What's new
By:

Burglar Shot Dead

Jazzfan_Bayamon 2 said:
And waiting for the cops to come to my house, I live 30 minutes outside of town btw, is a better decision? If I shoot to scare him away, aka missing on purpose, and he has a weapon I'm screwed. If a person is robbing me, he's a criminal. I have the right to protect my house, family, possessions etc...
Click to expand...

i think he was leaning the other way...
 
Jazzfan_Bayamon 2 said:
And waiting for the cops to come to my house, I live 30 minutes outside of town btw, is a better decision? If I shoot to scare him away, aka missing on purpose, and he has a weapon I'm screwed. If a person is robbing me, he's a criminal. I have the right to protect my house, family, possessions etc...
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet you're more likely to be arrested for shooting to injure an invader than shooting to kill an invader.
 
The Pearl said:
There seems to some obvious things left out or not addressed:

1. All bullets should be kept in the upper right hand breast pocket. A true law man or serious gun owner only needs one.

2. Attempting to break in is not breaking in. I would guess the homeowner who shoots while somebody is in process of "trying" to break in vs. somebody that shoots at an intruder that had already entered the premises are two different situations.

3. I like what Viny wrote about thinking it through. Perhaps even go as far as practicing to the point of even waking oneself up at night for a dry run would be a huge advantage.

4. Prodigal Punk is spot on. The instances leading up to eventually having somebody in your sights is mind blowing beyond belief. I have been involved in two situations while in the military. One just seconds away from discharging my weapon, one other prepared but luckily not to the brink. In both situations I was adequately trained, with clear guidelines and rule of engagement. Neither situations involved being startled in the middle of the night from REM sleep. In that situation the heart rate and adrenalin would be seriously off the charts. The average homeowner would have about a zero percent change of reacting rationally under those physical and emotional states. Pretending to be able to assess the intruders intentions and default to the appropriate response is silly.

5. Any would be intruder undertaking such endeavors is taking on extreme risk that the task will end very badly. It is impossible for me to have any sympathy. Having a crappy *** life is no excuse. Many people have crappy lives and stay crime free.

6. They call it deadly force for a reason. If you are going to use karate, rubber bullets, a 9 iron, or arm wrestle the dude for your stereo set, you might as well get a dog. Dogs do strange things to people, especially those doing something they shouldn't be doing. A well trained protection dog would solve many problems in this scenario.
Click to expand...

I like this post here. Very well reasoned.

I disagree with point 1, however. Sometimes one bullet isn't enough.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
I'd be willing to bet you're more likely to be arrested for shooting to injure an invader than shooting to kill an invader.
Click to expand...

Because the cops are obviously going to know that I was aiming for his knee....it would be pretty hard for them to prove that my intention was to injure and not to kill. Plus I live in Montana, they'd probably give me a medal.
 
Jazzfan_Bayamon 2 said:
Plus I live in Montana, they'd probably give me a medal.
Click to expand...

They'd probably wonder why you're such a bad shot, and then maybe they'd think you're not such a bad shot and thus aimed at the knee. Then they'd wonder if you were really in that much distress and needed to pull the trigger.

Basically, from what I've learned from various places, if you're willing to pull the trigger on a firearm, you shoot to kill, never to injure.
 
prodigal punk said:
That's the entire point. He wasn't in the home. He was attempting to break in. You are both employing the same method of making my arguments seem inferior by marginalizing what I'm saying. You are contradicting yourself by saying that it would suck but you would have no reason popping off a shot without warning on a person who was attempting to get your sliding glass door open. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that warning the intruder is a good policy, in favor of "shoot first, ask questions later" makes you come across as if you're trying to act tough. The bottom line is that in every attempt to make your point the best you can come up with is that you will do whatever it takes to protect your family. I'm not saying I wouldn't do that, I would just do it in a more reasonable way than walking downstairs, seeing that someone's trying to break in, making sure its not my kid, and then blasting him.
Click to expand...

Most my posts have been about people actually breaking into homes in general. A lot of what I said wasn't actually reference the OP's story. Like I've said for millionth time, I understand why someone would shoot someone who's breaking into their house. I don't know all the details about the original story, and I already said on the first page he shot him through a window or something like that so it's not going to look good in his favor. However, you never know what your going to do when you're scared *****ess because some moron/criminal is breaking into your home. I'm not that dumb to think that every situation necessarily needs to be handle with shoot first ask questions later. Of course not. However, like marcus and I have both said, you never know how you're going to react in a situation like that. It would probably make you do somethings you normally wouldn't do, especially if you feel your family is in danger. It would be very hard for me to pull the trigger, but nothing is more important to me than my family. I couldn't tell you what I would for sure unless something actually happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top