College student shot and killed for entering the wrong apartment.

[jerkface11]

Shoot first and ask questions later???? What is a person supposed to do when someone breaks into their home conduct an interview? Maybe have them fill out a questionnaire?

 

[happygeek]

The linked article is quite old and doesn't include any of the details released later. The student returned home to his apartment building drunk just before 2:00 am and pressed the elevator floor button for the 3rd floor instead of the 5th. He went to where his apartment would be. When his key did not work he began forcing his way into the apartment two floors directly below his, using enough force to break the doorknob off in the process. He was shot dead by the apartment owner. The owner was arrested but later released. No charges will be filed.

Apparently even the state of CA decided the apartment occupant had the right answer (http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/family-sf-man-shot-entering-wrong-apartment-calls-/nfrPx/).

I'm also a little lost as to what exactly the OP is trying to discuss.

 

[Warp]

Apparently even the state of CA decided the apartment occupant had the right answer (http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/family-sf-man-shot-entering-wrong-apartment-calls-/nfrPx/).

I'm also a little lost as to what exactly the OP is trying to discuss.

I am especially interested in finding out what gun control laws the public (supposedly) demands as a result of an incident like this.

 

[SuperNaut]

I'm also a little lost as to what exactly the OP is trying to discuss.

I tried to provide as much context as I could.

 

[itsa pain]

If someone uninvited is in my house at 130 AM, they are automatically classified as a threat. There is no need to ascertain any more than that.

What if it was cops that had the wrong address and knocked down your door without announcing? Would you shoot then? If you shot a cop you would be killed there or tried for murder. I think before anyone starts blazing away they can take cover to find out who the person is and is it life threatening

 

[Scooter22]

Not much more to say but alot of "nice, quite, gentle" people are the worst drunks. Often loud, agressive and beligerent.

 

[traveler106]

Look at this article:

http://www.lohud.com/article/201212...ou-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of my name and address being published because I am a gun owner. I don't want criminals to target my home when I'm not around to try to steal my guns. But 30,000 gun-related deaths a year and the lack of a rational voice on the side of those of us who own guns pushes the general public--most of whom do not own guns--to believe that this sort of thing is a good idea.

 

[Warp]

You must have missed my post.

My main point is that incidents such as this are what lead to the public demanding stricter gun control, and a lack of rational discussion on the part of gun-owners can only push to sway public opinion on one direction.

So..precisely what gun control law(s) does the public demand as a result of a drunken man being shot while trying to force his way into somebody else's apartment?

And how would those gun control law(s) the public supposedly demands possibly alter the outcome of a similar incident in the future??

 

[jerkface11]

So what you'd wait till the guy breaking into your house announces his motive before acting?

 

[Willie Sutton]

"I also find it a bit disturbing that members of this forum call me a troll when I suggest that shooting and killing people is not a good thing."


1: Shooting and injuring or killing people is a bad thing.

2: But it's better than being harmed when innocent, and especially in the sancity of ones home.


Or as Gandhi wrote on the subject of violence:

“when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right”


It's the disconnect from this reality and the fact that you apparently *believe* that anyone thinks it's other than tragic to need to defend ones home with resultant injury or loss of life that causes me to put you in a troll-box. Lesson: The goal is never to harm or take life. The goal is simply to STOP the threat. *Nobody* thinks that the result is a good thing, but it's sometimes the simple outcome of the goal. Your intellecual lack of ability to discriminate between the two is a fault in logical thinking. And that's why you are either a troll, or simply a misguided soul who's thinking with your heart and not your brain.


Willie

.

 

[traveler106]

I think all of you are missing my point. I'm talking about public perception. See the link I posted above.

I recently read an anti-gun editorial (I wish I had the link) that basically lumped us all together as nut jobs waiting for someone to try to break in so we can shoot them. Of course it was wrong and pretty bad, but that's how a lot of people see us, and showing a nonchalant attitude toward incidents such as the one I mentioned above (i.e. referring to the dead as a "drunk idiot") help to perpetuate that public perception.

Maybe you don't mind being thought of as homicidal and paranoid, but I do.

That is the public opinion that I'm talking about.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

Unless you're the investigating detective or were there on the scene ,,,,, it' tough to judge what really happened there.............Monday morning quarterbacking from news briefs just doesn't cut it............btw.........As a detective I never investigated a textbook case.................

 

[Warp]

I think all of you are missing my point. I'm talking about public perception. See the link I posted above.

The link you posted was about a guy committing cold blooded first degree murder.

THAT's your source for claiming that "incidents like this" cause the public to demand gun control?

Troll.

And a very bad one as it is so blatantly obvious.

 

[plodder]

Quote from traveler106:

But 30,000 gun-related deaths a year and the lack of a rational voice on the side of those of us who own guns pushes the general public--most of whom do not own guns--to believe that this sort of thing is a good idea.

Traveler: I suppose you have nominated yourself as the "rational voice"? Quite magnanimous of you!

30,000 gun-related deaths a year? OK, so now you're counting gang bangers culling their own herd, suicides that could be achieved with other tools or means?

As you are the repository of "rational" facts, exactly how many mistaken drunk, accidental home invaders are killed each year? Is this what is driving all the public cry for more gun legislation?

 

[vamo]

I can empathize with not wanting a stupid drunk mistake to end somebody's life, but if someone breaks into my dwelling in the middle of the night I'm going to feel pretty damn threatened and who in their right mind wouldn't.

I feel bad for the kid I really do, if there's not anymore to the story than we're hearing hes just a kid who drank too much and took a wrong turn. But can't you see how his actions would be taken by the guy living in that unit?

 

[Willie Sutton]

Yes, I do have an "agenda," as you call it, and that is to promote responsible and rational gun-ownership.


You've wandered into the wrong forum. Here's the right one for you:

https://www.momsdemandaction.org/

Plenty of folks there who will agree with you. I think they are up to two dozen members by now and your presence there would be most welcome. Say hi to Bloomie for me.


Adios....


Willie

.

 

[Ed Ames]

Look at this article:

http://www.lohud.com/article/201212...ou-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of my name and address being published because I am a gun owner. I don't want criminals to target my home when I'm not around to try to steal my guns. But 30,000 gun-related deaths a year and the lack of a rational voice on the side of those of us who own guns pushes the general public--most of whom do not own guns--to believe that this sort of thing is a good idea.

A rational voice?

How about this:The current approach to firearms regulation is akin to trying to limit the potenial harms of sex by restricting puberty.

Virtually everyone has the ability to have sex. Sex can be good, but it can also be used in bad ways and can result in many negative consequences. People are raped every day, people contract deadly diseases, people have their lives changed by unplanned pregnancy. The potential negative (a life destroyed by rape) could easily be seen as outweighing the positive (a momentary pleasure). It would be possible to stop most of that harm by chemically blocking the onset of puberty in the entire population, until and unless the individuals paid for a background check, psych evaluation. training, and a license, yet this approach is not advocated. Why? Because at a visceral level people think they have a right to develop sexually. This is not logical, but emotional. Instead we use training so that people are able to make informed decisions about their sexuality, and prohibit only problematic sexual behaviors such as rape. That approach is rational/pragmatic, vs. the idealistic idea of eleminating the problem altogether by preventing puberty.

Why is that not the model for gun laws? People have a right to weapons, just as they have a right to sexual development, and the rational approach isn't to deny that reality. The rational approach is to minimize the negative aspects. We should be teaching gun safety alongside hygene and sex ed in public schools. We should be giving high school students safe places to shoot just as we give them condoms. We should be removing the mysteries that can fester and become dark obsessions. We should, in short, move beyond "abstention based" aka prohibitionist gun policies and accept that weapons are a part of life.

Until the "other side" starts advocating for public school firearms education they are not being rational.

 

[kwguy]

This is totally absurd. Lack of facts in the article aside, at least I got this out of it:

Some guy commits forcible entry into someone's apartment in the middle of the night, and gets shot by the resident.

And somehow guns are the issue? Really? Wow.

I know! Let's bring back prohibition! That'll fix it.

Geez.

 

[9mmepiphany]

But 30,000 gun-related deaths a year and the lack of a rational voice on the side of those of us who own guns pushes the general public--most of whom do not own guns--to believe that this sort of thing is a good idea.

I don't know why not, you don't see them seeking a ban of alcohol or automobiles (sarcasm)

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 33,561 people died in traffic crashes in 2012 in the United States

...and they didn't even have as ration a voice as gunowners do

 

[kwguy]

Yup, they tried the same 'rational' approach with prohibition in the past too. That worked out well (sarcasm).

 

[hso]

There is nothing here other than a B&E with fatal consequences so there's no point to this until there's more information.

 

[4v50 Gary]

My main point is that incidents such as this are what lead to the public demanding stricter gun control, and a lack of rational discussion on the part of gun-owners can only push to sway public opinion on one direction.

Mass killings do more harm as it evokes an emotional response. The common thread that is ignored by the media is that virtually all the shooters are on psychotropic medication (which can make someone suicidal or homicidal) and are under psychiatric care.