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

If you're making the argument that property is worth more than lives, you're also making the argument that criminals should enter your home armed and with the intent of killing you before they take any stuff, just to be safe.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

I am really just tired of all the bleeding hearts on the other side of the story complaining about how robbers don't deserve death. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm tired of guns being the (false) answer to everything. The US is a case study for irreversible cultural decay and many of the world's citizens realize that. Cavalier attitudes toward human life is the common thread.

Burglars don't deserve death. Burglars risk injury or death because their right to safety is subordinated to safety of the legal resident of the dwelling. They are two very different things morally and legally.

I don't think this is about burglars or guns...

It's about when you perceive yourself to be in a situation where it's you or they will die, do you sacrifice yourself... or try to kill them first?

Burglars, Terrorists, Soldiers, guns, knives, fists. whatever, before it happens you just need to decide... you or them...
if you would rather be killed than kill, it's your choice.

But you can't fault someone who would kill to save their own life and the lives of their loved ones.

originally posted by: Aazadan
If you're making the argument that property is worth more than lives, you're also making the argument that criminals should enter your home armed and with the intent of killing you before they take any stuff, just to be safe.

No, I argue that my life and the lives of my family trump the lives of someone who breaks into my home. There is no time to say "Time out, are you armed?" In the time required to analyze, determine, then react it is quite probable that IF they are armed, you are deceased. Or, if they are not armed, the fact that force was used to enter leads to the probable conclusion that they will use force on you. That force may, or may not, end in you and your family being deceased. I for one, am not willing to endanger my family with the "Time Out" method of protection.

a reply to: intrepid

You're wrong to think people are not defending themselves if a criminal breaks into their house. Castle Doctrine is something you need to research.

A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: rockflier
No, I argue that my life and the lives of my family trump the lives of someone who breaks into my home. There is no time to say "Time out, are you armed?" In the time required to analyze, determine, then react it is quite probable that IF they are armed, you are deceased. Or, if they are not armed, the fact that force was used to enter leads to the probable conclusion that they will use force on you. That force may, or may not, end in you and your family being deceased. I for one, am not willing to endanger my family with the "Time Out" method of protection.

And that view point leads to more break ins where the person doing it has the intent of harming you. Escalation of force doesn't just apply to cops. Your actions may make you more safe (if you're the one that shoots first) but it makes society as a whole less safe.

I don't own a gun, I don't want to own a gun. Among the reasons is that in a home invasion, I don't want to escalate the situation. By choosing to murder people in order to defend your property you are escalating that situation for all of us.

Didn't click the link, but from reading the snippet of the article you posted, I'm glad I didn't have to hear both the race of the burglars and the race of the victim.

News as it should be. Give me the facts, not their race.

a reply to: Aazadan

Conversely, if you choose not to defend yourself you embolden those who would enter and quite possibly take your life. If you think that LOE will show up and protect you, you are mistaken. It is your choice, but my contention is that armed citizens are the best deterrent to bad guys. As the saying goes "The only thing stopping bad guys with guns is good guys with guns". I do not know what part of the country you live in, but in most metropolitan areas the gang and cartel activity is such that the majority of those committing crimes are armed with illegally gotten weapons, not legally registered weapons.

Again your choice, but consider that by not protecting yourself you very well may be inviting the bad guys to pay you a visit. Just my take on it, right or wrong. It is obvious I cannot persuade you to my way of thinking and I promise you that you cannot convince me to your way of thinking. Let us agree to disagree and leave it at that.

a reply to: Aazadan

This lady didn't own a gun either. Luckily she survived and the home invader was caught. He just got out of prison. Department of Corrections doesn't fix these problems. Deadly force does! Good luck to you if you should ever be in a similar situation, and you think the criminal will have mercy on you. Not a wise choice. But that's for you and your loved ones to deal with. Don't expect others that actually have self respect for themselves to roll over and play dead.

a reply to: intrepid

That's an extremely sad commentary on American society. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

What's worse is when the "good kids" kill the homeowner during a burglary. You never know what a person's intentions are when they're breaking into your home.

Man found dead in home after burglary

That happened not a half mile from where I was living at the time. If you read the article, you'll see there were 11 other burglaries committed in the same area leading up to the murder. The guys that were arrested admitted to burglarizing houses for weeks before the shooting.

Here's some more misunderstood burglars

Man found dead in his front yard
Man killed during burglary
Sacramento burglar sentenced to death for killing ‘a totally innocent victim’

On Friday, another daughter, Kimberly Leto, 51, was stabbed to death after she happened upontwo teenagers attempting to burglarize her home, Baltimore police said.

Sou rce

And it's not only in America

Woman killed in Ontario home invasion

So what's your solution? How should a homeowner respond to someone crashing through their window or door uninvited?

a reply to: Mikeultra
Mike, I once heard the argument that if you are an atheist and anti gun that is fine. But, when you are threatened you are going to pray to god that your neighbor with a gun can come and protect you.

a reply to: Mikeultra

This lady didn't own a gun either

Thank god she didn't. That poor disadvantaged man may have gotten killed when he only only wanted to beat the snot out of her and take their things. Sheesh

Really, a homeowner defends their home and people are wailing about the "tragic" loss of another set of criminals? What the hell? Since when do criminals get sympathy!? Did I miss this PSA or something?

What gets me is this quip:

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Link to original story...

Source

"I’m sure he and a friend, Michael Sambrano, were doing what they thought they needed to do to survive.”

Burglarizing is not doing something to survive. It's being a criminal. End of story. I might have sympathy for them if they had a history of just breaking in to raid fridges, but that is obviously not the case with these two.

originally posted by: rockflier
Conversely, if you choose not to defend yourself you embolden those who would enter and quite possibly take your life. If you think that LOE will show up and protect you, you are mistaken. It is your choice, but my contention is that armed citizens are the best deterrent to bad guys. As the saying goes "The only thing stopping bad guys with guns is good guys with guns".

I don't think the police will show up and protect me. Actually I think they would shoot me. The number 1 rule in America is do not call the police. I disagree with the statement about the good guy with a gun stopping the bad guy with a gun because the good guy never gets to shoot first. That's why he's the good guy, he's not out randomly shooting people and creating situations because someone might be a threat. If the criminal suspects there's a gun they will use theirs first.

All armed citizens create is a reason for bad guys to use their guns. Btw, I'm not against gun ownership despite this stance, people are free to choose the less optimal path. That's part of having freedom and rights. I am against the idea of people acting as judge, jury, and executioner in order to protect their xbox however. If you need to shoot someone, you're free to do so but afterwards I expect that person to render all medical aid possible and get the person an ambulance. Not leave them to die (like what happened in the other case).

Maybe we won't change each others opinion, but I do like hearing from the other side. Disagreements make people think, agreements require no thought.

originally posted by: Mikeultra
This lady didn't own a gun either. Luckily she survived and the home invader was caught. He just got out of prison. Department of Corrections doesn't fix these problems. Deadly force does!

More draconian laws or actions actually just creates more hardened criminals because they have to do more extreme things in order to make sure they survive/get away. Deadly force might solve one specific instance but it creates even more situations.

Getting beat certainly isn't a good thing, but what would have happened if that criminal found a gun? The woman clearly didn't have time to go run to where it would be stored. Instead the guy would have had a weapon and very well may have killed her considering it looks like he was looking for a confrontation. As for the Department of Corrections, if they actually tried to rehabilitate rather than use prisons as rape rooms, torture chambers, and slave labor camps maybe the recidivism rate would go down like it has in the European countries that actually treat prisoners like people and teach them how to function in society.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Really, a homeowner defends their home and people are wailing about the "tragic" loss of another set of criminals? What the hell? Since when do criminals get sympathy!? Did I miss this PSA or something?

The best judge of a society is by the way the lowest members are treated. That's the poor, the minorities, and the criminals. Criminals should certainly be punished for their crimes, but vigilante justice where you simply kill someone because you can is not real justice. It also makes for a pretty poor picture of that society.

BTW, you should give criminals sympathy. Given the laws on the books, chances are you're a criminal too.

All armed citizens create is a reason for bad guys to use their guns

There may be some truth in that but many times unarmed victims are killed. Bad guys don't only use their gun because the victim is armed.

First under calif law this was a home invasion NOT a burglary.
These teens may have though i was a simple burglary but if there is anyone in the home it became a home invasion.

Since the home owner had up dated the locks in the home likely a tool was used to force entry.

And a pry bar, crow bar or even a screw drive in the hands of a home invasion suspect is classed as a deadly weapon at 21 feet or less.

You break into my home with a weapon of ANY TYPE i will SHOOT to KILL.
Since part of my home defense is first using bear repellant to give me a home field advantage if you have nothing in your hands i will just beat the c**p out of you with with my gun.
The criminal will remember me as he lays in the hospital jail ward with cast on his arms and legs.

originally posted by: intrepid

That's an extremely sad commentary on American society.

I agree. How dumb do we have to be not to get the message that crime does not pay. Who teaches these punks that it is ok to steal from old people?

a reply to: Aazadan

I agree that calling LOE is a waste of time. I guess in my case, given my background, I would most likely to get shots off before the bad guys. Perhaps not, but I would bet money on it.

IF the intruder survived I would call, in this order, the Fire Department, Insurance agent, then the LOE. Given my home defense weaponry survival is doubtful. 12 ga. with 00 Buck, slug, 00 Buck, slug, 00 Buck, slug, BB, BB. That would be used if we were in bed, it is close at hand. If the break in occurs while we are up a .38 Special +P is on my person.

I will grant you that many armed home owners suffer wounds or death from their own weapons because they are afraid, hesitant, or not trained to use them. I will not cite you my military background. If you are familiar with Army MOS designators, look at the top of my avatar and you will see what it is.

My personal feelings are that we treat criminals too lightly. Many criminal acts, including murder, are so lightly prosecuted that there is nothing to deter these crimes from being committed. IF true harsh punishment were administered, my personal belief is that they would not be committed in the first place.

QUOTE "The best judge of a society is by the way the lowest members are treated. That's the poor, the minorities, and the criminals. Criminals should certainly be punished for their crimes, but vigilante justice where you simply kill someone because you can is not real justice. It also makes for a pretty poor picture of that society." ENQUOTE

Vigilante justice has nothing to do with protection of oneself in one's domicile. Figures that I have seen, although I cannot locate them at the moment, indicate that violent home invasions primarily are linked to drug related activities. This also paints a pretty poor picture of our society.

QUOTE "BTW, you should give criminals sympathy. Given the laws on the books, chances are you're a criminal too." ENQUOTE

Your are very right in this respect. In fact, according to MS. Pelosi, I am a terrorist because I am a combat veteran, disagree with our government much of the time, and own multiple weapons to include what she deems to be "weapons of war".

Thanks for the chance to have a civilized disagreement and for both of us to express our respective ideas. I find that this is rarely the case here. Most of the time it degrades into personal insults and attacks.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am 100% against guns normally, but this is good news.

2 less pieces of trash in the world.

LOL, good riddance.

How is it that violent crimes in the usa have been at an all time low, but the media shows stories like these on a daily basis.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

It is referred to as the "Drive By Media".