Eerily familiar...German officials say exchange student's killing in Mont. 'out of proportion'

a reply to: kosmicjack

Would you care to quote the part of the article which baldly states that the four blasts were delivered blind? I read the article, and I could not find that ANYWHERE!

Either my eyes are tired, or....

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Vasa Croe

A friend of mine is a staunch gun enthusiast, through and through.

He is pro gun in every sense.

You understand the picture I'm painting here? Because even he has a salt shot down the spout as his first shot.

I completely understand and kudos to your friend. There is no mandate that says the first shot has to be non-lethal. Personally, bird-shot is my first choice as it is far less lethal to a human than buck shot. After that one there is a mix of slugs and 00.

The problem here is that this guy did not have non-lethal shot in his shotgun at the time.

Again, the actions of the intruder are what prompted the ends in this case, not the other way around.

There have been a lot of posts on "what if" this had been a relative or whatever....it wasn't, it WAS a person with ill intent. The what if scenarios really don't matter here.

When you hunt, there is a pretty common directive that most know.

That is don't fire at anything you can't or haven't identified.

The application here is obvious.

The homeowner, despite his preparations, and his expectations, did not identify what he was shooting at. That is incredibly stupid any way you approach it, especially considering the amount of force he used.

I don't care how afraid you are. You don't fire 4 shotgun blasts at an unknown target.

The nice thing about guns is that they have a lot of presence, especially a shotgun. In almost every case a gun has been used to stop a crime by a civilian (well over 90% if I recall correctly), the gun was never fired. The mere presence of the gun was a strong enough deterrent that the thing didn't need to escalate. And if that wasn't enough? Well he had a shotgun and could use it. Was he expecting a Russian tactical team? What could have been in that garage that would be so scary and so far outclass a shotgun wielding man that it was too scary to even look at?

a reply to: TrueBrit


Would I care to? LoL! Not really, but since you asked so politely :

homeowner fired four blasts from a shotgun into his garage

Prosecutors allege the 29-year-old wildland firefighter shot into his garage without warning after an intruder tripped sensors he had installed.

It seems implied.

originally posted by: joeraynor
When you hunt, there is a pretty common directive that most know.

That is don't fire at anything you can't or haven't identified.

The application here is obvious.

The homeowner, despite his preparations, and his expectations, did not identify what he was shooting at. That is incredibly stupid any way you approach it, especially considering the amount of force he used.

I don't care how afraid you are. You don't fire 4 shotgun blasts at an unknown target.

The nice thing about guns is that they have a lot of presence, especially a shotgun. In almost every case a gun has been used to stop a crime by a civilian (well over 90% if I recall correctly), the gun was never fired. The mere presence of the gun was a strong enough deterrent that the thing didn't need to escalate. And if that wasn't enough? Well he had a shotgun and could use it. Was he expecting a Russian tactical team? What could have been in that garage that would be so scary and so far outclass a shotgun wielding man that it was too scary to even look at?

I don't think the article says the target was not known. It just says four shots were fired without warning.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: TrueBrit


Would I care to? LoL! Not really, but since you asked so politely

:

homeowner fired four blasts from a shotgun into his garage

Prosecutors allege the 29-year-old wildland firefighter shot into his garage without warning after an intruder tripped sensors he had installed.

It seems implied.

It doesn't say blindly, it says he fired 4 shouts into the garage without warning.

I think the implied part would be that the burglar was there for purposes that were not good.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

If I broke into a snakes den and got bit.... How the hell could I blame the snake??

AS for me I am a bit more concerned with hurting other people over being hurt myself. For me I would have yelled into the room in my commanding Army voice while dialing 911. I would have my gun trained on the door, I would be on the floor at a wide angle. I'd fire a warning shot or two. If I didn't hear the guy trying to escape at this point I would assume he was going to kill me and I would take extreme aggressive action.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
It also doesn't say he fired at the trespasser specifically, just into the garage.

We need more details. Well, some us do. Others would have shot him regardless.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Vasa Croe
It also doesn't say he fired at the trespasser specifically, just into the garage.

We need more details. Well, some us do. Others would have shot him regardless.

I will say that if someone I don't know is rummaging around in my garage on my property....yes I would shoot. However, I also have very clearly posted "no trespassing" signs. My apologies if the intruder can neither read nor knows from common sense/law that they should not be on my property nor in my garage.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Hmm... I hate to say it, but that is not the implication which I got from reading the article. I got that four shots were fired, and that he offered no warning to the target before firing. There is no reason to assume that as well as not offering any warning, he was not actually aware of a target visually. A blind fire scenario requires the shooter to be unable to see the target. That is not explicitly clear from the article, and is not reasonable to assume given the context of the rest of the article. It seems like the sensor was placed in order to give him the advantage of surprise.

Bloody good tactic if you ask me!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Bloody good tactic if you ask me!

Yup, a tactic used by many a murderer over the years.

Planned and then executed.

That's not home defence, that's straight up cold murder.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: TrueBrit

Bloody good tactic if you ask me!

Yup, a tactic used by many a murderer over the years.

Planned and then executed.

That's not home defence, that's straight up cold murder.

Murderers that sit and wait for home invaders? Should he have gone out to look for them instead?

dbl post

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Nope, he knows his laws well.

There's plenty of other scenarios where lives don't get taken.

A decent human being would attempt to use them before choosing to kill a thief.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Nope, he knows his laws well.

There's plenty of other scenarios where lives don't get taken.

A decent human being would attempt to use them before choosing to kill a thief.

I suppose instead of a sensor he could have set up a loud alarm, but hindsight is always 20/20, except in the case of the intruder here of course.

Still don't really have any sympathy for the intruder in this case as it appears this was not the first time by any means. While death may not be the appropriate punishment for his crimes, it has been proven time and again that criminals up the ante as they delve deeper into the criminal world.

I would point to common sense on the intruders part again but feel I have beaten that horse into the ground. Don't be a criminal if you want to avoid any possible deadly scenarios....find another way to make money or get what you want....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

What was his reasons for breaking in? Has that been established?

It's easy to judge from afar, but some people steal out of necessity...

Rarely the case I know, just playing the devils advocate.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Vasa Croe

What was his reasons for breaking in? Has that been established?

It's easy to judge from afar, but some people steal out of necessity...

Rarely the case I know, just playing the devils advocate.

I agree some steal out of necessity though that does not make it ok. In this case I do not know but would assume if his family has enough money to send him, in high-school, on an exchange program to the US that he is not really hurting for much.

dbl post....not sure what is going on but I keep having double posts for some reason lately

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Vasa Croe

What was his reasons for breaking in? Has that been established?

It's easy to judge from afar, but some people steal out of necessity...

Rarely the case I know, just playing the devils advocate.

So "out of necessity" is justifiable now?

"Well, yer honor, my client NEEDED the money, that's why he robbed the place."
CASE DISMISSED!

a reply to: AlphaHawk

I hardly think that the tactic of an ambush carries the same negative connotations when it is used on ones own property, against persons who have no legal right to be there.

If he had set the same trap with a sensor, but placed the sensor in the invaders bedroom, and then sprayed that room from the window with the same shot, that would be murder. He would have had to hunt the fellow down, learn either his name, or his address, plant the sensor by way of criminal trespass, and then shoot the bugger upon his entering his own living space.

He did none of those things. He took reasonable precautions to protect his home and his life if you ask me, and the idiot who broke into the same house more than once, got what was coming to him. People should know the difference between right and wrong, and when they do not, we should not be surprised by the results.