Were you home when your house was broken into? Did you confront your intruders in the act?
Both times I came home late at night to find the back door wide open , but the second time it happened I thought the intruders were still in the house (as all my video gear was piled by the inside of the front door). I phoned the police and then grabbed the largest knife I had and checked out the house. If I had a gun, I would've used that. Would I have shot them? Only if attacked. I determined the house to be empty.
On a different occasion, I caught a guy in my carport trying to break into one of my cars with a metal rod. I calmly walked up to him and took the rod from his hands. No, I didn't execute him. I then un-calmly ordered him to climb over my fence and out of my freakin' yard. Although I would've loved to have kicked his ass, I didn't want to have to worry about rocks (or worse) coming through my windows in the middle of the night.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-27-2012).]
Also him waiting till the next day to have his neighbor contact authorities is just to fishy. Just sounds like he needed time to clean and/or make up a story.
He felt safe enough to drag Kifer, who was gasping for her life after being shot in the chest multiple times, and placed her next to Brady's body. Brady's body was in another room btw. THEN made the killing shot to the head.
It was at least in the news article, unlike some other comments that appear to be pulled from thin air.
Maybe we should just close this thread until the court case is finished, thus avoiding all assumptions.
As long as everyone knows assumptions are just that, and not facts. I remember the 911 tapes clearly showing George Zimmerman was racist, until we learned they were edited by the media to make it appear so. Speculate all you want but don't put too much faith in what the "facts" are based on a single news story.
self defence does NOT include killing wounded people while on the ground
Of course it does. Are you seriously telling us that if you've shot someone and they level a gun at you, you should just stop simply because you already winged them and they happen to be on the ground?? Wounded people on the ground can shoot you just as well as the non wounded, standing type.
I'll bet there's more to this story than what was reported. If the jury believes the shooter still feared for his life, he'll walk. Maybe he's mentally ill, maybe the would be thieves had guns or maybe the guy just acted in the heat of the moment due to adrenaline. If they were down for the count with no weapons, he overstepped. If they still had weapons and/or were still moving around, they were still a threat. I would have shot until I felt they were no longer a threat. I would hope that would be before they were dead but if they're still moving, I'm still shooting. Take me to jail. Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.
I'm praying I never get into that situation. When I win the Powerball, I'm hiring bodyguards. I'll let them deal with that kind of stuff.
Originally posted by Patrick: It was at least in the news article, unlike some other comments that appear to be pulled from thin air.
Maybe we should just close this thread until the court case is finished, thus avoiding all assumptions.
nope. I'm sticking with this guy kidnapped these 2 and tried to get info on the previous break-ins from them. since they didnt know anything - he killed them, and claimed they broke in too. this guy was on a mission to "get 'em". to bad he got the wrong ones.....
nope. I'm sticking with this guy kidnapped these 2 and tried to get info on the previous break-ins from them. since they didnt know anything - he killed them, and claimed they broke in too. this guy was on a mission to "get 'em". to bad he got the wrong ones.....
That seems to be a specialty here in TO/T, most of them unsupported by the reported and/or known facts. Some are much more aggressive at it than others, each prejudiced by his own worldview.
That seems to be a specialty here in TO/T, most of them unsupported by the reported and/or known facts. Some are much more aggressive at it than others, each prejudiced by his own worldview.
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: That seems to be a specialty here in TO/T, most of them unsupported by the reported and/or known facts. Some are much more aggressive at it than others, each prejudiced by his own worldview.
well, reported "facts" from news sources are pretty lacking and, if you have ever had any news coverage, you'd see first hand how wrong it is. lastly - its fun! there is no way we will ever know if these kids actually broke in or if he dragged them in to kill them. all we have is his word. and 2 dead kids. he had to make up something to explain them, and his story is the least damning. how else would anyone explain 2 dead kids in the basement? especially with his history with the neighborhood.
That seems to be a specialty here in TO/T, most of them unsupported by the reported and/or known facts. Some are much more aggressive at it than others, each prejudiced by his own worldview.
Huh, imagine that... Those two are now linked to a burglary earlier in the day where prescription drugs were reported stolen.
I've had my home broken into twice. It's an awful experience I would wish upon no one.
Keeping that in mind, anyone who would execute those kids in the manner reported is a chickensh!t coward... or nuts.
I agree with you. It's amazing the differences in point of view from one side of the border to the other. The "need" for violence and revenge if frightening in the US..
Those kids may (or may not have) made an error in judgement (aka, something stupid) but all kids do! They could still have grown up to be model citizens. I’ve done my share of stupid things in the past, so have my friends and family. I am a responsible family man now with a good job and I feel I’m doing good for others. What if someone had decided to shoot and kill me? Or my friends and family who are also positively contributing to society?
Meh, it’s like beating a dead horse… to death… (see what I did there? )
I am a responsible family man now with a good job and I feel I’m doing good for others. What if someone had decided to shoot and kill me? Or my friends and family who are also positively contributing to society?
What if two people break into your family's home? Are you going to laugh it off as kids being kids, or will you be concerned for your family's safety? How recently have you been burglarized?
The "need" for violence and revenge if frightening in the US..
I will only comment that I find this far more prevalent among the "Internet tough guys" on PFF than I do among the people I normally associate with in my daily life. For example, I live in a very conservative State and many people I know own firearms (as do I), but only one or two are obsessed with them. I doubt that the PFF demographic is representative of the U.S. as a whole. The highly-lopsided ratio of conservatives to liberals/moderates posting on political and social topics in TO/T seems to bear that out; the PFF demographic certainly doesn't mirror the results of the past two national elections.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-28-2012).]
I agree with you. It's amazing the differences in point of view from one side of the border to the other. The "need" for violence and revenge if frightening in the US..
Those kids may (or may not have) made an error in judgement (aka, something stupid) but all kids do! They could still have grown up to be model citizens. I’ve done my share of stupid things in the past, so have my friends and family. I am a responsible family man now with a good job and I feel I’m doing good for others. What if someone had decided to shoot and kill me? Or my friends and family who are also positively contributing to society?
Meh, it’s like beating a dead horse… to death… (see what I did there? )
If you broke into their house and they shot you, you would agree they should be in prison for it? (Since we are outside of the realm of details of this story) Assume you were armed, even with just a bat, that would qualify as a stupid thing too.
This is my point.
As a separate point, do you believe the matter of good one does compensates for bad they do?
If you broke into their house and they shot you, you would agree they should be in prison for it? (Since we are outside of the realm of details of this story) Assume you were armed, even with just a bat, that would qualify as a stupid thing too.
This is my point.
As a separate point, do you believe the matter of good one does compensates for bad they do?
Well up here in Canada, yes you would be put in a holding cell and depending on the circumstances, could be charged or released.
You watch football right? You understand unnecessary roughness? Same applies here. You do what is deemed as reasonable to defend yourself and innocent bystanders, if you go beyond what is reasonable, you are no better than the perpetrator and will be prosecuted as such. But that is here in Canada, I do not know much about American law.
I would do my best to disarm someone (and possibly injure them in the process) in order to defend myself and my loved ones (or anyone else around for that matter). However, a loud yell or a quick, non-lethal surprise attack is often more than enough to disable or deter a thief.
And you wanted to know if I believe the amount of good one does compensates for the bad they do? Yes! 100% and then some! Everyone deserves a second chance and there is good in everyone. Even this jerk who killed those kids, can potentially, with proper help (and most likely medication!) be rehabilitated.
#1 reaction I get from most Americans I have this discussion with (I travel often to the US and meet some interesting people) is you cowardly Canadians. To whom I answer: "Who has to carry a gun to feel safe? "
Originally posted by Purple86GT: However, a loud yell or a quick, non-lethal surprise attack is often more than enough to disable or deter a thief.
Great advice. All you need to do is sneak up and surprise someone you didn't expect to be there. I'm pretty sure the person breaking into your home is more aware of the impending break in than you are. If you can somehow gain the element of surprise over an event you weren't anticipating, more power to you.
Great advice. All you need to do is sneak up and surprise someone you didn't expect to be there. I'm pretty sure the person breaking into your home is more aware of the impending break in than you are. If you can somehow gain the element of surprise over an event you weren't anticipating, more power to you.
in MOST cases, they weren't expecting you to be there neither. Or they weren’t expecting you to notice.
You can nit-pick all you want, I’m sure those kids were not braking in to the house to subdue the man. If they were breaking in, it was to steal something and get out. A simple “hey who’s there!” would of scared the **** out of those kids and sent them on their way.
Originally posted by Purple86GT: ...... #1 reaction I get from most Americans I have this discussion with (I travel often to the US and meet some interesting people) is you cowardly Canadians. To whom I answer: "Who has to carry a gun to feel safe? "
are canadiens not americans? sorry, just been wondering this lately...the whole calling ourselves "americans". the Spanish are Europeans, as are the French. Chinese are Asian, as are the Koreans. and so on. but, then again, we dont even know who the Indians are....?
in MOST cases, they weren't expecting you to be there neither. Or they weren’t expecting you to notice.
You can nit-pick all you want, I’m sure those kids were not braking in to the house to subdue the man. If they were breaking in, it was to steal something and get out. A simple “hey who’s there!” would of scared the **** out of those kids and sent them on their way.
It's not a nit-pick, but discount it however you like. You clearly have all the answers you need. May they serve you as well as you expect them to.
in MOST cases, they weren't expecting you to be there neither. Or they weren’t expecting you to notice.
You can nit-pick all you want, I’m sure those kids were not braking in to the house to subdue the man. If they were breaking in, it was to steal something and get out. A simple “hey who’s there!” would of scared the **** out of those kids and sent them on their way.
I would not make the assumption that the two robbers would have ran away scared. The girl did go down into the basement after the first two gun shots. I assume that she must have heard them.
I still believe the home owner went over the line. Even if I make the following assumptions in his favor:
He is elderly and could not defend himself if assaulted
The robbers intended to harm or kill the home owner
The robbers insulted and laughed at the home owner
The home owner feared for his life
Even if all of those assumptions are true, the home owner still well over the line when he killed both robbers after he had already wounded them and they were no longer a threat.
If more details come out later about the incident, then I reserve the right to change my assessment.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: I would not make the assumption that the two robbers would have ran away scared. The girl did go down into the basement after the first two gun shots. I assume that she must have heard them. ......
which is a large reason why I dont beleive this guys story.
He was security for the State Dept. I'm thinking he's been trained to finish people off. The threat has been stopped by finishing them off.
Even in the concealed carry classes in Minnesota they teach that if your going to draw the weapon.... Center mass and pop off 6 rounds.
If you can drag a gasping person safely, they are not a threat. The final shot to the girl was a execution. I am pretty positive the state department, doesn't train its security agents to execute.
I agree that the homeowner went too far. I agree that what he did is against the law. But the prosecution and sheriff's dept are using the word "execution" in this for a reason. They need to sway the potential jury pool. Because, at this point, what Smith did was going to far and illegal, but it's the jury that will decide his fate. Getting a dozen people from that area to all agree to convict a man who was initially defending his home is going to be damn tough.
The consensus still is. It's sad what happened, but the kids did break into the man's home and he had a right to defend himself and his home.
or for more fun: what if everyone involved were black - would it have even made "the news"?
If everyone was black, no... it would not have made the news, and Boonie would never have even heard of it.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Or what if the old man was black... or Muslim... or (shudder)... a black Muslim?
I think perhaps this thread would've taken a different tangent.
It's okay though... he's a good ol' boy, just protecting his assets. Yehaw!
As long as at least someone was white, it would have made the news because it served the liberal media's goal of showing flagrant improper use of gun ownership. But if they were all black, the liberal media wouldn't have cared, which would have been racist.
And you wanted to know if I believe the amount of good one does compensates for the bad they do? Yes! 100% and then some! Everyone deserves a second chance and there is good in everyone. Even this jerk who killed those kids, can potentially, with proper help (and most likely medication!) be rehabilitated.
#1 reaction I get from most Americans I have this discussion with (I travel often to the US and meet some interesting people) is you cowardly Canadians. To whom I answer: "Who has to carry a gun to feel safe? "
That to me is turning from and stopping doing the bad. I mean does the good offset the bad, continuing both? For example if they were contributing to society and working hard, sucessful in business, gave to charity. But maybe they robbed houses for a thrill.
Tell that to O.J. Simpson. Dead people can't sue, but their estates can and do.
I suspect an estate would generally get less for a deceased person compared to a gunshot "victim" suing for a great deal of medical costs, mental anguish, and lost wages?
As long as at least someone was white, it would have made the news because it served the liberal media's goal of showing flagrant improper use of gun ownership. But if they were all black, the liberal media wouldn't have cared, which would have been racist.
Oh Todd Todd Todd... you and your "liberal media". Let's blame the liberals/democrats for everything negative in the world.
That to me is turning from and stopping doing the bad. I mean does the good offset the bad, continuing both? For example if they were contributing to society and working hard, sucessful in business, gave to charity. But maybe they robbed houses for a thrill.
The logical answer to that would be no, unless you are Robin Hood. I'm not sure what you are getting at? What I'm getting at is you have done bad in your life, there is always a chance to do some good.
Also (and I'm not saying it applies to this case) you have to ask yourself what pushed someone to do something bad? Was it a necesity to support / feed your family? was it out of hate? rebelious teen? etc.. Sometimes the person commiting the crime doesn't WANT to commit the crime.
, but the second time it happened I thought the intruders were still in the house (as all my video gear was piled by the inside of the front door). I phoned the police and then grabbed the largest knife I had and checked out the house. If I had a gun, I would've used that. Would I have shot them? Only if attacked. I determined the house to be empty. 
