Joined
·
6,309 Posts
:lol:The men ran away, leaving their car behind
Would you have used a log, fists or those evil guns? :wink:USMC - Retired said:They we're lucky. Had it been my house, I would have never said a word and they would have never had a chance to run. I don't believe in giving a thug a chance to give up (read as: a chance to shoot me) when they break into my house.
I would have puked on them!!!Purge said:Would you have used a log, fists or those evil guns? :wink:
All three, should the situation permit. :wink: :wink: :nudge: :nudge:Purge said:Would you have used a log, fists or those evil guns? :wink:USMC - Retired said:They we're lucky. Had it been my house, I would have never said a word and they would have never had a chance to run. I don't believe in giving a thug a chance to give up (read as: a chance to shoot me) when they break into my house.
"Excuse me bad people...do you have any weapons? Oh...Okay...thank you."Naturally, "home invader" armed robbers should be shot to pieces at the doorstep.
How can you say he was NOT?gunsmoker said:How can he say that he was "in fear for his life" when he knows that the intruders tried to ensure that they were breaking into an empty home, and they took steps to avoid a confrontation with anybody?
:sly:gunsmoker said:Okay, let's recap the facts. The bad guys knock on the door for about 2-3 minutes. The homeowner is home, but he doesn't answer. Then the bad guys break in with force. The homeowner now realizes that the reason they knocked was to try to see if anybody was home, and since nobody answered the door, they assumed the place was empty. So they break in.
Now the homeowner aims a rifle at them. Can he shoot?
Maybe not. He might have to give them a chance to surrender, or escape. How can he say that he was "in fear for his life" when he knows that the intruders tried to ensure that they were breaking into an empty home, and they took steps to avoid a confrontation with anybody?
I say, hold 'em at gunpoint and do a citizen's arrest, but DO NOT just open fire on them at first sight.
My answer would be totally different if they had broken in without first checking to see if the house was empty, or if there was other evidence that they intended to have a confrontation with the victim or witnesses. Naturally, "home invader" armed robbers should be shot to pieces at the doorstep.
Do you boys ever get along?Rammstein said::sly:gunsmoker said:Okay, let's recap the facts. The bad guys knock on the door for about 2-3 minutes. The homeowner is home, but he doesn't answer. Then the bad guys break in with force. The homeowner now realizes that the reason they knocked was to try to see if anybody was home, and since nobody answered the door, they assumed the place was empty. So they break in.
Now the homeowner aims a rifle at them. Can he shoot?
Maybe not. He might have to give them a chance to surrender, or escape. How can he say that he was "in fear for his life" when he knows that the intruders tried to ensure that they were breaking into an empty home, and they took steps to avoid a confrontation with anybody?
I say, hold 'em at gunpoint and do a citizen's arrest, but DO NOT just open fire on them at first sight.
My answer would be totally different if they had broken in without first checking to see if the house was empty, or if there was other evidence that they intended to have a confrontation with the victim or witnesses. Naturally, "home invader" armed robbers should be shot to pieces at the doorstep.
We just have different ideas of what freedom is. I believe in complete freedom; he believes in limited freedom. That's all. :wink:budder said:Do you boys ever get along?Rammstein said::sly:gunsmoker said:Okay, let's recap the facts. The bad guys knock on the door for about 2-3 minutes. The homeowner is home, but he doesn't answer. Then the bad guys break in with force. The homeowner now realizes that the reason they knocked was to try to see if anybody was home, and since nobody answered the door, they assumed the place was empty. So they break in.
Now the homeowner aims a rifle at them. Can he shoot?
Maybe not. He might have to give them a chance to surrender, or escape. How can he say that he was "in fear for his life" when he knows that the intruders tried to ensure that they were breaking into an empty home, and they took steps to avoid a confrontation with anybody?
I say, hold 'em at gunpoint and do a citizen's arrest, but DO NOT just open fire on them at first sight.
My answer would be totally different if they had broken in without first checking to see if the house was empty, or if there was other evidence that they intended to have a confrontation with the victim or witnesses. Naturally, "home invader" armed robbers should be shot to pieces at the doorstep.
Time for :shoot: :shoot: :shoot:So they break in.
I got the link from Fark. Here's the thread in case anyone is interested:Thorsen said:As to this story, I read it originally on fark.com (maybe some of you are familiar with the site). Anyway, the thread attached to the news article was filled with bleeding hearts discussing how it wasn't right to kill a person over property (in response to many who said they would have shot). Additionally, there were others who even went so far as to say that the homeowner was wrong because he "laid in waiting" for the perps with a rifle inside his home instead of calling out that he was home and was armed.