would sir, mind throwing out your wallet, before you close the bedroom door. It would help me, speed things along, greatly."
As for your "other" scenario Thruster, Hollywood bull**** would not make it past police scrutiny. All shootings get investigated, and both shooter and shoot are looked at. If things don't tally the way they should, and there are a lot of variables that could make investigators think of murder(it is what they usually start out thinking in the first place), rather than some poor bloke picking the wrong house to mess with. Hollywood fantasies are not a part of the real world, except as entertainment on screen. A tiny, fraction of a percent, of home invasions come anywhere near the scenario you provide. For that tiny fraction of a percent, the police usually figure out, rather quickly, that the "victim" really isn't.
If a person enters my house, uninvited, they will be faced with a gun, and told to leave. If they do not, or advance on me, I will assume their intentions are hostile and react to preserve my life and the lives of my family. Even if they don't speak the same language, a gun in the face is a universal sign for GTFO.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Everyone knows these things happen, just ask Sharon Tate. That's not the point I was making.
It's about numbers, and the situational issues. About seeing the forest through the trees.
Fact is, the old lady's case is moot. Too many what if's? The second example I won't even get into. The question is, considering all of the stupid things people do, should we give 'em a free pass because they fit a profile?
Or more simply put: Is it ok to kill someone just because of where they stand and do we assume that all "victims" tell the truth?
What does that mean exactly?
Exactly "what ifs" are we talking about when an intruder breaks into the house of an old lady, beats and strangles her to death? WTF are you talking about?
I could name hundreds of examples. The rapes alone are in the dozens that I handled.
-
I won't ask the intruder to fill out a questionaire. Anyone breaking into my home will be shot.
-
I prefer to use a flamethrower against soft targets.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
I prefer to use a flamethrower against soft targets.
what about collateral damage to your house?
-
No matter how many times it happens anywhere, it only takes once for it to happen to you and then nothing else may ever happen in your life.
-
rich46... I know you don't like me but we do agree on the basics of this.. on more than the basics really. I have been in a few situations in the bad old days.
I have no idea how anyone would train for em. I have no idea how anyone could know beforehand how they would react.
lazs
-
I g u e s s I ' l l h a v e t o t y p e r e a l s l o w.....
Not really, just try to keep up.
Here, the issue as I read it was that the police arrested a guy for shooting an intruder, so far it seems the story was as told, halfway around the world. I don't know exactly what went down, nor do you and I'll bet maybe not even the local P.D.
The conversation seemed to be about whether it was wrong to prosecute the shooter, simply because of the circumstance as reported. It then became about at what point trying to kill somebody was ok.
I simply offered that in a society such as ours we need to be circumspect about these cases because sometimes it's wrong to kill somebody on your property, and sometimes those that do will lie about what happened.
I know from my fairly limited experience people don't usually just bust into stranger's homes bent on pillage, unless of course they're S.W.A.T. (WTG No Knock)
I also figure that somebody looking primarily to steal is going to prefer a vacant house. That's why most burglaries happen during the day.
I don't want to take umbrage with the comment regarding rape, but I think it's a cheap shot. From the very little I understand about those cases, I wonder how they would fit this discussion i.e. most victims know their attacker, roofies, victims attacked with stealth, never saw it coming. etc.
We're not talking about interrupted burglaries, lost Alzheimer's patients or kid's selling cookies. We're talking about somebody breaking in (or threatening to do so) your house with the intent of hurting someone, or otherwise causing mayhem as it can be hard to distinguish.
As far as the assumption that a police investigation can't be tricked, think again.
I just wonder if many if not most of these cases are more of the John Holmes variety (busted into a coke dealers house, shot up the place, stole the coke).
And Rich, here's the question's about the old lady. I know there are probably answers but it's not a good place for a full dialog.
- Was it a break in? Or did the intruder mask the break in so the neighbors couldn't tell? No wrong answer, it just wasn't mentioned.
- Crack head nephew? Door to Door salesman?
- Don't know if an elderly person is best served by being armed at any rate. Would having a gun in the house just allowed her to have an open
casket?
And just for the record since since for some, seemingly, it needs to be spelled out......
Yeah, IF someone busts through my door (or yours) or somehow clearly telegraphs malevolent intent from the other side of it, it's open season.
But I can tell a couple of stories where that was not the case but the claim was made and in one case, believed.
-
thruster.. I have no problem with what you are saying.. you don't shoot someone who is not a threat. the trick is to determine if the person is a threat or not.
I would tell anyone that I would ere to the side of thinking the worst but the truth is.. I did have a gun on a person on my property stealing gas.. he even reached into his jacket at one time... I did not shoot him.. he was a kid. I have no idea what he was reaching for but I felt that it could not harm me before I could shoot him.. he had already spit gas and was in obvious distress.. he was scared... witless.. he was probly 17.. I only noticed how young he was as things got less tense. My then wife was screaming "don't shoot him"..
I told him to get up and get into his car and get the.. out of here before I did shoot him.. "no.. leave the gas can and crap.."
I may have made a mistake but I don't think so.. he was a kid stealing gas and not good at it. I believe it was one of his first times.. I also believe that.. after what happened.. it was his last time.. not his last time to take a breath.. just the last time to steal from a home.
some may not agree but in this situation.. I think I made the right choice. he did reach into his jacket.. that was a good excuse to shoot but.. I didn't... I didn't think it was anything that was an immediate threat.. no matter what he came out with.. he couldn't harm me before I shot him several times. I felt in control of the situation.
lazs
-
You may not believe this but I practice intruder drills.
Once a month or so I wake up drunk and naked, grab my gun and run to the front door screaming obscenities like, "Get the **** out of here or I'll KILL you!!!"
Yeah, that's how I roll.
-
Just make bullets more expensive. If a bullet cost $10,000 then there wouldn't be any innocent bystanders--- Chris Rock
-
Thruster, I'm not saying that investigators can't be fooled. They are people after all, and P. T. Barnum said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
IMHO, you are trying to split a hair that just isn't there. Your quote:
We're not talking about interrupted burglaries, lost Alzheimer's patients or kid's selling cookies. We're talking about somebody breaking in (or threatening to do so) your house with the intent of hurting someone, or otherwise causing mayhem as it can be hard to distinguish.
Thruster, even once, is one time to many. You go to the next family that this happens to and tell them, "I'm sorry, this is not right. This is a statistical aberration. Somehow you brought this on yourselves." See what kind of reaction you get.
Yes, it sometimes can be hard to distinguish what someones intentions are. Lazs2 showed remarkable restraint, even tho the kid unknowingly ratcheted up the situation by putting his hand in his pocket. Lazs2 had to make a decision, "Is this person going to harm me, my family?" AT THAT POINT Lazs2 would have felt that his life was in danger, and justified in pulling the trigger, if the answer was YES. Nobody should have to ask that question themselves. Everybody that has, and done something to protect themselves, has had to live with the aftermath of that decision and their actions.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"This is what happens when liberals are in charge!"
Plug you head out of your ass? Hard? Just head for the light!!! Quick!
No, seriously. The story tells that the younger man allegedly tried to break in. Note: a l l e g e d l y.
In the US and, unless I'm wrong, Australia all crimes are officially "alleged" until the defendant is found guilty in a trial. The statement from the paper that says the man "allegedly tried to break in" does not in itself say whether the evidence supports the allegation, only that it has not yet gone to trial and a conviction made. It may have been perfectly obvious to the homeowner (and apparently is obvious to the police, as they intend to charge the alleged burgaler, as well as the homeowner) that the man was in the process of breaking and entering. He may have even warned the intruder that he was armed. That detail is not apparent in the article.
There can be no assumption that the homeowner acted either in haste of without due consideration of the circumstances. Frankly, I will meet any attempted invasion of my home with force, as my town has only one patrol car (with a single officer) patrolling during the night. On average, it would take the police anywhere from 5 minutes to 45 minutes to respond to a 911 call, but as little as a minute for an assailent to kill either myself or a family member. Police are only good to take names and clean up the mess; they can not prevent a crime unless they are already present (and sometimes not even then). Giving up the right to bear arms to protect your home and family was one of the dumbest things a free people can do.
-
It could be worse - you could be here in MD where you are now supposed to flee if at all possible when some criminal comes a knockin' down the door. Grabbin' your gun and shooting the SOB is pretty much right out unless you can prove conclusively that you had no other choice.
Thats why I employ the multiple-K9 security system -- anyone stupid enough to kick in our door gets a face full of snarling dogs, and I find the "dogs going nuts" crime deterrence system seems to work pretty well.
It also saves me having to teach the wife how to shoot ;)
EagleDNY
-
twenty fo... I have no problem with them making bullets cost whatever they want....
I make my own anyway.
I seriously doubt tho that there will ever be a day that a liberal negro gives good advice about anything... much less firearms.
lazs
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
Just make bullets more expensive. If a bullet cost $10,000 then there wouldn't be any innocent bystanders--- Chris Rock
i guess you and chris never heard of smuggling and the black market.
-
Just three nights ago the wife and I were in bed when our two small dogs, that sleep at our feet, jumped up and started growling. I was a sleep, but the wife was still awake when the dogs jumped up. She shook me awake and said "I think I heard glass break in one of the back rooms"; she was scared and I knew she was serious.
I grabbed the pistol off my bed stand and chambered a round, then went to the dresser and got the other pistol for her. I chambered a round in her pistol and put it on safety before giving it to her. I told her all she needed to do was click the safety off and it would be ready to fire.
I told her to stay in the bed room as I cleared the house with a mag lite and my pistol. I have to tell ya I was scared and shaking a little as I worked my way from room to room. I was happy to find everything clear in the house and all the windows and doors locked and in good condition.
I can't say that I would of had to shoot anyone that night, but I will say I was prepared to do so if I had too. I have no idea what spooked the dogs that night, but it sure had my heart pumping.
-
There was one time I displayed a gun to someone trying to enter my car stopped in traffic. I was stopped in traffic on a busy main street in front of a bus stop, and a large fellow dressed in white (possibly a jail trustee?) got up from the bench and walked right over smiling like he knew me and tried the door handle. This person was unknown by me. He was a white man, not particularly menacing in appearance.
I had been downtown doing some parking lot cleanup and had a wheelbarrow and shovel in the trunk. The trunk was open in back and blocked any rearward view. Well, this fellow tried both the passenger door and the rear door, found both locked and started becoming upset. He started pounding on the window and then kicking it. About that time I showed him I had a gun though I hadn't unholstered it. Perhaps this was half hearted but I was hoping he would see this and go away. This was a serious mistake because it didn't seem to deter him and he became more upset. Most people in their right mind would back off.
At this point I was plenty scared because the gun had not deterred him and I couldn't see what was going on back of the car. I was thinking, what if he came around to my side of the car? Fortunately traffic moved and so did I. He was screaming obscenities when I moved forward. I may have run over his foot because he was standing by the rear passenger door roundhouse kicking the window. Before traffic moved I was worried he might come around to my side of the car. I couldn't see behind the car because of the open trunk. I had the window rolled up. There were plenty of options available before resorting to a gun, even if it meant driving up on the curb to get around cars in front of me.
I believe this guy could have been mentally unbalanced and possibly dangerous. I'm glad the doors were locked. If the guy had gotten in, it would have been better for him not to know I had a gun. The only time that gun should come out is to shoot. It was a mistake to count on the sight of a gun to be a deterrent.
Les
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
You may not believe this but I practice intruder drills.
Once a month or so I wake up drunk and naked, grab my gun and run to the front door screaming obscenities like, "Get the **** out of here or I'll KILL you!!!"
Yeah, that's how I roll.
lolololol :lol :lol :aok :rofl :lol
-
Leslie,
Showing a willingness to use a firearm may have more impact on the sane.
I used to carry because a number of killings had happened within a mile of my work place in 1998. Some were attempted robberies of people like myself walking to their cars at 2 or 3 in the morning.
I went home early one day to find a gentelman on my property with a butcher knife cutting flowers from a side garden. We were in the bad situation of my asking him to leave my property and he declining saying he had permission to be there specificly to cut my flowers. He said my wife had given him permission. I asked him to tell me her name and to show me what he had just hidden behind his back. He refused to answer both questions.
I was fortunate that I had my truck between us. I carried my glock in a fanny pack. So while he was lieing to me I unzipped it and brought my glock up on the hood so he could see it.
I had several problems.
First I'm white and he was black and it was Oakland CA. Shooting him outside of the house was not going to look good even if he attacked me. Second, I didn't really want to be in the situation I was in. Shooting him was going to make my life a living heck even if it I was found justified. Being there is not near as fun as watching it on television. Third, I didn't want to be attacked, I didn't want to kill anyone, and I could not read his mind to tell if he just wanted to run away.
My solution, I gave him two choices. A. Run Away NOW. B. I Will Kill You.
He ran away as soon as I gave him an out. I only had to show him my glock.
-
Originally posted by Charge
Well if he'd look like not fitting to my political agenda I'd try to hit him in the knee. Less bleeding and in the future you'd recognize the bugger from a limp miles away.
Besides Jackal, if you cannot hit a friggin leg in such short ranges you really should consider ditching the gun and buying some lube instead. After all the bugger HAS to keep his legs to the ground if he tries to move. Hands or head as a target are another matter altogether.
LMAO
I think you totally missed the point.
It has nothing to do with your Annie Oakley marksmanship.
It has to do with the can of worms you open yourself up to in today`s legal system by wounding.
Crash my door, pry open a window.....or whatever form of home invasion around my house, give me a few seconds and your going down....to stay down if at all possible.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Crash my door, pry open a window.....or whatever form of home invasion around my house, give me a few seconds and your going down....to stay down if at all possible.
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." :aok
I wanted to post this sign near our front door but the wife wouldn't let me:
Picture of a revolver with the caption underneath:
Warning: We don't call 911 here.:D
Regards,
Sun
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." :aok
I wanted to post this sign near our front door but the wife wouldn't let me:
Picture of a revolver with the caption underneath:
Warning: We don't call 911 here.:D
Regards,
Sun
Hehe. I always liked the "To hell with the dog. Beware of owner" sign.........but it opens you up too much legally in case of a serious event.
I did know this chick who capped her x hubby and was awaiting a court date.
Her lawyers prepped her for her court appearance over and over.
When the big day arrived she showed up in court wearing a "Gun control is the ability to hit your target" T shirt.
Done deal. :)
-
How about a dirty pitchfork though :D
(Although I happen to have a shotgun in the bedroom, the pitchfork is sooo sweet, but I guess wife wouldn't have it there :D)
-
My parents are 78 years old. 6 months ago my dad used a makarov that I gave him to scare away a man who was trying to break down their back french doors at 0200 in the morning.
The cops caught the guy later.. he was drunk and a felon who had broke into homes in the past.
I don't know how it would have turned out otherwise but am glad that I gave that little commie gun to my dad.
you guys are welcome, of course.. to take care of such situations any way you please.. you just don't have the right to tell the rest of us what to do.
lazs