87GT Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Kill them or don't shoot at all. That is not how it works. You shoot someone to stop them from threatening your life. You don't shoot to kill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackbar00 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 That is not how it works. You shoot someone to stop them from threatening your life. You don't shoot to kill. And that could get YOU killed someday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 And that could get YOU killed someday. Everyone dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustlestiltskin Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Everyone dies. But not everyone really lives. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motozachl Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Unarmed or not, IMO if you break into someone's home you deserve to be shot dead. Kids or not I don't care. Again, find a way to arm a dead person if need be. Rid the world of scum. +billion rep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 And that could get YOU killed someday. Eric's right. You shoot to stop the threat and you do what ever you have to do to stop the threat on your life and life of your family members. To me in a home invastion, stopping the threat means the intruder is on the ground not moving so I can be prepared to defend my self and family from other possible threats, like one of his accomplices. That is why we have the castle doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motozachl Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 That is not how it works. You shoot someone to stop them from threatening your life. You don't shoot to kill. that's not the point of a gun But not everyone everyone really lives. ok braveheart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 that's not the point of a gun :dumb: The point of a gun is not to kill. It is a force multiplier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 I support his end result regardless if they were armed or not. I'd have found a way to make them "armed" and then called the cops and rule #1, only talk to a lawyer. Unarmed or not, IMO if you break into someone's home you deserve to be shot dead. Kids or not I don't care. Again, find a way to arm a dead person if need be. Rid the world of scum. fuck the law and bullshit around being armed or not. entering my home falls under my law not that of some pussy politicians who feel they need to guide how I protect my family. We give bad guys way way too much leniency and protection under the law. Time to level the playing field a bit. Obviously you have a problem with lawbreakers. But you feel there's nothing wrong with tampering with a crime scene to make someone look more guilty than they actually are...which would make you a lawbreaker. But I suppose you'd be the "okay" kind of lawbreaker just looking out for his family's safety, not the "scum" kind of lawbreaker that deserves to be killed in cold blood, right? In the world where you're king that might be okay, but let's just say I'm glad I'm not your neighbor, because if tampering with evidence is okay for a home invasion and killing, I'd hate to have a Molotov thrown my way for accidentally mowing on your side of the property line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 that's not the point of a gun That's probably how this fella getting charged with 2nd degree murder feels. Point is, do what you need to do to stop the threat, if that involves killing someone, so be it. If that's what had occurred, this man wouldn't be in the bind he's in. Do not be a Billy-Badass and give someone the coup de grace and expect to walk free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackbar00 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Eric's right. You shoot to stop the threat and you do what ever you have to do to stop the threat on your life and life of your family members. To me in a home invastion, stopping the threat means the intruder is on the ground not moving so I can be prepared to defend my self and family from other possible threats, like one of his accomplices. That is why we have the castle doctrine. Right, kill them. It stops the threat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Right, kill them. It stops the threat. No shoot them in center mass until they stop threatening you. If they happen to leak and die oh well. It is not okay to shoot them until they are dead unless you are fighting in a war. Do you live in a war zone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hahn Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Shitty situation. Yes he shouldve shot them/neutralized them, but that means to stop shooting after they go down. You then call PoPo while keeping them at gun point from a safe distance. "Finishing shots" is what put this guy away. I will say that it would be a lot harder to shoot a kid, but at the same time, it doesnt matter who you are, my life and my family's life comes before you. I shoot to neutralize the threat and if that means you die, then so be it, but i wont follow up with a head shot to verify this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Shitty situation. Yes he shouldve shot them/neutralized them, but that means to stop shooting after they go down. You then call PoPo while keeping them at gun point from a safe distance. "Finishing shots" is what put this guy away. I will say that it would be a lot harder to shoot a kid, but at the same time, it doesnt matter who you are, my life and my family's life comes before you. I shoot to neutralize the threat and if that means you die, then so be it, but i wont follow up with a head shot to verify this. This. The actions of this person indicate a vindictive desire. I don't doubt that he felt threatened by intruders. Those actions are not what's in question. What's in question is what he did after the initial shooting, and to what extent he felt he needed to "neutralize" the threat. Obviously he can't have felt that threatened after the initial takedown if he was comfortable enough to walk up to the intruders, put a revolver under one's chin, and fire. That isn't the action of someone who feels threatened anymore, that's the action of someone saying "you're going to pay for what you did". I don't care what interpretation of the law you subscribe to, in America it is your right to stand your ground and protect yourself against someone who means to do you harm but the vindictive killing of another person deserves jail time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 This is the standard CR member response to this question. (Feel free to copy and paste into this thread.) "Well, first I would finish up having sex with the two supermodels in my bed and then take a bite of the sandwich that they made me earlier. Then, I would tell them, 'Ladies, it's time for daddy to go to work,' and I'd light a cigar while loading up my Desert Eagle, AK 47, sawed-off shotgun, and sniper rifle. They would blow me while I was setting the sights to my sniper rifle. Then I would cut the power lines to my house and don my infrared night goggles. I'd link up to 911 using my Bluetooth: '911, we have an emergency here. An intruder has made the misfortune of trespassing into my sanctuary and now will be sacrified to the God of War. I will leave this line open for communication but be advised I will not respond if engaged with the enemy or in the process of stalking such. Send the coroner. Over.' Then I would proceed out of the bedroom. The intruder would undoubtedly be making a play for my 161-inch LCD and diamond-encased XBOX 360. Having anticipated such, I would go ahead an detonate my flash bombs that I have set up on the other side of my couch. That would leave the intruder dazed and bewildered. I would then run up the stairs to my balcony, rappel over, drop down behind the intruder, and slice his throat. He would gurgle and plead for me to save him. I would spit in his face and promise to creampie his girlfriend." I thought this should be quoted here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hahn Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 I thought this should be quoted here. Thats alot of work setting up the scope to not use it................but i guess if hes getting a blowy then its understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackbar00 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 No shoot them in center mass until they stop threatening you. If they happen to leak and die oh well. It is not okay to shoot them until they are dead unless you are fighting in a war. Do you live in a war zone? If I am shooting at someone in my house, I am emptying the magazine on them. Re-load, check for others. Im not giving them chance to cause me/others harm just by shooting once, thats just dumb. Now, this guy is bat shit crazy for what he did, but in killing them he was very justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackbar00 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 LOL at the rep I just got. Intruders, women, and... - 28th November 2012 11:03 AM - You are a retard and I hope an intruder holds you down and rapes you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 This guy is a sick fuck. Plain and simple. Where to shoot someone, or how many rounds is debatable. Most training will teach two in the chest one in the head. But to brag about "finishing shots" taken at point blank range, move bodies around, then go to sleep with the bodies still in your house, and not even report it till the next day... This guy has serious issues, and may very well have been as dangerous to society as the two criminals he took out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 If I am shooting at someone in my house, I am emptying the magazine on them. Re-load, check for others. Im not giving them chance to cause me/others harm just by shooting once, thats just dumb. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 If I am shooting at someone in my house, I am emptying the magazine on them. Re-load, check for others. Im not giving them chance to cause me/others harm just by shooting once, thats just dumb. That is perfectly fine, just don't get it in your head that you shoot to kill the threat, you shoot to stop the threat. In our homes we are protected by the castle law. If it is in a parking lot, shooting to kill could be misconstrued by a determined lawyer as a way of saying you were looking for someone to kill. I like saying shooting to stop the threat because once the threat is over, deadly force is no longer warranted. If the threat does not stop until dead, then you have stopped the threat. Death was just the side effect. I think that is the thought process people should have going into a self defense situation. Having a shoot to kill mindset could get you into trouble later on. Also, emptying a magazine and reloading can make your vulnerable, I wouldn't empty the whole magazine unless I have to. Where to shoot someone, or how many rounds is debatable. Most training will teach two in the chest one in the head. If you are referring to failure drills that they teach in CQC and handgun defense classes, it is 2 in center mass and if the person doesn't drop than 1 in the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Obviously you have a problem with lawbreakers. But you feel there's nothing wrong with tampering with a crime scene to make someone look more guilty than they actually are...which would make you a lawbreaker. You're correct, I wouldn't lose any sleep over nudging the law a bit to insure the guilty are proven so. In the case of B&E, IMO, there's no more guilty, you're just plain guilty and dead. I think needing to prove they are armed to kill anyone entering your home is complete bullshit. Unarmed or not, you're going to get killed. Call me a lawbreaker, I still sleep at night. But I suppose you'd be the "okay" kind of lawbreaker just looking out for his family's safety, not the "scum" kind of lawbreaker that deserves to be killed in cold blood, right? Correct because scum who proactively break into homes are scum that deserve to be dead. The guy in said home isn't proactively hurting anyone, he's simply reacting to the intruders poor choice of actions and I would gladly support whatever needed to be done to eliminate the intruder scum from breathing air for another minute. In the world where you're king that might be okay, but let's just say I'm glad I'm not your neighbor, because if tampering with evidence is okay for a home invasion and killing, I'd hate to have a Molotov thrown my way for accidentally mowing on your side of the property line.My home is my castle and there I am King. Lawn wise, meh....could care less.....just don't try breaking in my home and you'll be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustlestiltskin Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 My home is my castle and there I am King. Lawn wise, meh....could care less.....just don't try breaking in my home and you'll be fine. Watchout, we got a badass over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 .22 lol mini-14 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentStateTsi Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 I want to lol at the mini 14 but this is another arguement for another assault weapons ban. By no means do I consider a 14 an assault rifle. Its just what the anti-gun people want to hear. Dude has some problems. Max 3 rounds per intruder IMO. Home defense rounds are made that way for a reason. I put money on brown bear and wildcat in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.