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

a reply to: 3u40r15m
no. i am a licensed alcohol and drug addiction counselor.
airplane pilot. cdl hazmat truck driver.
worked in prisons 10+ years.
counseled addicts for 40+ years.
former military

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: spirited75

here is what the blogger wrote that knew these two criminals:

He said Imagine( that means please voluntarily create a picture inside your own mind)
Imagine what type of people they would have been in 5-10 years.
They would have turned into some Seriously Dangerous PPL!
They would have HURT even more INNOCENT PEOPLE.

then he goes on to describe what his image or picture looks like.

he is not judging, he is imagining what they would be like in 5-10 years.

a reply to: beezzer

It isn't just "stuff", beezer, and I think you will agree with me on this point, it is the accumulation of the wage it took to purchase said items, the time out of your life you will never get back spent at work for said wage, the sanctity of your HOME, the ONE PLACE in the world you are supposed to feel relaxed and safe in. ALL of this is violated the instant some piece of garbage decides to violate the boundaries and your LIFE.(because what is your life if you do not have a home to call yours, and your property and effects are yours. Keep following that rabbit trail, and men have no rights, not to property, safety, privacy, or personal space, and you may as well not even get out of bed in the morning). All the time, wage, sanctity and sacredness of the home, right of property, privacy, and yes, right to life are threatened when violated by a criminal. No, it's not just stuff, and yes, two to the chest and one to the head.

a reply to: Aazadan
And what do you say about 2 teen age boys who target a person who is old enough to be their grandmother?

How would you feel if it was your grandmother or a member of your family who was in that position, terrified to live in the house that she has for so long?

These 2 boys did not consider that, when they neither broke in, nor did they consider the consequences of their actions. They were being selfish and looking for a quick in and out, and when confronted, who knows what would have happened if there was not a gun pointed at them, that ended their life.

What would the outcry had been if the senior woman was killed in the process? Would their family had been so concerned then that their child did this? Or would it have been less?

Chances are, that if these 2 were not stopped, they would have ended up in prison, on charges far worse than what was going on now. This was not something simple, or so innocent. Taking a candy bar without paying for it, that is one thing, but to break into a person’s home and take what does not belong to them is a whole different category.

We cannot say what would have happened in the future, however, based off of the different studies that are out there, and the statistics as well, there would be a good chance that these 2 youths, had they survived would have gone on to bigger and far worse crimes.

a reply to: zatara

BOYS?! No, when you break into my home during a robbery, I DO NOT CARE what the number on your rap sheet says, I consider you a grown ass man. Grown ass men breaking into MY house get SHOT. With a 12 gauge. And no, I DON'T have sympathy for the people they left behind, because like produces like. Shinola does not come off of #e.If they were criminals, and they were, where did they learn the behavior from? Probably the crappy people they "left behind" that taught them that from birth.

originally posted by: Aazadan

would it surprise you to learn that these two criminals broke into this
woman's house because they were neighbors and knew her and
her husband when he was still alive? And that these two criminals
knew that the widows husband had several firearms in the house.
And that these two criminals were rummaging through the house
looking for those weapons so as to steal them and begin using
them in the commission of other crimes?

and their death, while unfortunate for their families and survivors,
probably prevented a killing spree later on?

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: spirited75
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.

They death penalty for these boys..? Jeez.. ain't that bit too much? C'mon, that has not much to do with justice but with personal satisfaction.

It had neither to do with justice, the death penalty, nor personal satisfaction. When a person is faced with someone breaking into their house at night they are in a situation where they reasonably have fear for their life and use of deadly force to protect themselves is both morally and legally justified.

a reply to: intrepid

They defended themselves in a home invasion, if a person is home they are defending themselves! They did not run outside and kill these guys for still a lawnmower from the garage, these guys were in their home!

a reply to: zatara

Bull#! They were "man" enough to break into a house they knew was occupied, they knew they would have to "handle" the owner what did they have planned? You think it was to sit down and talk nice to her?

a reply to: yourmaker
Oh yeah blame the untrained victim, sounds like victim shot pretty straight

a reply to: blupblup

You are missing the point if someone steals a tv and the homeowner shoots them, the homeowner did it because of the home invasion, screw the tv, so if someone wants to steal a tv that bad do it when no one is home that is a burglary. In a home invasion screw trying to wound the poor invader, the home owner is protection their LIFE! What is wrong with you guys do you think some criminals life is more important than your own or your family's?

originally posted by: spirited75
you read three sentences out of probably sixty sentences total and focused your reply on those three sentences. why apply such a constipatingly conservative focus on information and knowledge if you are in truth seeking the truth.

Because those few sentences were the base of the authors entire point so that's what I focused on.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
They were already robbing people....one is confirmed to have robbed the same house before. I am judging them on what were their current actions, as did the homeowners. These kids were making grown up decisions and they met a grown up end.

And I have no problem with them being shot. My stance is that if you're in a self defense situation you're entitled to defend yourself, and in most cases that means shooting the person and continuing to shoot until they're down. I think you have an additional responsibility after that because the defense phase has passed and you move on to the stage of trying to bring the whole thing to trial for the courts to decide which means providing medical assistance and getting an ambulance but in the moment, shoot. If the person dies because of getting shot well... it happens, guns are meant to kill.

originally posted by: spirited75
like the blogger implied....if you are trying to excuse the criminals
behavior and/or blame the homeowner you are probably high.....

I'm not excusing the criminals at all, and I don't blame the home owner. Going by the details provided in the story they did things right.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
And what do you say about 2 teen age boys who target a person who is old enough to be their grandmother?

How would you feel if it was your grandmother or a member of your family who was in that position, terrified to live in the house that she has for so long?

It's not about feelings. The first thing is to recognize that the cops are worthless they're equally to do nothing, kill you, or investigate so you're on your own for defense. If they break in, defend yourself and incapacitate them, how you choose to do that is up to you. After that's done get an ambulance and then unfortunately, get the police involved so they can start a criminal case and the court can deal punishment.

We cannot say what would have happened in the future, however, based off of the different studies that are out there, and the statistics as well, there would be a good chance that these 2 youths, had they survived would have gone on to bigger and far worse crimes.

Probably, but even if that's their likely path you still can't judge someone based on an action they haven't taken (unless you're in a police state and have a charge for conspiracy to commit a crime)

originally posted by: spirited75
and their death, while unfortunate for their families and survivors,
probably prevented a killing spree later on?

This link of thinking can be used to justify a lot of things. If we just sentenced everyone making $30,000 or less to death we would cut down on armed robbery by 99%.

originally posted by: spirited75

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: spirited75

here is what the blogger wrote that knew these two criminals:

He said Imagine( that means please voluntarily create a picture inside your own mind)
Imagine what type of people they would have been in 5-10 years.
They would have turned into some Seriously Dangerous PPL!
They would have HURT even more INNOCENT PEOPLE.

then he goes on to describe what his image or picture looks like.

he is not judging, he is imagining what they would be like in 5-10 years.

The blogger sounds like a clueless POS ... In fact a lot of you sound like you have no problem with teens being killed, just as long as they have a rap sheet. If you are willing to murder someone no matter who it is, for entering your home at night over fear, then you do not need a gun. And you should be in Mental health because you are a danger to society.....Half way to sociopath'ville.

originally posted by: moonshinegrrl
a reply to: blupblup

You are missing the point if someone steals a tv and the homeowner shoots them, the homeowner did it because of the home invasion, screw the tv, so if someone wants to steal a tv that bad do it when no one is home that is a burglary. In a home invasion screw trying to wound the poor invader, the home owner is protection their LIFE! What is wrong with you guys do you think some criminals life is more important than your own or your family's?

You think it's ok to shoot someone over a TV? hahaha what is wrong with you..... I have a friend like that and he is a trigger happy maniac, not cool....

I can't help but contrast this story with another one; ATS thread

So many people have said that killing someone who breaks into your home is justified. Perhaps, given the sorry state of our corrections, it is better they die than be broken by the system.

I'm not sure right now. We can't rehabilitate and every politician has to be 'tough on crime'. I, personally, believe that there ought to be a chance of rehabilitation. Whatever, they're dead now and no one seems to care.

A quote by Albert Einstein:

Really smart guys, sound like really crazy guys, to really dumb guys.

Let us change the circumstances a little bit.
Jaywalking is a crime.
Jaywalking on highway one in California is dangerous.
Some teenagers like to jaywalk on highway one because of the thrill it gives them, the rush of fear and adrenaline.
The state has public education programs discouraging jaywalking.
Parents and teachers and foster parents are constantly warning and telling teens to not jaywalk.
There are fences put up along the highway. Lots of taxpayer money is spent building basketball courts and parks and gyms and arenas to provide alternatives for teens to have fun and thrills.
Private companies build theme parks and Disney World and Six Flags erects thrilling rides and roller coasters.
All this money is spent to prevent teens from jaywalking on highway one.

Well one day in the near future, two teens are jaywalking for the fifteenth time on highway one and are hit and run over by a old lady driving the speed limit. She was not expecting anyone to be jaywalking on highway one. The teens die. Moms of the teens come on tv and tell of how they were good boys, and did not deserve to die. Other activists come on blog sites and whine about people driving cars on highway one and how the drivers should not have hit the teens with their car. The bloggers say the teens did not deserve to die. Other bloggers point out that it is against the law to jaywalk on highway one. These other bloggers also point out that there are plenty of legal ways to get a thrill instead of jaywalking.

The moral of the story is that if you get some natural consequences for doing illegal things in places where you were told to stay away from then it is entirely on you. If you cut your feet off mowing the grass like that by incorrectly using the lawn mower like that, then do not come running to me.

The boys were told to not do this.
The boys knew what they were doing was against the law.
The boys then became felon criminals who got some natural
consequences and their death while unfortunate was both predictable and bound to happen sooner or later.

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.

originally posted by: spirited75


A quote by Albert Einstein:

Really smart guys, sound like really crazy guys, to really dumb guys.

And really dumb guys sound like really smart guys to really dumb guys.

originally posted by: spirited75

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.

Being a felony doesn't automatically mean something deserves the death penalty. We've all broken the law at one point or another, most of us have committed a felony. We don't all deserve to die for it.

Given what you've said about your guns and ammunition choices you're one stroke of a pen from being an armed and potentially dangerous felon. Should you die for that?

a reply to: Aazadan

and here you are again picking one sentence
this time out of seventy five sentences and
commenting on the one sentence.

the parable was overwhelming wasn't it.

if those boys had been doing legal things we would not
be wasting precious God given breath bantering about
their criminal worthless behavior.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Aazadan

and here you are again picking one sentence
this time out of seventy five sentences and
commenting on the one sentence.

No, I just don't want to quote the whole post, long quotes make for worse reading. If you don't see how it applies to what you wrote that's not my problem.

If those boys had been doing legal things they would still be alive, that's true. However if those bullets hit those boys different they would have gone to trial. I don't see how cheering a criminal not making it to a trial is a good thing (even though it's sometimes unavoidable). Either you believe in the principals of our justice system (the whole basis for a nation of laws) or you don't.