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

[phrodeau]

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.

As long as you think that someone else WILL kill you without a second thought, you also WILL kill people without a second thought. What kind of citizen does that make you?

 

[sr71plt]

What kind of citizen does that make you?

Obviously one obsessed with having more fire power and a quicker draw than anyone else.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

My this thread is so much better since I put so many pompous liberals on ignore. They can't even get behind the concept of self defense. Normally I would welcome a debate, but I had enough when I read the supposed lawyer here ignore case law in favor of his own opinion. Then there is the pompous supposed pilot who has nothing but nasty things to say to support his liberal opinion.

I'm pro-choice because I think everyone has their own situation. Couldn't care self about gay marriage because it's two consenting adults. Don't want to own a gun and have an irrational fear of them fine, but you don't get to ban them because a AR-15 discharging on a range makes you wet yourself.

 

[phrodeau]

The obvious answer is an alive citizen.

I thought the obvious answer was someone who was white-assed scared of people on meth busting into his home in order to kill him. Makes me wonder what kind of enemies he has made.

 

[sr71plt]

I thought the obvious answer was someone who was white-assed scared of people on meth busting into his home in order to kill him. Makes me wonder what kind of enemies he has made.

I did see a reference to these folks possibly knowing each other. Has anyone seen a followup report on this case they can cite?

Although I did post up the line--and do believe--that you are justified in going for the kill if you can when your house is maliciously invaded, I think that any civilian who has to have an AR-15 is ipso facto someone who shouldn't be allowed to have one.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

The obvious answer is an alive citizen.

Yes well you're dealing with people here who think it would be better that you were a victim and then the justice system could take over. I think when you go out to steal, rape, etc...You've already shed the normal social constraints.

Now this isn't an absolute right. There was one case where a home owner waited to ambush the intruder. Would have been better to hold him there until police arrived. Another case a man opened the door and shot a violent drunk. There was no need he was secure and help was on the way. Each case should be examined, but when people are in the right they should have the law behind them.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I did see a reference to these folks possibly knowing each other. Has anyone seen a followup report on this case they can cite?

Although I did post up the line--and do believe--that you are justified in going for the kill if you can when your house is maliciously invaded, I think that any civilian who has to have an AR-15 is ipso facto someone who shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Apparently, the shooter is not charged with anything, but the getaway driver is.

http://www.ktxs.com/news/texas/no-charges-against-oklahoma-man-who-killed-3-intruders_/430628095

 

[JawnKarTurr]

This is rather hilarious. As I noted before a number of people have been put on ignore and it relieves much of the static here. After all the political section of this website is home really to just a few liberals who rant and rave and safely troll.

So here it is a perfect case to justify (again) private ownership of a weapon for self defense. Thieves who are armed break into a home, and the lawful owner armed with a legal weapon defends himself impressively well. No laws were broken and despite people trying to twist the situation it was necessary.

That said there are still the whiners who complain how could he do that, someone who might actually use a weapon shouldn't have one, and it's just wrong. Some people it has to hit home first.

I recall in the wake of the Orlando night cub shooting a case where the shooter was vetted repeatedly still went out and did a horrible thing. We don't hear as much about that horrible even because well the shooter was a minority, possibly gay, and comes from a family of Hilary Clinton supporters. While some irrationally demanded all guns banned others demanded their rights. The Pink Pistol Club a gay shooting group in support of self defense saw membership double in two days.

I guess they didn't see the honor in being a victim like some people.

 

[phrodeau]

President Trump Shoots to Wound.

 

[dan_c00000]

I recall in the wake of the Orlando night cub shooting a case where the shooter was vetted repeatedly still went out and did a horrible thing.

Where's your proof? I'm assuming you have none.

Also, where were you when a black person was shot by a white person?

 

[sr71plt]

Apparently, the shooter is not charged with anything, but the getaway driver is.

Well, there you go. That doesn't contradict anything I said should or would happen--even though I'm a liberal. That doesn't negate my position that no civilian needs or should have an AR-15 either.

Maybe the getaway car driver can eventually shine light on why that particular house was targeted--and why someone in that house thought he needed to have an AR-15.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

Where's your proof? I'm assuming you have none.

Also, where were you when a black person was shot by a white person?

You'd assume wrong idiot, but you can use this thing called Google and find along with a number of background checks he was also spoke to by the FBI. So a link about a shooting where the shooter did a horrible thing and was breaking the law before hand means what exactly. You seem to care a lot. About what I have no idea.
bye now.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

sr71plt can't stand the idea of a civilian being armed, but yet someone thought this excitable liberal belonged in the seat of a jet.

 

[sr71plt]

Why is it you peabrained reactionaires have to exaggerate and lie about the posts you oppose? Being opposed to an AR-15 in the hands of civilians isn't being opposed to civilians having guns. You just ruined any point you might have by showing you can't coordinate your brain with your typing fingers.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

The benefits of actually ignoring someone here on Lit are so enjoyable. I probably missed out on a post that was little more then an insult or perhaps he tried to turn things around. As I've noted some people here are just irrational. They can't be reasoned with so why bother. I largely blame liberals for this who use labels to try and block people from discussions completely. So they're at a point where they discuss among themselves. So I suggest don't bother they're not worth your time. They're the modern religious fanatics.

 

[oggbashan]

The problem with having people on ignore is that even people you dislike can make valid points - sometimes.

Most of the time I use 'virtual ignore'. I don't respond to the posts and skim over them instead of blocking them.

 

[sr71plt]

The problem with having people on ignore is that even people you dislike can make valid points - sometimes.

Most of the time I use 'virtual ignore'. I don't respond to the posts and skim over them instead of blocking them.

I use levels of ignore. I sometimes read in without signing in, in which case I see the posts of those on ignore. I do this when I have time and inclination to read more broadly. There are some who have been so irritating in their doggedness that I won't read their posts even with reading without signing in, though. The ignore function is useful because when I'm not in the mood to see what I consider to be worthless posts from worthless (to me) posters, I can read signed in and I'm not tempted to even open posts by those folks. I don't tend to put someone on ignore who even occasionally posts something I would consider worthwhile.

 

[Tigersman]

As long as you think that someone else WILL kill you without a second thought, you also WILL kill people without a second thought. What kind of citizen does that make you?

I was trained if you drew your gun, you used it. You did not have a conversation nor make threats nor issue ultimatums, you fired you gun. If this means I'm a bad person too bad because I'm alive and the asshole is dead.

 

[sr71plt]

I was trained if you drew your gun, you used it. You did not have a conversation nor make threats nor issue ultimatums, you fired you gun. If this means I'm a bad person too bad because I'm alive and the asshole is dead.

That has always bothered me in films. People draw their guns and then talk until help arrives (well, other than Harrison Ford in one of his adventure movies). Lame.

 

[oggbashan]

That has always bothered me in films. People draw their guns and then talk until help arrives (well, other than Harrison Ford in one of his adventure movies). Lame.

What bothered me in Western films was the number of times a six shooter could be fired without reloading, and that if the hero hits a baddie once, that baddie is dead, but that if the hero is hit - by a .44 - he has a flesh wound and can still return fire.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That doesn't negate my position that no civilian needs or should have an AR-15 either.

No, the fact that an AR-15 isn't any different than any other semi-auto civilian rifle, does however make you look like a total idiot though.

Can't even admit "because it's scary looking!!!" is the best argument you've got.

 

[My I]

There is no shoot to wound. Aim at center of target and keep pulling trigger until it goes down.

The issue is do you really need an AR for home defence? Would not a very loud shotgun do the same? An AR is a highly inappropriate weapon for home defence in a residential area.

Do you really NEED a BMW to get to work? Do you really NEED a 72"TV? Do you really NEED to eat steak and lobster?

It's not a matter of need. It's a personal choice. I don't care for the idea of using rifles or shotguns for home defense, but if that happens to be the the one gun you own, or the one that is easiest to get to in an emergency, then that is better than pointing your finger.

 

[My I]

I did see a reference to these folks possibly knowing each other. Has anyone seen a followup report on this case they can cite?

Although I did post up the line--and do believe--that you are justified in going for the kill if you can when your house is maliciously invaded, I think that any civilian who has to have an AR-15 is ipso facto someone who shouldn't be allowed to have one.

And anyone who wants to own a Corvette is someone who shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Why is it that people love high performance cars, trucks and motorcycles and drive them (often foolishly) on the streets and no one cares. But a owning high performance gun (pistol, rifle or shotgun) automatically makes them mentally unstable? Homicidal? Psychotic?

We all want the latest, greatest, hi-tech, "smart" phones, TVs, Computers, cars, watches and you name it. But when it comes to guns, anything hi-tech/high performance is an evil that must be wiped out?

 

[My I]

At a distance of, at most, ten yards, shoot to wound is possible for any responsible gun owner.

Anyone who enters my home with criminal intent gives up their right to life upon entry. If he didn't want/deserve to die he should have stayed out.

 

[sr71plt]

And anyone who wants to own a Corvette is someone who shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Sorry, comparing a car to a rapid-fire weapon is lame.