Reality of Gun Ownership

[smcop]

Lets all get real. If you catch someone breaking into your home at 3 am and shoot them, you are gonna be so scared and so out of your element that it is very probable they may get shot in the back. Its probable you wont even hit them (which is why I advocate the short barrel shotgun, but thats a different story). Devil is in the details with any situation. The difference between shooting them in the face and the back is literally about a quarter second or two blinks of your half awake ass at 3 am. I guess my point is this...if they are in your home with bad intent, then they get what they deserve. The buttmunch above who said its not right to shoot them in the back is living in a dream world where everything happens like in the movies. By the time your brain registers the threat and commands your finger to pull the trigger, the situation could have changed and guess what....a buckshot in the back. Either friggin way, I'd take my chances with a court any day of the week.

I'm not talking about a homeowner who is protecting their home. I am talking about someone who is shooting someone who is running away. If a homeowner shoots someone who is confronting them and then happens to turn, well then shame on the burgular. I have said repeatedly, that this is about a fleeing felon, I even used the example of the subject climbing out of a window and being shot in the back. Tell me please how you could mistake that for anything but someone fleeing?

 

[smcop]

YOu can be such a douchnoozle sometimes, I swear.

Sometimes you have intelligent arguments, and sometimes you resort to name calling like a ten year old.

 

[AK-74me]

Sometimes you have intelligent arguments, and sometimes you resort to name calling like a ten year old.

I had a long reply typed up to you but I just erased and went with that. You know why? Because I am not gonna get caught in your little game of twisting words around and putting them in someone else's mouth.

 

[Xaquin44]

HAY GUYS!

what're we talking about here!

 

[bcp]

I'm not moving away from anything. You added the hypotheticals.

I have my position. In my opinion, you may protect your family, but not kill someone fleeing from your home. It is just that simple. Where am I moving away?

here is your hypotheticals.
the discussion was killing an intruder that had alread been in the home. you added the drunk driver, or the guy caught stealing a car.

Well, then we should shoot and kill people who steal cars, because they might kill the child while driving eratically. We should kill the person who drives drunk because they might kill a child.

I understand what you are saying. If you feel that a burgular should be killed, then advocate that. Be proud of that stance. Burgulars are caught every day in Southern Maryland.

 

[This_person]

I'm not talking about a homeowner who is protecting their home. I am talking about someone who is shooting someone who is running away. If a homeowner shoots someone who is confronting them and then happens to turn, well then shame on the burgular. I have said repeatedly, that this is about a fleeing felon, I even used the example of the subject climbing out of a window and being shot in the back. Tell me please how you could mistake that for anything but someone fleeing?

What's wrong with shooting someone fleeing? Wouldn't they still be a threat to you if they're still alive?

 

[river rat]

Where in the original story did it say the CRIMINALS were fleeing?

It said they brandished a crowbar.

How many times does this guy have to be wakened by CRIMINALS before he is allowed to protect himself?

His home had been broken into before.

With a twist on words the CRIMINALS were made into "pranksters"

With a twist on words SMCOP has tried to convince us all that CRIMINALS have rights even while they are standing in your bedroom ie: if a burglar is fleeing he doesn't deserve death.

Well then the SOB should have stayed home and gone to sleep so he could get up and go to work like the rest of us!

 

[desertrat]

Then there is no argument. You advocate the death penalty for someone who committs burglary.

Then you think someone who committs a burglary should get the death penalty. That's your opinion you are entitled to it. I don't.

The death penalty for burglary would be fine with me. That, of course, would never happen. When you speak of a "penalty", though, you are refering to what the State would mete out. What the homeowner decides to hand out is up to him. It's his house. I actually think it should extend to the property line.
As in "trespassers may be shot".

 

[smcop]

Where in the original story did it say the CRIMINALS were fleeing?

It said they brandished a crowbar.

How many times does this guy have to be wakened by CRIMINALS before he is allowed to protect himself?

His home had been broken into before.

With a twist on words the CRIMINALS were made into "pranksters"

With a twist on words SMCOP has tried to convince us all that CRIMINALS have rights even while they are standing in your bedroom ie: if a burglar is fleeing he doesn't deserve death.

Well then the SOB should have stayed home and gone to sleep so he could get up and go to work like the rest of us!

It wasn't in the original story, which was taken from a blog which is pro-gun ownership. If you read original accounts taken from newspapers, it reveals the Government's case was based on one of the individuals being shot as he was climbing out the window, and the other individual being shot in the back.

My point is I don't believe you should be able to kill someone who is running away from you. That's the law of the land and has been in my world at least since Garner V. Tennessee, 1985.

I am all for increasing the penalty, 25 years, 30 years, but to kill a person who is running away, I think is cowardly.

If a person is facing you, or not facing you, but still a threat, I have always said you should elimnate the threat.

Another poster said you should be allowed to shoot someone who is tresspassing on your property. Where do we stop?

 

[smcop]

here is your hypotheticals.
the discussion was killing an intruder that had alread been in the home. you added the drunk driver, or the guy caught stealing a car.

Those weren't hypotheticals. Those were examples of other crimes where a person might hurt a child.

 

[smcop]

Then you think someone who committs a burglary should get the death penalty. That's your opinion you are entitled to it. I don't.

The death penalty for burglary would be fine with me. That, of course, would never happen. When you speak of a "penalty", though, you are refering to what the State would mete out. What the homeowner decides to hand out is up to him. It's his house. I actually think it should extend to the property line.
As in "trespassers may be shot".

And that is your opinion, I disagree.

I value life. I think a person who committs a property crime should not be put to death.

I am not speaking about a person who attempts to hurt someone. I am not speaking about a homeowner who believes a person may hurt them. I am speaking about a property crime.

I think life is more important than property.

 

[White Buddah]

Those weren't hypotheticals. Those were examples of other crimes where a person might hurt a child.

Those two are hypothetical. Look up the definition: possibility, circumstance, statement, proposal, situation, etc IT COULD HAPPEN and you brought them into the conversation. Go ahead and get lost in your twistings of words. I'll be back to catch up.

 

[RadioPatrol]

I am all for increasing the penalty, 25 years, 30 years, but to kill a person who is running away, I think is cowardly.

Running away ?

What to return with buddies and try to steal from me again ....

You Broke into my house with a crowbar and I pulled a gun and your climbing back out the window, and I shoot you, because you had no right to be in my house in the 1st place .... I do not want you coming back with friends to get even, cause I embarrassed your PUNK ASS in the 1st place, and now that you know I own GUNS ... you bring back some friends maybe with guns to try to steal from me again ....


the point to all this, is you should forfeit your life breaking into someones house anytime day or night @ the hands of the home owner, maybe people will find some other crime to commit rather than disturbing Honest Folks sleeping ....

Yep I own it .... Break into My House, get your ass capped .....


oh and regarding to your comment to bob, how do you know bob doesn't have the stones to shoot a someone breaking in ? did you break into bobs place .... come on up to Fort Washington and break in, and see if I have the stones to shoot ...

 

[desertrat]

And that is your opinion, I disagree.

I value life. I think a person who committs a property crime should not be put to death.

I am not speaking about a person who attempts to hurt someone. I am not speaking about a homeowner who believes a person may hurt them. I am speaking about a property crime.

I think life is more important than property.

Some lives, yes.

 

[Pushrod]

Lets all get real. If you catch someone breaking into your home at 3 am and shoot them, you are gonna be so scared and so out of your element that it is very probable they may get shot in the back. Its probable you wont even hit them (which is why I advocate the short barrel shotgun, but thats a different story). Devil is in the details with any situation. The difference between shooting them in the face and the back is literally about a quarter second or two blinks of your half awake ass at 3 am. I guess my point is this...if they are in your home with bad intent, then they get what they deserve. The buttmunch above who said its not right to shoot them in the back is living in a dream world where everything happens like in the movies. By the time your brain registers the threat and commands your finger to pull the trigger, the situation could have changed and guess what....a buckshot in the back. Either friggin way, I'd take my chances with a court any day of the week.

Excellent synopsis! That is the reality of a breaking and entering situation. The bad guy can turn around in a blink of an eye while the trigger is being pulled and end up shot in the back, that can go for when he is half way through the window also, to the cops that will look like he was trying to escape and was shot in the back.
The bad guy initiated the contact when he illegally entered your property and whatever fate befalls him is on his shoulders, not the homeowners. When cops realize this it will be a much better and safer society.

Now once he escapes off of your property, then that becomes a grey area and I don't advocate chasing him down the street and executing him. Once he is off your property it is in the hands of the civil athorities. This does not apply when you are attacked off of your property or in your car, that should be treated the same as a home invasion.

 

[Pushrod]

It wasn't in the original story, which was taken from a blog which is pro-gun ownership. If you read original accounts taken from newspapers, it reveals the Government's case was based on one of the individuals being shot as he was climbing out the window, and the other individual being shot in the back.

My point is I don't believe you should be able to kill someone who is running away from you. That's the law of the land and has been in my world at least since Garner V. Tennessee, 1985.

I am all for increasing the penalty, 25 years, 30 years, but to kill a person who is running away, I think is cowardly.

If a person is facing you, or not facing you, but still a threat, I have always said you should elimnate the threat.

Another poster said you should be allowed to shoot someone who is tresspassing on your property. Where do we stop?

We stop at the owners property line! If they are on your property illegally (trespassing) and you feel that they are a threat you should not have to worry about repercussions from the state. That, If I remember correctly is the law of the land in Texas. Once they are off of your property, then it is up to the local authorities to handle the matter.
Shall we look up newstories on how many times cops have shot a fleeing felon? I wouldn't hold that against them and they shoudn't hold it against me if the same were to happen on my property.

 

[Pushrod]

And that is your opinion, I disagree.

I value life. I think a person who committs a property crime should not be put to death.

I am not speaking about a person who attempts to hurt someone. I am not speaking about a homeowner who believes a person may hurt them. I am speaking about a property crime.

I think life is more important than property.

But property is part of my life. I give portions of my life (through work) to obtain the property that I own. It represents portions of my LIFE and doesn't deserve to be taken from me without my consent. Someone who steals propety from me is stealing a portion of my life that went in to obtaining that property and I will defend it as I would my life, those of my wifes or my children.

 

[desertrat]

But property is part of my life. I give portions of my life (through work) to obtain the property that I own. It represents portions of my LIFE and doesn't deserve to be taken from me without my consent. Someone who steals propety from me is stealing a portion of my life that went in to obtaining that property and I will defend it as I would my life, those of my wifes or my children.

Arggh! You made smcop's statement look like mine! Make it go away.

 

[Pushrod]

Arggh! You made smcop's statement look like mine! Make it go away.

I don't know why this forum transposes who the quote is from sometimes. I will see if I can edit and correct it.

 

[desertrat]

I don't know why this forum transposes who the quote is from sometimes. I will see if I can edit and correct it.

So I see and my post makes it look like smcop said what you posted. I'm getting confused.