Burglar Shot Dead

[C l u t c H 385]

You'd kill some kid that was doing something stupid, but harmless, and not feel bad for it? Especially after having a perfectly good opportunity to consider the situation and still make the same choice? If I had a big red warning that said "think before you act" and presented a very specific circumstance, and then made the wrong choice afterward, I'd feel pretty ****ing stupid.

Well now you're changing the questions. I would feel bad about it. But I wouldn't feel like a dumbass. Time to reflect after the fact doesn't help me in the present. I wouldn't know he was some mistaken drunk kid when it happened. Where's the big red warning sign when someone is breaking into your house that informs you of their intentions and ability to carry them out? THAT I would like to know beforehand.

I certainly wouldn't feel bad if I had simply given him a good beating and gave him a reason to think about getting so retardedly drunk next time. So yea, I'd feel bad if i shot him and he died or was seriously injured, I don't think I'd feel stupid or like a dumb *** though. Sorry?

 

[TheDude]

No, I just didn't pay attention to it, and didn't address it. It's still not worth addressing because of the way you entered the thread.

Talk about middle school.. why don't you take your ball and go home.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

I can understand where UL17 is coming from but what I don't think he understand is that if the intruder meant you and your family harm the rubber bullets are not going to cut it. Neither will pepper spray or a taser. So what are you to do? Keep two separate clips next to the gun and try and decide on the fly whether you should use real or rubber bullets? Do you have a home invasion prevention vest next to your bed that holds a variety of self protection methods that you hurry and put on so that you are ready for everything from drunks to pranksters to a thief to a drug crazed murderer??

The best solution for protecting yourself and your family is a loaded gun with real bullets with every intent to use it if you feel it necessary. I'll let you decide whether or not it is necessary. Anything else wastes valuable seconds that could mean the difference between life or death.

I'll concede that a taser and pepper spray were bad suggestions mostly because they don't come close to covering the many situations that could come up.

But, you present another interesting point. Why not have 2 weapons, one for stun and one for kill? If you stun them and they still make an attempt to harm you or your family, then you have no other choice but to use deadly force. That's the most reasonable solution in this entire thread.

And I'm sure peoples' responses are going to be something like "oh god, why would I have to carry 2 guns when I can just use 1!?" like putting in extra effort to assure you're making the correct decision is such a burden.

 

[Archie Moses]

I can understand where UL17 is coming from but what I don't think he understand is that if the intruder meant you and your family harm the rubber bullets are not going to cut it. Neither will pepper spray or a taser. So what are you to do? Keep two separate clips next to the gun and try and decide on the fly whether you should use real or rubber bullets? Do you have a home invasion prevention vest next to your bed that holds a variety of self protection methods that you hurry and put on so that you are ready for everything from drunks to pranksters to a thief to a drug crazed murderer??

The best solution for protecting yourself and your family is a loaded gun with real bullets with every intent to use it if you feel it necessary. I'll let you decide whether or not it is necessary. Anything else wastes valuable seconds that could mean the difference between life or death.

Like I said, if you're threatened to the point to use rubber bullets, why not use real bullets?

 

[unluckyseventeen]

Well now you're changing the questions. I would feel bad about it. But I wouldn't feel like a dumbass. Time to reflect after the fact doesn't help me in the present. I wouldn't know he was some mistaken drunk kid when it happened. Where's the big red warning sign when someone is breaking into your house that informs you of their intentions and ability to carry them out? THAT I would like to know beforehand.

I certainly wouldn't feel bad if I had simply given him a good beating and gave him a reason to think about getting so retardedly drunk next time. So yea, I'd feel bad if i shot him and he died or was seriously injured, I don't think I'd feel stupid or like a dumb *** though. Sorry?

Indeed, I was sort of throwing the two around, but I meant the same thing. You would feel bad for not considering another way to resolve a situation, and that was my entire point. Feeling stupid for not having perfect foresight is obviously impossible.

 

[TheDude]

I'll concede that a taser and pepper spray were bad suggestions mostly because they don't come close to covering the many situations that could come up.

But, you present another interesting point. Why not have 2 weapons, one for stun and one for kill? If you stun them and they still make an attempt to harm you or your family, then you have no other choice but to use deadly force. That's the most reasonable solution in this entire thread.

And I'm sure peoples' responses are going to be something like "oh god, why would I have to carry 2 guns when I can just use 1!?" like putting in extra effort to assure you're making the correct decision is such a burden.

Even better... we should shoot him in the neck with a dart that we can either dip in poisen or an anesthetic that makes them woozy and they fall asleep. Sigh....

If you are at the point where you need to use force to stop someone, don't **** around.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Indeed, I was sort of throwing the two around, but I meant the same thing. You would feel bad for not considering another way to resolve a situation, and that was my entire point. Feeling stupid for not having perfect foresight is obviously impossible.

But accidents happen. The major accident was still made by the home intruder. I'm not gonna blame the guy who doesn't know that the person breaking into their house didn't mean any harm.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

If someone is forcibly entering your home in the middle of the night, and you and your family are inside, you need to prepare for the worst. Home invasion robberies turn ugly rather quickly; adrenaline, spurt-of-the-moment bloodshed, often times hard narcotics are in the suspect, etc...were I in that situation of having to protect my family from someone brazen enough to forcibly enter my residence with the intent of committing a felony, I would want more stopping-power then what rubber bullets afford.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

Even better... we should shoot him in the neck with a dart that we can either dip in poisen or an anesthetic that makes them woozy and they fall asleep. Sigh....

If you are at the point where you need to use force to stop someone, don't **** around.

Way to respond exactly how I predicted.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

But accidents happen. The major accident was still made by the home intruder. I'm not gonna blame the guy who doesn't know that the person breaking into their house didn't mean any harm.

They should take some of the blame if they've had plenty of time to consider how they'd handle a situation like that and still decided to shoot anybody dead that walked in their door, uninvited. Of course most of the blame is always on the person committing the crime, but you don't want to kill some kid and have to live with that for the rest of your life if it can be avoided.

 

[Scat]

But, you present another interesting point. Why not have 2 weapons, one for stun and one for kill? If you stun them and they still make an attempt to harm you or your family, then you have no other choice but to use deadly force. That's the most reasonable solution in this entire thread.

And I'm sure peoples' responses are going to be something like "oh god, why would I have to carry 2 guns when I can just use 1!?" like putting in extra effort to assure you're making the correct decision is such a burden.

It's not necessarily the extra effort but the extra time. Think about it, it's 3am, you've just been woken up. You need to collect your wits. You need to open the gun safe, choose the correct weapon for what you think is the correct scenario, unlock the trigger and then go investigate the source of the noise. Oh crap, the intruder has a gun in his hand and here I stand with my rubber bullets!

 

[C l u t c H 385]

They should take some of the blame if they've had plenty of time to consider how they'd handle a situation like that and still decided to shoot anybody dead that walked in their door, uninvited. Of course most of the blame is always on the person committing the crime, but you don't want to kill some kid and have to live with that for the rest of your life if it can be avoided.

They didn't have plenty of time. The had at most a few minutes of hearing the guy and then figuring out where he is. Again I guess it's a gamble, I don't take the small chance that it's an accident (why drunk college kid ok, but intent of raping children is fear mongering?) rather than the greater chance that it is someone with bad intentions.