Burglar Shot Dead

[unluckyseventeen]

Do you really not understand the difference between a rubber bullet and a real bullet? They are not the same.

Thank you captain obvious. Why would I propose using one over the other if I didn't understand a difference? Way to be pages behind the conversation.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Should you kill anybody that ever breaks a law?

You've never heard of somebody drunkenly or whatever else entering a house that wasn't their own, mistaking it for a friend's house or something? I've had at least a few friends that have encountered a similar situation - they wake up and there's some stranger sleeping on their couch that nobody has ever seen or heard of. They should shoot on sight?

It's really amusing how people don't even consider the hundreds of different circumstances that could surround a break-in, and immediately jump to "they're in my house.. they're dead".

Well they are so unlikely to happen they shouldn't be considered right?

I never said it wouldn't suck for someone who on accident goes into the wrong house to get shot. It would be a very unfortunate ACCIDENT.

Do they deserve it? No. Are they more at fault than the homeowner. Yes. Should the homeowner be punished? No.

 

[One Brow]

The Dude,

Thanks for the reasonable response.

My question: even though you fired a close range, something happened and you missed, and the bullets hits someone across the street. Is the homeowner criminally responsible for that? Or, does teh existence of the home invader give him a free pass on where his bullets might go?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

It felt appropriate to show what would actually happen if shot by rubber bullets, since Archie didn't seem to get it and compared a rubber bullet to a BB gun on more than one occasion.

And you noticed those people in the pictures you posted could still fire a gun? With real bullets?

 

[Archie Moses]

Should you kill anybody that ever breaks a law?

You've never heard of somebody drunkenly or whatever else entering a house that wasn't their own, mistaking it for a friend's house or something? I've had at least a few friends that have encountered a similar situation - they wake up and there's some stranger sleeping on their couch that nobody has ever seen or heard of. They should shoot on sight?

It's really amusing how people don't even consider the hundreds of different circumstances that could surround a break-in, and immediately jump to "they're in my house.. they're dead".

If someone was drunk and walked into my house, how am I supposed to know what is going on and his intentions? If he gets shot, he's the moron, not the home owner. With that being said, I'm not saying kill kill kill. I'm saying I understand people who kill criminals who enter their homes.

 

[YB85]

UL17... sorry, but you are a moron. I am not saying that this intruder had any intention to hurt the family, but you don't take that chance. Rubber bullets, I am sure, hurt very bad but they don't provide stopping power. There are real bullets that don't provide stopping power.

So if the guy comes in with a gun, I shoot him with my rubber bullet, he doubles over in pain, then gathers himself and shoots me with his 9mm, then I have not protected myself or my family.

You're being very unDude.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

The Dude,

Thanks for the reasonable response.

My question: even though you fired a close range, something happened and you missed, and the bullets hits someone across the street. Is the homeowner criminally responsible for that? Or, does teh existence of the home invader give him a free pass on where his bullets might go?

Without having reviewed anything legal since July 28th, i would say the only way the shooter would have a problem would be if it could be proved that they were negligent/reckless (and this would likely depend on specific state law definitions of crimes). This generally involves deciding what a reasonable person would do in the situation. That means whatever the jury thinks.

 

[Archie Moses]

Thank you captain obvious. Why would I propose using one over the other if I didn't understand a difference? Way to be pages behind the conversation.

That's the whole point of me posting pictures of airsoft gun wounds, that you keep bring up. Rubber bullets and air soft bb's are not real bullets that are designed to kill. How you don't get this is over my head.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

Well they are so unlikely to happen they shouldn't be considered right?

I never said it wouldn't suck for someone who on accident goes into the wrong house to get shot. It would be a very unfortunate ACCIDENT.

Do they deserve it? No. Are they more at fault than the homeowner. Yes. Should the homeowner be punished? No.

Should the homeowner take the responsibility to consider any circumstance that might come up surrounding the safety of their home? Yes. Even if this happened to you, tonight, and you killed somebody that didn't deserve to be killed.. they'd be intruding on your property unlawfully, yes, but it'd be your own dumb fault for not considering the circumstances after having a conversation like this. You'd be safe, sure, but I don't believe you wouldn't have regrets about how you handled the situation, particularly after having a good chance to think about it.

I like how I'm the center of negative attention for being the first person to bring up the fact that you should consider every possible circumstance to a situation that involves life and death. Seems a little ironic, but that's the internet for you, I guess.

 

[TheDude]

If your first sentence is "you're a moron" and you've been here for 5 minutes, why should I assume you have any credibility and respond to somebody insulting me right out of the gate? Seems like a waste of time.

I've provided plenty of answers. If you'd read first, it'd really help you. Just a wacky suggestion.

Hey, I did apologize that you are a moron in my 1st sentence... cut me some slack.

Still, it doesn't matter how many posts I have on Jazzfanz to point out your argument is ridiculous. Rubber bullets? Seriously?

Guess I need to make a 1000 posts before I earn my e-respect from UL17. Board spamming... here I come!

 

[unluckyseventeen]

If someone was drunk and walked into my house, how am I supposed to know what is going on and his intentions? If he gets shot, he's the moron, not the home owner. With that being said, I'm not saying kill kill kill. I'm saying I understand people who kill criminals who enter their homes.

I understand them, too, and that's their choice. But it's utter irony how I'm having to defend my stance of "shouldn't you consider every circumstance?".. if you killed some drunk kid because you're too ignorant to consider the circumstances, boy, you'd really feel like a dumbass. All of my solutions have been centered around "protect yourself and handle the situation with as little bloodshed as possible" and yet apparently that solution isn't the correct one. And jagoffs like you feel the need to perpetuate it with ridiculous responses.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Should the homeowner take the responsibility to consider any circumstance that might come up surrounding the safety of their home? Yes. Even if this happened to you, tonight, and you killed somebody that didn't deserve to be killed.. they'd be intruding on your property unlawfully, yes, but it'd be your own dumb fault for not considering the circumstances after having a conversation like this. You'd be safe, sure, but I don't believe you wouldn't have regrets about how you handled the situation, particularly after having a good chance to think about it.

I like how I'm the center of negative attention for being the first person to bring up the fact that you should consider every possible circumstance to a situation that involves life and death. Seems a little ironic, but that's the internet for you, I guess.

So your argument is just that shooting someone could have negative consequences to the shooter? I guess I agree then?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

I understand them, too, and that's their choice. But it's utter irony how I'm having to defend my stance of "shouldn't you consider every circumstance?".. if you killed some drunk kid because you're too ignorant to consider the circumstances, boy, you'd really feel like a dumbass. All of my solutions have been centered around "protect yourself and handle the situation with as little bloodshed as possible" and yet apparently that solution isn't the correct one. And jagoffs like you feel the need to perpetuate it with ridiculous responses.

I don't think I'd feel like a dumb ***.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

That's the whole point of me posting pictures of airsoft gun wounds, that you keep bring up. Rubber bullets and air soft bb's are not real bullets that are designed to kill. How you don't get this is over my head.

Throwing teddy bears at a burglar isn't designed to kill them either. It must be the same thing as beating the **** out of them, breaking their legs, and letting them live, right? Neither kills, so it must be the same exact thing.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

Hey, I did apologize that you are a moron in my 1st sentence... cut me some slack.

Still, it doesn't matter how many posts I have on Jazzfanz to point out your argument is ridiculous. Rubber bullets? Seriously?

Guess I need to make a 1000 posts before I earn my e-respect from UL17. Board spamming... here I come!

No, you haven't shown you're capable of dismissing an argument without providing any sort of reasoning, so nobody will care about what you have to say. You're proving this to me every time to post.

 

[Archie Moses]

Drunk people can't cause harm to me or my family, right ul17? Drunk people never harmed anyone when stumbling in someone's home. Terrible argument.

 

[Archie Moses]

Throwing teddy bears at a burglar isn't designed to kill them either. It must be the same thing as beating the **** out of them, breaking their legs, and letting them live, right? Neither kills, so it must be the same exact thing.

Rubber bullets, dude. Rubber bullets.

 

[TheDude]

The Dude,

Thanks for the reasonable response.

My question: even though you fired a close range, something happened and you missed, and the bullets hits someone across the street. Is the homeowner criminally responsible for that? Or, does teh existence of the home invader give him a free pass on where his bullets might go?

To be quite honest, from a legal standpoint, I really don't know. I think that Clutch is probably right with his response.

From a moral standpoint, that would be terrible. I don't know how I could live with myself after... All I can really say is that it is the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure that they are properly trained to use the weapon to minimize the chance of that happening.

From my standpoint, you have to protect your family to the fullest extent, with deadly force if necessary. Just make sure you are properly prepared and EQUIPPED to do so. (no rubber bullets)

 

[unluckyseventeen]

I don't think I'd feel like a dumb ***.

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.

 

[unluckyseventeen]

Rubber bullets, dude. Rubber bullets.

God, talking to you is like talking to a middle school kid. You don't get it, and never will. Accept it, and stop wondering why you have a reputation around here for being a moran the next time your feel-bads get hurt.