3 Teens Shot and Killed Breaking into a House - Stand Your Ground Rule? How?

[allforfun86]

The man killed all three burglars. That means he got a killing shot into each one. You claim that he didn't have time to aim to wound? Utter bullshit.

A killing shot can be anything. If I shot you in the armpit and you died it's a killing shot. Saying he got a killing shot doesn't mean he had time to take aim and plan his shot. Im saying that more then likely he reacted. Aimed center mass (that place with all those organs you need) and fired. He could have fired 5 times at one guy and missed 4 of those. all it takes is one bullet hitting the right spot, and that doesn't include the heart lungs or brain.

I haven't looked into this specific incident yet, im at work, so I don't know how much time he had. He could have gotten the drop on them and only fired three rounds and killed all three. My point of the "shoot to wound" is that its bull shit. The other point i was trying to make is that if he has no combat experience, or nerves of steel, then more then likely he was freaked out and nervous. His concern for him and his family was on the front of his mind and he reacted. As I said before, I was in the military and have been in combat. You don't have time to think you just react and I had training. If he was untrained then making a controlled "wounding shot" was borderline impossible.

 

[allforfun86]

Besides the fact that anyone can sue anyone else for anything, which isn't the point (successful suits are the point), this sounds like an urban legend. Please cite something to back this up, including the outcome of the suit. If your premise is faulty, there's little reason to read your argument that's based on a faulty premise.

I reread my post and I didn't mean to imply that the criminals won all the time. I was mainly going for the fact that they can sue you and possibly win (I was a little heated as I started writing that post and wasn't careful with my word choice, sorry about that). Although a simple quick google search found several lawsuits from criminals suing home owners and winning or settling out of court in their favor. Yes many of those stories are urban legends or there's a lot more going on then ppl hear which leads to a ridiculous story, but they do happen which lets other criminals know that they have a chance to get away. Or their family can sue for whatever reason and I found several of those to after another google search.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The man killed all three burglars. That means he got a killing shot into each one. You claim that he didn't have time to aim to wound? Utter bullshit.

Give it up, man! Even us other anti-gun nuts are calling you on this. A kill shot is anywhere near the center of the chest. A wound is to an extremity. Extremities move more and are about a 1/4 the size.

Aim at center of target and pull trigger until it goes down. That is how you fire a gun in anything remotely approaching a combat type situation. While you're aiming at some guys moving kneecap his buddies could be blazing away at you with semi auto handguns.

Best weapon for defence is a revolver. Far less chance of jamming over a semi-auto and easy to use in confined spaces.

Next best is shotgun. Bad guy will shit himself over sound of you jacking a round into the chamber of a shotgun.

Therefore get a Taurus Judge. Best of both worlds. Fire buck or birdshot for slightly less lethality. More so for kids behind drywall partition.

And that is a sensible opinion from a dedicated anti-gun nut that might even have some gun nuts agreeing.

 

[allforfun86]

Next best is shotgun. Bad guy will shit himself over sound of you jacking a round into the chamber of a shotgun.

There is something so satisfying and terrifying about that sound!

 

[Hard_Rom]

Except for death by gun, US crime stats are very similar to Canada's. Death by gun is 3X per capita what we have. With 10X pop. one would expect 10X gun deaths. But it is closer to 30X. Handguns in the hands of criminals is a huge issue with you folk. And military style weaponry in the hands of citizens is another. Yes we have gangstas in our inner city areas. One gang member may even have a gun. But not the whole gang.

Well armed criminals don't break into your home for pocket change and entertainment equipment. That is what tweakers armed with knives due. If they can afford the 400+ dollars for an illegal gun they don't need to do B&Es. More likely corner drug dealers.

 

[Hard_Rom]

There is something so satisfying and terrifying about that sound!

Exactly! Never heard a Judge being fired but I bet it is damn loud and fucking scary.

 

[allforfun86]

Exactly! Never heard a Judge being fired but I bet it is damn loud and fucking scary.

It also gave me a boner.....

 

[sr71plt]

I reread my post and I didn't mean to imply that the criminals won all the time. I was mainly going for the fact that they can sue you and possibly win

OK, but I still think it might be an urban myth that they win--unless there's a lot more to the case than stated.

 

[onehotwife4u]

well....poser shit crazy but still.

Best post of the thread. I've been thinking the same for a while now. lol

 

[onehotwife4u]

https://gma.yahoo.com/killing-3-tee...-oklahoma-010103618--abc-news-topstories.html

THREE UNKNOWN PEOPLE are in the goddamn house. How is this Stand Your Ground?

It's not. It's actually the Castle Doctrine.

Wah wah wah!! Three armed intruders break into some guy's house and the crybaby liberals still want to blame the homeowner.

Should have shot them in the leg, says Bro-doh. You ever been in a gunfight, buckeroo?

 

[sr71plt]

Wah wah wah!! Three armed intruders break into some guy's house and the crybaby liberals still want to blame the homeowner.

Please cite, either here or on the Internet, someone blaming the homeowner for this. Or are you just making crap up?

 

[onehotwife4u]

I don't feel the need to convince you of anything. Neither of us has much clout in the matter.

And what you are defending in the 2nd Amendment is what I consider an erroneous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment unless you are in an authorized militia and want to own a musket--not a quick-repeating assault weapon.

You might want to read District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which holds, inter alia, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

One of the excerpts from Scalia's opinion is as follows:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

 

[onehotwife4u]

Please cite, either here or on the Internet, someone blaming the homeowner for this. Or are you just making crap up?

"One had a knife and one has brass knuckles. One was unarmed. He could have shot to wound, or not shot at all. He shot and killed all three. That's way beyond protecting himself."


Sounds like he/she is blaming the homeowner, to me anyway.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Handguns in the hands of criminals is a huge issue with you folk.

Yes it is.

And military style weaponry in the hands of citizens is another.

And there you go making shit up to push your political stupidity.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You might want to read District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which holds, inter alia, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

SR71Poser doesn't recognize SCOTUS rulings unless they fit his agenda.

 

[sr71plt]

You might want to read District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which holds, inter alia, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

One of the excerpts from Scalia's opinion is as follows:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

Scalia wasn't that swift in reading the Constitution either.

The wording of the Constitution is really quite clear on this. Reactionary judges who claim to stick to the letter of the law are sometimes full of shit.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The wording of the Constitution is really quite clear on this.

And it doesn't say anything about being in a militia being a requirement, you illiterate shit bird.

Also while you're at it you might want to look up the definition of militia.


You're a bitch who's terrified and willfully ignorant on the topic....pretending the law says something it doesn't won't ever change that for you poser. Ever.

 

[sr71plt]

"One had a knife and one has brass knuckles. One was unarmed. He could have shot to wound, or not shot at all. He shot and killed all three. That's way beyond protecting himself."


Sounds like he/she is blaming the homeowner, to me anyway.

You just can't help yourself from lying, can you? That's a fake quote you gave. This is the direct quote from the report cited.

"Mahoney said two of the deceased were considered armed. One had brass knuckles, he said. Another had a knife. Mahoney said the third suspect had not yet been searched by police."

Stop being a sleazebag and cite, either from this forum or on the Internet, someone blaming the homeowner for this.

 

[onehotwife4u]

Scalia wasn't that swift in reading the Constitution either.

The wording of the Constitution is really quite clear on this. Reactionary judges who claim to stick to the letter of the law are sometimes full of shit.

But you are? lol Whatever.

Where'd you get your J.D. from? or better yet, your LL.M. in Con Law?

 

[onehotwife4u]

You just can't help yourself from lying, can you? That's a fake quote you gave. This is the direct quote from the report cited.

"Mahoney said two of the deceased were considered armed. One had brass knuckles, he said. Another had a knife. Mahoney said the third suspect had not yet been searched by police."

Stop being a sleazebag and cite, either from this forum or on the Internet, someone blaming the homeowner for this.

No, it's not a fake quote. You did say from the forum, did you not? Here it is:

One had a knife and one has brass knuckles. One was unarmed. He could have shot to wound, or not shot at all. He shot and killed all three. That's way beyond protecting himself.

Please cite, either here or on the Internet, someone blaming the homeowner for this. Or are you just making crap up?

By "here", you meant, I presume, the forum.


Now, be a good erm....pilot....and climb into the cockpit of your pretend Blackbird and zoom off on another pretend mission.

 

[sr71plt]

No, it's not a fake quote. You did say from the forum, did you not? Here it is:






By "here", you meant, I presume, the forum.

By cite, I, of course, meant you should include the source.

So, you've equated one poster to all liberals. I'll stick with you being a sleazebag.

And, so, whose sleazy alt are you? To know anything, based on twenty-one posts, anything about my background? You were so outrageous in your last skin that you shamed yourself and had to start all over again? That figures.

 

[phrodeau]

It's not. It's actually the Castle Doctrine.

Wah wah wah!! Three armed intruders break into some guy's house and the crybaby liberals still want to blame the homeowner.

Should have shot them in the leg, says Bro-doh. You ever been in a gunfight, buckeroo?

I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home.

 

[onehotwife4u]

By cite, I, of course, meant you should include the source.

So, you've equated one poster to all liberals. I'll stick with you being a sleazebag.

And, so, whose sleazy alt are you? To know anything, based on twenty-one posts, anything about my background? You were so outrageous in your last skin that you shamed yourself and had to start all over again? That figures.

You asked for one...so I gave you one. Now go back to the land of make-believe and take off into the Wild Blue Yonder. Lol

 

[onehotwife4u]

I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home.

Lol. Funny!

 

[HuntersCabin]

Meth

One had a knife and one has brass knuckles. One was unarmed. He could have shot to wound, or not shot at all. He shot and killed all three. That's way beyond protecting himself.

You've never seen someone on meth .
If you shoot a meth head and he /she happens to get back on their feet I can assure you that you are not long for this world. Shot to wound ? Are you serious ? Not in today's world.

A meth head break into your home he/she isn't there to pay you a social visit they are NOT in their right mind and they WIL kill you with out a second thought. You do not know what drug these people are one when they come into your home and they WILL kill you.

Shoot to wound...no, if you do you'll be risking not only your life, but the lives of anyone else in that home.