WHAT?!

[texas bulldog]

duke,

how do you know that once he gains entry he won't also have a gun already in hand?

answer...you don't.

forcibly breaking into one's house is absolutely justification for use of deadly force. and i can't help but think that the only reason you think otherwise is that you've gone into the wrong house yourself.

by the way...my college years (and a few years thereafter) were plenty of fun, and i did way more than my share of drinking. still, i never tried to enter a home that wasn't mine. it is entirely possible to get your kicks without losing all sense of where the hell you are. sounds to me like you're being an apologist for totally irresponsible substance abuse.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Gaiudo, is a broken window really worth killing a stranger?

Now, once he gets the door unlatched and enters, that starts the train rolling into D station. But you have all the time in the world, and total command of the situation standing there with your gun(s). If the door opens and four guys with bats are there, by all means, open fire. But some drunk student or a lost little boy trying to get warm is not an immediate threat of grave bodily injury. It just isn't.

 

[gdcpony]

sounds to me like darwinism........... you can't fix stupid and being stupid isn't a crime but sometimes it can fatal........................


LIFE IS SHORT.... shorter if you're too stupid.........

Not short enough, they still breed.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

texas: "forcibly breaking into one's house is absolutely justification for use of deadly force. and i can't help but think that the only reason you think otherwise is that you've gone into the wrong house yourself."

Nope, never did. Probably never would, either.

Maybe I've become acclimated to irresponsible, stupid and inebriated behavior from years of representing criminal defendants. Or maybe I've become accustomed to violent or antisocial behavior and have accepted a relative degree of physical threat by living in some tough neighborhoods over the years.

What the guy in Colorado did would be classified, to me, as the behavior of a pretty clearly lost or drunken man. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be ready with a loaded gun aimed right at him. If he showed a weapon or approached me in a threatening manner, I'd burn him. I just don't get a kick out of burning people, and try to avoid it if I possibly can. My home is not a battlefield.

 

[rhoggman]

Hey just wanted to metion I have been pretty loaded a few times. I have done all kinds of really stupid things. Some of them I will not even talk about. Some of them are so stupid other people luagh about them years later. WoW, my pride is sinking ..... haha jk.

NEVER HAVE I TRIED TO BREAK INTO MY HOME OR ANYONE ELSES. I really don't feel sorry for drunk people because at some point they were sober, and made the chioce to become drunk. I don't drink like I used to because when I was sober I made a choice that getting drunk made me do stupid things I was not proud of. If you get to the point where you do something you cannot remember, or you do something you would never do sober, then you have to realize YOU HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

I garuntee the jackace that broke into this home did not go from being an innocent college kid to a drunken intruder in one case of beer. I'm sure the intruder was doing something that was out of "character" for his "sober self"; therefore, who knows what he is capable of, or what he wowuld do next?

Personally I might have waited for the guy to actually get into my house before I shot him, but I would have shot him nevertheless. I believe this guy was still in the "Attempted Burglary" stage since he was outside the home.

Once he enters the home... commission of a felony....

BANG!! BANG!! Wrappend In Bacon... nevermind I don't eat people.

 

[General Geoff]

But some drunk student or a lost little boy trying to get warm is not an immediate threat of grave bodily injury. It just isn't.

"some drunk student" is just as capable of killing and raping people as "some drunk, crazed stranger." I do not know the person who's breaking into my home, nor do I know his intentions, capabilities, or history. It certainly is an immediate threat to my life.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

I just don't get a kick out of burning people, and try to avoid it if I possibly can. My home is not a battlefield.

None of our homes are battlefields, until somebody with unknown intentions try to break through the door. THE INTRUDER created the battlefield, and they own the consequences. Again, some might sit by and see what happens, but you cannot fault the guy who doesn't. He didn't invite the knowingly driven and upredictable drunk to break through his door.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

But you can read the situation and the person. Again, you are doing this reading with a loaded gun pointed directly at him. Plenty of time.

 

[Sato Ord]

But you have all the time in the world, and total command of the situation standing there with your gun(s).

I sure hope that thinking works out for you, Duke. Most likely though, it will not be good for you if you find yourself n a kill or be killed situation.

I know plenty of men who can take a gun away from someone. Ever heard of the 27 foot rule. There's lots fo guys out there with the training to do it. Not all of them retire right from the military to the old folks home. Chances are that none of us are going to meet one of them coming through our door at 2130 hrs.

Of course if you want to play the odds, why do you bother keeping a SD weapon around in the first place? Chances are pretty low that you will be attacked, ever. Might as well pack that thing away in a safe somewhere and not have it lying around.

Like I said, if you want to take chances, good luck. I really do hope it works out for you.

 

[General Geoff]

But you can read the situation and the person. Again, you are doing this reading with a loaded gun pointed directly at him. Plenty of time.

If by plenty of time you mean "less than 2 seconds," which is about the time it would take a person to slam through a residential door and tackle you from 10 feet away.

 

[R.W.Dale]

"some drunk student" is just as capable of killing and raping people as "some drunk, crazed stranger." I do not know the person who's breaking into my home, nor do I know his intentions, capabilities, or history. It certainly is an immediate threat to my life.

This leads on to another question.


WHY are ADULT college students held to a different standard of behavior and judgment as everyone else in society. Some drunk 22yr old farm worker does this and gets blasted and folks will say he had it comin. But instead if the guy is in college all of a sudden he's a "child" and folks will call his demise a terrible mistake.

$%%&*(& I don't care about your vocation or location in the caste system is. Justified is justified

 

[MT GUNNY]

At least One Mainstream Media is Show stories of Successfully Self Defense. They showed another just a hour ago of a Jeweler taking on two Robbers!

 

[rhoggman]

In some states you are authorized to use deadly force if you see someone in the commision of a felony.

If that is the case in the state where this happened then I do not thing there is any question.

Someone could be robbing a 711 with a bic-pen. That would be a felony in Virginia. Bad guy dies... end of story.

If a deer comes onto my property that is Posted "No Tresspassers" BANG BANG... Wrapped In Bacon".... oops sorry that doesn't apply.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Sato Ord: "I sure hope that thinking works out for you, Duke. Most likely though, it will not be good for you if you find yourself n a kill or be killed situation. ... Like I said, if you want to take chances, good luck. I really do hope it works out for you."

It has worked out for me. And what I'm saying, from experience, is that it isn't necessary to empty a gun into the first bloody hand to probe through a window.

That two seconds you have as he opens the door and rushes you is plenty of time for the hammer to fall, the .44 magnum cartridge to explode, and the assailant to meet his maker.

No chances taken at all.

 

[rbernie]

But some drunk student or a lost little boy trying to get warm is not an immediate threat of grave bodily injury

I'm sorry - ignoring repeated verbal warnings and physically forcing entry into somebody elses' home does NOT commonly resolve to "a lost little boy trying to get warm", no matter how you try to spin it.

More to the point, you are asking Harry Homeowner to know facts not present at the time that the altercation takes place. By the time that these facts become known to him/her, the assailant is fully in the house and capable of doing violent harm upon its occupants regardless of your prowess with your 44 mag. If the intruder intends to do harm and comes straight at you upon clearing that door, you'll get ONE SHOT at a bobbing moving target. Movies notwithstanding - that's not easy to do under the best of circumstances and far more difficult under duress.

If somebody comes in my front door, they have three directions in which to go. If they dodge right while I'm busy trying to gauge their intent, they disappear behind a wall into the living room and I've completely lost control of the situation. I cannot place myself or my family in any physical location that does not put them more than fifteen feet (less than one second) from the intruder.

I have no CHOICE but to stop them in the landing, if I wish to control the situation at all.

 

[jerkface11]

The guy broke the glass and was opening the door WITH a gun pointed at him and two people yelling for him to stop. He got what was coming to him.

 

[rhoggman]

I don't see how there is an argument over this SELF DEFESE situation.

When someone is breaking into your home do you ask them of their station in life or inquire about their present state of mind and body?

The fact that the guy was drunk or was a college student is totally irrellevent to his guilt.

In fact his level of intoxication is rather incriminating, and could pretty much negate any personal argument he may have for his own actions.

 

[Rush]

Bad karma for Fox to have a female Fox news analyst speak to something like this. I, normally, do not classify myself as chauvinist but this really stretches it.

It isn't being "chauvinist" to talk from a position of facts and reality. The facts are, women tend to be anti-gun more often than men. They tend to speak from emotion more than men. Sorry if the truth bothers some of you.

This exact thing happened to me sans the shooting. I was a young female college student alone one night in my apartment. A drunken young man mistook my building for his, and thought my corresponding door was his. Fortunately I had no glass; it was a solid door; he could not break in, at least in the 15 minutes it took the police to get there. But he pounded and screamed and cursed and yelled for me to open up. You bet I was scared to death, but being young, stupid, and a slave to law, I had no gun with me. If I had, and he had busted down that door, there would be a DEAD drunk in the doorway for the police to find.

In the moment of fear as an event unfolds, you do NOT think, you run on adrenalin. You do not suppose this is an honest mistake and the guy is a sweet harmless teddy bear who'd never hurt a flea. The violence of that man's language alone made me fear for my life. I would have been FULLY justified nailing him with hot lead if he'd come through that door, morally, and according to the law of my state.

The media portrays this man as living a block away, as if the couple knew that fact at the moment of the break in. They didn't. The man was ignoring their shouts for him to retreat. He was probably screaming and cussing like my man. He had NO choice but to shoot; no reason not to believe he and his woman were in immediate danger or serious injury, sexual assault or death.

 

[WC145]

You can't base what you think you would do based on knowledge you've gained after the fact.

Here's the facts as I've read them - All the homeowners knew was that there was a stranger pounding on their back door trying to gain entry, he ignored their warnings and broke the door glass and tried to unlock it in spite of continued warnings. They had no idea who he was or his intent, only that he was violently breaking into their home with complete disregard for anything they were yelling at him. Their obvious assumption was that he was intent on doing them harm and they feared for their lives. When he didn't comply they reached the point that they felt the only way to protect themselves and keep him from gaining entry was to shoot.

I'm a LEO and I can tell you that based on that scenario, I would have done the same thing. I wouldn't have waited for him to get in or sprayed him with pepper spray or hit him with my baton, I'd have shot him. My wife, my children, and my life are all too important for me to second guess the intent and reasoning of someone breaking into my home.

 

[R.W.Dale]

The guy broke the glass and was opening the door WITH a gun pointed at him and two people yelling for him to stop. He got what was coming to him.

You know out of all the screen long posts over the course of three pages this little three liner pretty much sums it up best of all.



"You Reap What You Sew"

 

[Duke of Doubt]

rbernie: "You are asking Harry Homeowner to know facts not presented into evidence at the time that the altercation takes place. By the time that these facts become known to him/her, the assailant is fully in the house and capable of making physical contact in less than two seconds."

Even granting your premise, which I find unrealistic, that two seconds is plenty of time, again, for the hammer to fall, the .44 magnum cartridge to explode, and the assailant to meet his maker.

The only thing Harry Homeowner knew was that his window broke, and a hand was reaching through the opening, probably in an attempt to unlatch the door. That's good enough for me to have a loaded gun aimed at the door, and to call the police. It's not good enough for me to shoot the hand.

 

[Sato Ord]

Sato Ord: "I sure hope that thinking works out for you, Duke. Most likely though, it will not be good for you if you find yourself n a kill or be killed situation. ... Like I said, if you want to take chances, good luck. I really do hope it works out for you."

It has worked out for me. And what I'm saying, from experience, is that it isn't necessary to empty a gun into the first bloody hand to probe through a window.

That two seconds you have as he opens the door and rushes you is plenty of time for the hammer to fall, the .44 magnum cartridge to explode, and the assailant to meet his maker.

No chances taken at all.

Yep, no chances at all.

My brother-in-law went surfing, and dove into swimming pools while he was drunk for years and said he could handle it. He figured that since he'd been doing it for thirty years and had never been seriously injured, he was safe. His luck ran out and he hit his head on the side of a pool he'd dove into drunk many times before. He's now a quadriplegic. His luck ran out.

Just because you've taken chances in the past and gotten lucky up until this point doesn't make your method less dangerous.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Sato Ord: "Just because you've taken chances in the past and gotten lucky up until this point doesn't make your method less dangerous."

No comparison. What I'm saying is, the assailant HAS no chance against me. He's still trying to get into the dang room; by contrast I've already got him in my sights, the hammer cocked, and total control of the situation. It's NOT dangerous to let the potential threat become a real threat before you destroy it.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

So Duke, you are splitting hairs over 2 seconds to get through the glass and come running at you. By your definition until the glass is broken and the drunken loser is charging you, then YOU, the innocent homeowner firing at the guy trying to come through despite warning, is a criminal? Really?

 

[General Geoff]

He's still trying to get into the dang room; by contrast I've already got him in my sights, the hammer cocked, and total control of the situation. It's NOT dangerous to let the potential threat become a real threat before you destroy it.

Until he breaks into the room, you pull the trigger, "click." Or you pull the trigger, the gun fires, and it seems that you missed your head shot. What do you do now, with the drunken student bearing down upon you? No more time to aim for a headshot, body shots are only marginal for stopping the threat right then and there.

I guess the difference here is that you are supremely confident in your ability to make a headshot on a drunken assailant. I'm not.