What's new
By:

You hear a knocking at your window and your first instinct is to shoot into the darkness?

There was another case where a homeowner killed a college kid who was playing a prank by stealing something out of his garage. In that case as well, the armed homeowner fired at a shadowy figure without knowing if that figure was a threat. The college kid was committing a crime, even if the intent was to play a prank, but ultimately he was not a threat and lethal force was not justified.

Any gun owners out there need to be made aware that it is not their right to fire into the darkness and claim self defense. That is NOT self defense. That is attempted murder (if they don't hit anything), or murder if they end up killing someone. I don't even care if it turns out to be a criminal. You have to be directly threatened in order to justify the use of lethal force.
 
Gameface said:
There was another case where a homeowner killed a college kid who was playing a prank by stealing something out of his garage. In that case as well, the armed homeowner fired at a shadowy figure without knowing if that figure was a threat. The college kid was committing a crime, even if the intent was to play a prank, but ultimately he was not a threat and lethal force was not justified.

Any gun owners out there need to be made aware that it is not their right to fire into the darkness and claim self defense. That is NOT self defense. That is attempted murder (if they don't hit anything), or murder if they end up killing someone. I don't even care if it turns out to be a criminal. You have to be directly threatened in order to justify the use of lethal force.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the incident I'm thinking of, it happened in Missoula, Mt. I was living there at the time, and they've since done a dateline show about it(I think it was dateline). Anyway, the kid was looking for beer to steal, but the homeowner actually set him up because somebody had stolen from his house recently. They left the garage door open on purpose and had cameras set up. The guy was caught in some lies about how it happened, and his wife tripped him up as well with what she told the police. He even told some people in a hair salon that they would be seeing him in the news when he caught the people stealing from him. Totally premeditated murder, and he got convicted.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
If you're talking about the incident I'm thinking of, it happened in Missoula, Mt. I was living there at the time, and they've since done a dateline show about it(I think it was dateline). Anyway, the kid was looking for beer to steal, but the homeowner actually set him up because somebody had stolen from his house recently. They left the garage door open on purpose and had cameras set up. The guy was caught in some lies about how it happened, and his wife tripped him up as well with what she told the police. He even told some people in a hair salon that they would be seeing him in the news when he caught the people stealing from him. Totally premeditated murder, and he got convicted.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. I think the dude had been robbed out of his garage quite a few times and thought he could just bait some kid and shoot him. What made it worse was that the kid was a foreign exchange student.




Go montana!
 
Gameface said:
There was another case where a homeowner killed a college kid who was playing a prank by stealing something out of his garage. In that case as well, the armed homeowner fired at a shadowy figure without knowing if that figure was a threat. The college kid was committing a crime, even if the intent was to play a prank, but ultimately he was not a threat and lethal force was not justified.

Any gun owners out there need to be made aware that it is not their right to fire into the darkness and claim self defense. That is NOT self defense. That is attempted murder (if they don't hit anything), or murder if they end up killing someone. I don't even care if it turns out to be a criminal. You have to be directly threatened in order to justify the use of lethal force.
Click to expand...


any student prankster out there need to be made aware that if your prank is a crime you might pay for it with your live
 
Howard said:
Beat me to it. I think the dude had been robbed out of his garage quite a few times and thought he could just bait some kid and shoot him. What made it worse was that the kid was a foreign exchange student.




Go montana!
Click to expand...


so what
you do the crime you pay the "time"
 
DutchJazzer said:
any student prankster out there need to be made aware that if your prank is a crime you might pay for it with your live
Click to expand...

And trigger happy gun owners out there should be made aware that they are not justified in taking human life unless their own life or the life of another innocent person is being directly threatened.

It's like how some in the U.S. cry about how they don't see citizens in the Middle East stand up against terror. I think gun rights advocates need to lead the charge when it comes to proper discipline and conduct when using a firearm. We, as gun rights advocates, need to set the high standards that come with our rights, and we need to hold one another accountable to those high standards.

Unfortunately what I've seen from the gun rights movement of late is that it's always okay to have a gun and it's always okay to resort to deploying the gun at the slightest hint of danger. I've really fallen out of love with the gun rights movement.

What's the saying? If the only tool you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail.
 
Stoked said:
The number of discharges and accidents simply go to show how oftern they are carried and present. Do you really think that the only time they are used is when they are actually fired?
Click to expand...

No I do not. Nothing I've said would suggest that I do.

Stoked said:
Seems highly foolish to assume that. How many go unreported annually? I'd say thousands. Your proof is no more readily available than mine. Simply our opinions on what's plausible.
Click to expand...

With due respect Stoked, you accuse me of being foolish to make an assumption, which you then follow by making a whopper of an assumption. So, in the absence of proof in either direction, my assumption is as valid as yours from where I sit. In fact, I think it more reasonable. I'm still very skeptical that guns owned by private citizens actively deter a truly significant number of crimes, and that accidental or otherwise inappropriate discharges that cause injury or death occur with greater frequency.

Stoked said:
As for gun training, that is not what you indicated. You talked about how they are so readily available. That indicates gun removal, restriction or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of taking away guns. I am, however, in favor of restricting them, within REASONABLE limits. The problem is that with the degree of fanaticism about guns emanating from the gun culture in this country, we can't have a reasonable discussion about this. DESPITE the fact that a large majority of Americans favor reasonable gun control laws, such as background checks. Or, I'd support not allowing underage children to own or possess firearms, such as in this case. As another example, I'd like to see laws establishing that the parents of this boy should be either legally or civilly liable (although such laws may already exist) for allowing him to possess a firearm. (I am hesitant to charge this boy with a crime and believe that the blame lies primarily with the parents.)

Stoked said:
I agree that gun training is needed on a national level.
Click to expand...

This is an example of a reasonable limit.

In
 
I think gun training should be taught in a high school level civics class. The students should fire a gun on a gun range as part of the class.

Everyone has a right to have a gun, then everyone needs to understand how guns work and know at the minimum the four rules of firearm safety.
 
Gameface said:
I think gun training should be taught in a high school level civics class. The students should fire a gun on a gun range as part of the class.

Everyone has a right to have a gun, then everyone needs to understand how guns work and know at the minimum the four rules of firearm safety.
Click to expand...

There would be a huge backlash to this as the anti gun groups would see it as surrendering to a gun culture. Good idea but like so many good ideas it won't pass.
 
Gameface said:
There was another case where a homeowner killed a college kid who was playing a prank by stealing something out of his garage. In that case as well, the armed homeowner fired at a shadowy figure without knowing if that figure was a threat. The college kid was committing a crime, even if the intent was to play a prank, but ultimately he was not a threat and lethal force was not justified.

Any gun owners out there need to be made aware that it is not their right to fire into the darkness and claim self defense. That is NOT self defense. That is attempted murder (if they don't hit anything), or murder if they end up killing someone. I don't even care if it turns out to be a criminal. You have to be directly threatened in order to justify the use of lethal force.
Click to expand...

I love you dog, but I disagree with you here. If I catch someone breaking into my garage/home, and I happen to have my firearm handy, they're going down.
 
TroutBum said:
I love you dog, but I disagree with you here. If I catch someone breaking into my garage/home, and I happen to have my firearm handy, they're going down.
Click to expand...

I don't get why in the world you would want to kill a person, but whatever. Yeah, we definitely disagree.
 
About a dozen people here, upon learning I am an American (should be obvious from the accent, dur), asked me how many guns I have or how many times I have shot people on my property.


I always tell them 50 + enough ammo to last 5 years, and 4 so far.
 
Gameface said:
I don't get why in the world you would want to kill a person, but whatever. Yeah, we definitely disagree.
Click to expand...

Um...

I don't want to kill a person. Ever. That isn't the same as saying I will if I have to, or if you try to hurt me or my family. Stealing from me, by breaking into my home, is a direct threat of harm to me and my family. I'll blow your g'damn head off your shoulders.
 
Someone breaking into your garage means you shoot them? How about telling them to stop?

The penalty for burglary isn't death.

If you're armed and you've got the drop on a burglar there's no need to shoot them. You've got the upper hand. You're in control of the situation. None of your stuff is going to be stolen.

Yet what I hear over and over, not just from you, is this fantasy of catching a "bad guy" and blowing their head off. I find it incredibly distasteful. I find it to lack discipline.

Besides that, if you're trying to blow the head off someone's shoulders you're doing it wrong. You should be aiming at center mass to increase the chances that the shots you take will hit the intended target and stop the threat. But of course, we're not talking about a threat that can only be stopped with lethal force, we're talking about someone being a threat because they're trying to steal your bicycle. And although the situation could be resolved without the use of lethal force, better to blow a guys head off and deal with the fallout from that.

I know I would be traumatized if I killed a person. Most likely even if there was no other choice in the matter. But if I just happened upon a thief in my garage whom I could have easily stopped by merely possessing a firearm but instead just gunned down I think I would have a hard time living with myself.
 
TroutBum said:
I love you dog, but I disagree with you here. If I catch someone breaking into my garage/home, and I happen to have my firearm handy, they're going down.
Click to expand...

He baited the kid to come into his garage, hid in the garage and then let loose with a shotgun.

That's pretty bad.
 
TroutBum said:
Um...

I don't want to kill a person. Ever. That isn't the same as saying I will if I have to, or if you try to hurt me or my family. Stealing from me, by breaking into my home, is a direct threat of harm to me and my family. I'll blow your g'damn head off your shoulders.
Click to expand...

So you'd kill a teenager for trying to steal something out of your garage? IMO, the only justification for killing someone is when you feel a threat to your/someone else's life. Although, I do kind of like the idea of blasting thieves with rock salt, at a distance, of course. Still, I'd like to think most people would regret killing someone over something petty. The guy in Missoula blasted the kid as he was pleading for his life, and then when his wife was talking to him on the phone in jail, he asked her to buy up all the newspapers, as he obviously thought he'd get away with it. He was pretty proud of killing someone's kid, and now he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
 
Gameface said:
Someone breaking into your garage means you shoot them? How about telling them to stop?

The penalty for burglary isn't death.

If you're armed and you've got the drop on a burglar there's no need to shoot them. You've got the upper hand. You're in control of the situation. None of your stuff is going to be stolen.

Yet what I hear over and over, not just from you, is this fantasy of catching a "bad guy" and blowing their head off. I find it incredibly distasteful. I find it to lack discipline.

Besides that, if you're trying to blow the head off someone's shoulders you're doing it wrong. You should be aiming at center mass to increase the chances that the shots you take will hit the intended target and stop the threat. But of course, we're not talking about a threat that can only be stopped with lethal force, we're talking about someone being a threat because they're trying to steal your bicycle. And although the situation could be resolved without the use of lethal force, better to blow a guys head off and deal with the fallout from that.

I know I would be traumatized if I killed a person. Most likely even if there was no other choice in the matter. But if I just happened upon a thief in my garage whom I could have easily stopped by merely possessing a firearm but instead just gunned down I think I would have a hard time living with myself.
Click to expand...

If I wanted to catch bad guys, I'd be a cop. If I wanted to kill people, I'd join the armed forces. Let me repeat, I don't want to kill anyone. However, I take my home and my family seriously. I don't care if you're stealing my bike, my gas, my golf clubs, etc. it doesn't matter, you're taking money from me, which means you take it from my family, which harms me and my family. I have zero tolerance for theft. I won't stand for it. If someone needs something that bad, ring my doorbell and there is a damn good chance I'll give you whatever you need. I'm sorry that you think I'm trying to be macho or some sort of super hero vigilante or something, but that's just not the case.

Howard said:
He baited the kid to come into his garage, hid in the garage and then let loose with a shotgun.

That's pretty bad.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that guy is an *** hat.

Cappy_Smurf said:
So you'd kill a teenager for trying to steal something out of your garage? IMO, the only justification for killing someone is when you feel a threat to your/someone else's life. Although, I do kind of like the idea of blasting thieves with rock salt, at a distance, of course. Still, I'd like to think most people would regret killing someone over something petty. The guy in Missoula blasted the kid as he was pleading for his life, and then when his wife was talking to him on the phone in jail, he asked her to buy up all the newspapers, as he obviously thought he'd get away with it. He was pretty proud of killing someone's kid, and now he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Click to expand...

Teenager, old guy, woman, black, white, it doesn't matter. Don't steal from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top