Trending now.....Two teenage boys shot dead in California during burglary attempt

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: DeepImpactX

deterrence does work. the death penalty quickly applied,
either as a result of years long legal proceedings or
within seconds at the end of a gun by a homeowner
did in fact stop the dead criminal from doing any more crimes.

do you think that Gacy or Dahmer would have stopped on their own?

Yet, the countries without the death penalty and the lightest punishments have the lowest rates of crime.

a reply to: Aazadan

it is a good thing we are just talking about
two criminals killed during the commission of a crime.
the old lady who shot them was merely
introducing the reality of severe bodily injury or
death into the job description of career criminals.

if you can not do the time, then do not do the crime.
in this instance the time is eternity.

a reply to: Aazadan

there are some situations that can only be
stopped with the application of deadly force.

Who cares what they did. Two teens are dead one 14?? That's sad.... I don't care how hard you claim to be or how overly protective you are with your "bare arms"... No kids deserve to die for breaking into someones home. I know it's shoot first ask questions later because you never know, but still. It's sad....They could have had a chance

a reply to: 3u40r15m

the boys had been criminals for several years.
one aged 17 the other 14.
they broke the law. they are no different that the
two teenagers killed in a car wreck for driving too fast.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: 3u40r15m

the boys had been criminals for several years.
one aged 17 the other 14.
they broke the law. they are no different that the
two teenagers killed in a car wreck for driving too fast.

And two teenagers dying in a car wreck is sad too. Some people get lives taken too soon for nonsense. A 14 year old shouldn't be lying in a casket over this "criminal record" or not.. Makes no difference to me

originally posted by: [post=17891699]Aazadan
Yet, the countries without the death penalty and the lightest punishments have the lowest rates of crime.

So where is the link to your fabricated statistics, are you spreading lies perhaps? I believe that pacifist shills are always making excuses for criminals, they bloat out some nonsense with no facts whatsoever to back any of it up.

Personally, people who think like you do should be locked up into a re-education camp so that their beliefs do not put innocent peoples lives in jeapordy. Course that is just me, but it is my dream.

If someone came into my home where my family feels safe, a shotgun to the face is what they will get. And that would be only if I was in a good mood that night.

I actually hope people who think like you get home invaded. Maybe then they would wake up out of their feel good fantasy world that they obviously live in. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: 3u40r15m
But in 2014,
14 year old thieves can easily be murderers. As I said -
14 Year Old Boy Murders Parents to Get Out of Chores
14 Year Old Girl Charged with Murder
Grandmother Testifies Against 14 Year Old Murdering Grandchild

originally posted by: 3u40r15m


And two teenagers dying in a car wreck is sad too. Some people get lives taken too soon for nonsense. A 14 year old shouldn't be lying in a casket over this "criminal record" or not.. Makes no difference to me

here is what i dare you to do.
go to the nearest juvenile detention facility, since you possess such a grand and magnanimous loving heart,
and make arrangements to have two of the meanest,
most violent criminal record,
17 year olds come to your home for a weekend.
make sure they are fed well and since you are so kind hearted,
leave your car keys lying about,
leave your wallet on the coffee table,
along with the credit cards.
mention to them you have a boat, or jet ski, or some other luxury item.
show them the security system for your home, and since they are guests, let them know the security code.
introduce them to your daughter and her friends, or your nieces.

leave them at your home alone with the women you love while you go shopping or play golf.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sorry, maybe I didn't understand right. You are one of these persons which say that these teenage boys deserve what they got. Which is being shot dead for their breakin someones home..? Okay, tell me. How would you kill them if you found them in your home?

a reply to: zatara

The criminal teenagers
got what they deserved.
The death penalty.

While they were in the actions of committing a felony.
So they got shot to death while doing a crime.

They should have stayed at
home reading a book or watching tv.
or playing with themselves.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Aazadan

there are some situations that can only be
stopped with the application of deadly force.

So again the question is, which crimes do you believe should carry the death penalty? If you kill someone, that's administering the death penalty and doing so outside of the court. Sometimes that's unavoidable when defending yourself, but not always.

I'm all for self defense, but hoping the outcome is a dead criminal and doing your best to ensure they don't make it to trial to me not just seems sick but that it puts you on the same level as them. This attitude is also what drives our more and more draconian police attitudes. They're just a reflection of society itself. If you don't support police actions like random roadside beatings, executions on the beach for accused thiefs, and extortion with asset forfeiture I don't see how you can possibly condone your own actions to go outside the justice system.

Lets try this another way. They enter your home to steal your Xbox which is worth what, $150? Obviously he deserves to die. How about the guy who makes a couple of webpages and online billing in order to launder $15,000? It's remarkably easy to do. He's stealing about 25x as much after the taxes he's circumventing. Do you feel you have the right to shoot him too? They're both felonies and they're both theft.

How about one where you come into closer contact. Someone sits in the cafe in the mall with a device that spoofs cell phone tower signals, and uses it to record all of the information on your phone. Then sells said information to credit card thieves. Does that person also deserve death? Or is it merely a matter of someone entering your home uninvited? In which case you feel justified in shooting a prowler?

a reply to: Aazadan

person crimes, property crimes all can
lead to the death of the criminal.

the legal definition to justify self defense is
"The victim felt like they were facing serious bodily injury or death"

as long as the recipient of criminal actions can articulate they felt ... bodily injury/death"
then lethal means employed to stop the fear are legal and justified.

that is my list.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Aazadan

there are some situations that can only be
stopped with the application of deadly force.

So again the question is, which crimes do you believe should carry the death penalty? If you kill someone, that's administering the death penalty and doing so outside of the court. Sometimes that's unavoidable when defending yourself, but not always.

I'm all for self defense, but hoping the outcome is a dead criminal and doing your best to ensure they don't make it to trial to me not just seems sick but that it puts you on the same level as them. This attitude is also what drives our more and more draconian police attitudes. They're just a reflection of society itself. If you don't support police actions like random roadside beatings, executions on the beach for accused thiefs, and extortion with asset forfeiture I don't see how you can possibly condone your own actions to go outside the justice system.

Lets try this another way. They enter your home to steal your Xbox which is worth what, $150? Obviously he deserves to die. How about the guy who makes a couple of webpages and online billing in order to launder $15,000? It's remarkably easy to do. He's stealing about 25x as much after the taxes he's circumventing. Do you feel you have the right to shoot him too? They're both felonies and they're both theft.

How about one where you come into closer contact. Someone sits in the cafe in the mall with a device that spoofs cell phone tower signals, and uses it to record all of the information on your phone. Then sells said information to credit card thieves. Does that person also deserve death? Or is it merely a matter of someone entering your home uninvited? In which case you feel justified in shooting a prowler?

i agree the guy who breaks into your home in your presence and tries to steal your xbox will be shot.
the 15,000.00 dollar fraud crime---not much can be done about that.

the example of the guy in cafe who spoofs cell phone information?
the victims generally find out about that way too late for immediate action.

your home is an extension of yourself. it is your castle.
an individual who breaks something (lock, door, window) and enters is intruding uninvited into
the space where the occupant is most relaxed and peaceful.

lets say your sister, or wife, or daughter has been raped by one of the criminals and the second criminal is readying for his turn. the rapists are fifteen years old.
you are present and are expected to watch, expected by the two criminals.

they are unarmed. you can reach a loaded pistol and not be stopped by either of the two criminals.
what are you going to do?
get the gun and point it at them and wait till the police get there.
then you and your loved one can go through the trial
shoot them in a fatal location so they are both dead within seconds.
shoot them in the leg. so you and your loved one can go through the trial.

if you shoot them in leg or just hold gun on them till police get
there then they will be out on bond as soon as they get a lawyer.
so now you and your loved one get to be afraid of retaliation.

my advice: shoot to kill. then there are two funerals
within one week versus two trials lasting two years.

my dad used to tell me that a .22 nine shot pistol was what to have for home defense, with first two chambers loaded with bird shot. someone breaks in---first shot to legs. second shot to face. third to ninth shot are .22 rounds.

after i got married and had my own kids i told my dad i had revised his home defense plans.
have cocked, locked and loaded M1911A1 at bed side table. 8 rounds in magazine one in chamber.
in the event someone breaks in , shoot eight times into intruder. shoot ninth round into ceiling. call police.
tell police warning shot fired into ceiling. did not stop intruder so remaining eight shots stopped intruder.

With the huge number of burglaries reported every year I doubt this is anything out of the ordinary across ther country.
However i do wonder if it is given attention because of the desire to unarm the public and its hoped that the do-gooders will cry out in anguish.

Perhaps a campaign telling youngsters they may get shot and worse mained or killed by committing burglaries would be a better policy.

Today I have to be honest and say that because of the huge rift in trust between publics round the world and their individual governments etc, I think we have a right to keep some form of defense against any future plans for subjugation the greedy elites have concerning our freedom and lives.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Aazadan

person crimes, property crimes all can
lead to the death of the criminal.

the legal definition to justify self defense is
"The victim felt like they were facing serious bodily injury or death"

as long as the recipient of criminal actions can articulate they felt ... bodily injury/death"
then lethal means employed to stop the fear are legal and justified.

that is my list.

I think you missed my question

I didn't say a right to defend yourself. I said a right to kill them. They may die while you defend yourself, but then again they may not too. The way I see it is that if they invade your home you have every right to shoot, and to keep shooting until the person goes down. Where the distinction is made is in what you do afterwards. My thought is that a responsible gun owner that's purely interested in their own defense will at this point get an ambulance and if possible render aid. Someone whose just interested in trying to get away with killing someone will delay aid or worse put them down with a finishing shot.

The former I am perfectly fine with and defend. The latter is just as guilty as the criminal in my opinion and deserves to spend several long years sharing a cell with that person.

a reply to: Aazadan

i said that self defense should use lethal force.
i described the difference between pointed soft point/hollow point vs FMJ.
my self defense uses pointed soft point ammunition.

my first and last intention when i pull the trigger
on my self defense weapon is that the recipient dies.

their intention to to violate my rights.
my intention is to immediately stop that from happening.
so my home defense weapons will be loaded with the most lethal and fatal rounds available.
not interested in wounding so they can get justice. i would fear retaliation.
not interested in wounding so i can be sued for excessive use of force.

and with home invasions there are usually two or more of the criminal cowards together
so i will not be intending to wound and render first aid.
the fewer witnesses there are the less it costs.
i would abhor being sued for excessive use of force.

if you are having trouble understanding my response, that is your problem.
i can explain it to you several different ways, and i have, but i cannot understand it for you.

originally posted by: spirited75
lets say your sister, or wife, or daughter has been raped by one of the criminals and the second criminal is readying for his turn. the rapists are fifteen years old.
you are present and are expected to watch, expected by the two criminals.

they are unarmed. you can reach a loaded pistol and not be stopped by either of the two criminals.
what are you going to do?
get the gun and point it at them and wait till the police get there.
then you and your loved one can go through the trial
shoot them in a fatal location so they are both dead within seconds.
shoot them in the leg. so you and your loved one can go through the trial.

I find this situation to be utterly contrived but if you're in the situation where you need to shoot and can. Then shoot. Shots to wound are crap, even good shooters won't be able to pull off a leg shot usually and you may not get a chance to shoot multiple times. The police have it right with their training, shoot center mass and don't stop shooting until the person is down. Once they're down however, everything changes because they are no longer a threat.

Personally though I wouldn't shoot to defend a loved one but that gets into my entire philosophy on life which is quite a sidetrack.

if you shoot them in leg or just hold gun on them till police get
there then they will be out on bond as soon as they get a lawyer.
so now you and your loved one get to be afraid of retaliation.

So you're saying you have no intention of supporting the justice system? Either you're a participant in a nation of laws or you aren't. If you're not willing to obey the justice system and accept a trial then you're no better than the criminal who disregards laws in order to steal your stuff or rape your wife.

my dad used to tell me that a .22 nine shot pistol was what to have for home defense, with first two chambers loaded with bird shot. someone breaks in---first shot to legs. second shot to face. third to ninth shot are .22 rounds.

This goes beyond defense. It is murder. After the second shot they will be down. Shots 3 to 9 are first degree premeditated murder and if you do this, you deserve to sit in a cell.

after i got married and had my own kids i told my dad i had revised his home defense plans.
have cocked, locked and loaded M1911A1 at bed side table. 8 rounds in magazine one in chamber.
in the event someone breaks in , shoot eight times into intruder. shoot ninth round into ceiling. call police.
tell police warning shot fired into ceiling. did not stop intruder so remaining eight shots stopped intruder.

The warning shot is quite frankly dumb. What you did isn't more or less legal because you chose to fire a warning shot first. 8 times into the intruder are fine... provided it's clear they didn't go down after the 7th. This is why forensics teams investigate shootings. If they have one shot to their leg, then 2 in their back as they turned to flee and one to the back of their head well... you went way beyond self defense.

originally posted by: spirited75
the fewer witnesses there are the less it costs.
i would abhor being sued for excessive use of force.

This says it all. You just want to kill them and you don't want there to be any witnesses rather than accept a trial.

a reply to: Aazadan

wow you finally understand.
i load my self defense weapons with
highly lethal one shot one kill rounds.

not a bleeding heart liberal progressive.

better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

originally posted by: spirited75
wow you finally understand.
i load my self defense weapons with
highly lethal one shot one kill rounds.

I have no problem with this. You have a right to self defense, it's not my right to say what you can and can't use to feel you're adequately defending yourself. Baseball bat, crossbow, knife, revolver, "assault rifle" (oh how I hate that term), grenades, it's all the same. If you use ammo that is very likely lethal I'm fine with that too, because at the moment you pull the trigger they are still up and they are still a threat.

My problem comes entirely from what actions are taken after the person is down. Once they're down you're past the defense phase of the encounter.