Family, Friends Of Dead Home Invaders Say “They Didn’t Deserve To Get Killed.”

Double post

originally posted by: uncommitted

No, it was a poor analogy based on your assumption. Hey, I made it clear that I have little sympathy for anyone who invades someones property - that though does not give you the right to be an executioner (based on the information provided in the link to gunporn.com

It is less of an analogy, and more of just showing how stupid it is to say "Shoot to disable".

When you enter into my home unlawfully, in the state I reside in, I have the right to shoot.

Don't want to be "executed", don't break into people's homes.

I guess we will just have to Alinsky this whole thing with you, as you attempt to redefine terms.

a reply to: uncommitted

It's not quite that easy…it's not like they show up and just take your word for it. You get questioned a good deal at the scene and down at the station. They're also gonna do the forensic thing around the scene too, ya know like…take pictures have experts look over the scene match up ballistics and blood splatter and the likes. If your lying it will be obvious…especially when the guy your shooting is one of them Jehova's Witnesses.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: uncommitted

No, it was a poor analogy based on your assumption. Hey, I made it clear that I have little sympathy for anyone who invades someones property - that though does not give you the right to be an executioner (based on the information provided in the link to gunporn.com

It is less of an analogy, and more of just showing how stupid it is to say "Shoot to disable".

When you enter into my home unlawfully, in the state I reside in, I have the right to shoot.

Don't want to be "executed", don't break into people's homes.

I guess we will just have to Alinsky this whole thing with you, as you attempt to redefine terms.

That's fine, ah, Alinsky, didn't like guys on horseback telling them they were going to return to old values I understand. Not quite sure how you think that is appropriate, but I'm sure you know best lol

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: uncommitted

no.

California allows a PRESUMPTION on the part of the homeowner that allows for fear of bodily injury or death.
the prosecution would have to prove that the intruders were not going to cause bodily harm or death. The homeowner just needs to articulate that they had that fear.

Interesting, thank you. So logically you can invite a - oh, let's say religious representative who is cold calling into your house and kill them with fairly much a good chance of getting away with it? You haven't mentioned proof of break and enter, the 'assailant' having anything resembling a weapon etc, is that because no such proof is required?

ETA, seeing as the 'assailant' would at this stage be dead and the only other probable witness is the person that killed them....... hmmmm

you did not read and understand the information I supplied, even though you commented that it was a really interesting read. The person "forced their way into your home". Now does that "logically" or reasonably apply to a religious person that you invited and let into your home?

please re read the information and make an honest effort to Understand it. disingenuous is apparent.

originally posted by: spirited75

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: uncommitted

no.

California allows a PRESUMPTION on the part of the homeowner that allows for fear of bodily injury or death.
the prosecution would have to prove that the intruders were not going to cause bodily harm or death. The homeowner just needs to articulate that they had that fear.

Interesting, thank you. So logically you can invite a - oh, let's say religious representative who is cold calling into your house and kill them with fairly much a good chance of getting away with it? You haven't mentioned proof of break and enter, the 'assailant' having anything resembling a weapon etc, is that because no such proof is required?

ETA, seeing as the 'assailant' would at this stage be dead and the only other probable witness is the person that killed them....... hmmmm

you did not read and understand the information I supplied, even though you commented that it was a really interesting read. The person "forced their way into your home". Now does that "logically" or reasonably apply to a religious person that you invited and let into your home?

please re read the information and make an honest effort to Understand it. disingenuous is apparent.

My point was slightly facetious, but related to the fact that as out of the two people involved in the death, one is actually dead. What evidence is required that entry was forced? Again, asking purely to learn.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: spirited75

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Son of Will
Killing someone without being utterly necessary is absolute cowardice. It's extremely ironic that those most prepared to murder a non-threatening home intruder are those who brag the loudest about how badass they are. I would like to think I'm not alone in seeing that instead as a measure of how cowardly one is.

Absolutely right, I applaud you for saying that. I think such people are probably keyboard cowboys.

what you think is important ---to you.

home invasion means that the person or persons have
1. decided to illegally enter a location without an invitation
2. illegally stayed there while the location was occupied
3. illegally entered with the intention of criminal activity
within the location and or against the occupants.
4. caused fright to occupants via their uninvited and unwelcome presence

the occupants are permitted to employ lethal deadly force upon the criminals who invaded their location.

Could you cite the law that says lethal force without fear of death will not be held as manslaughter at the least, murder at the worst? Just curious, that's all. In certain circumstances a bailiff or law enforcement officer may enter a location without invitation, does the law state that killing them is ok?

Getting tired of this..where you there to determine the amount of fear or fright that was in the OWNERS mind..How the fawk do you know the owner didnt fear for their life.
Im out. Cant reason with born victims

a reply to: uncommitted

Id imagine they broke a window or jimmied the lock or picked it. Its not hard to check and see i f they broke in.

originally posted by: Son of Will
It is pure cowardice to MURDER someone without an immediate, physical threat to oneself.

Oh sure, I understand the "What do you expect me to do, ask them to sit down for tea?" response - but if the ONLY solution you can think of is to open fire on a home intruder, then you are probably not just a coward, but also psychotic.

Ever think of finding non-lethal means of dealing with intruders? I highly doubt it. Loud sounds, warnings, basic alarm systems, tasers, etc. These would result in A) the repeat intruders subdued and/or caught by police, B) home not getting intruded again, and C) NOBODY GETTING KILLED.

If your life is so damned precious, why are you so quick to assume judge/jury/executioner, and take the life of another? Because that's how cowards and psychotics think.

I feel for your Grandparents should they ever get broken into multiple times by the same crew. I'm sure you will invite the Thugs to your Grandparents funerals or have the Thugs visit them at the Hospital from their beatings.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IN YOUR OWN HOME FROM INTRUDERS. Yes, that was all caps.

a reply to: uncommitted

uncommitted you are disingenuous and deceitful.
go read the source article. the old woman's home
was broken into march 6 and she repaired the
broken lock and installed a second lock which
was broken in the most recent fatal incident,

you are presenting an individual that is duplicitous
and mendacious, and about the mental age of a third grader.
in fact it is easy to comprehend why your screen name is uncommitted.
you are so intellectually lazy that you will not make up your mind.
mushy morals, and the same applies to son of willless

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: spirited75

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: uncommitted

no.

California allows a PRESUMPTION on the part of the homeowner that allows for fear of bodily injury or death.
the prosecution would have to prove that the intruders were not going to cause bodily harm or death. The homeowner just needs to articulate that they had that fear.

Interesting, thank you. So logically you can invite a - oh, let's say religious representative who is cold calling into your house and kill them with fairly much a good chance of getting away with it? You haven't mentioned proof of break and enter, the 'assailant' having anything resembling a weapon etc, is that because no such proof is required?

ETA, seeing as the 'assailant' would at this stage be dead and the only other probable witness is the person that killed them....... hmmmm

you did not read and understand the information I supplied, even though you commented that it was a really interesting read. The person "forced their way into your home". Now does that "logically" or reasonably apply to a religious person that you invited and let into your home?

please re read the information and make an honest effort to Understand it. disingenuous is apparent.

My point was slightly facetious, but related to the fact that as out of the two people involved in the death, one is actually dead. What evidence is required that entry was forced? Again, asking purely to learn.

Forced entry means you entered without being invited in.
You clearly are trying to work a semantics angle that just doesn't exist.

because the castle doctrine, self defense
and stand your ground laws were created
to FAVOR the homeowner the gist is that
if an individual in in your home, in your
space anywhere you have a legal right to be,
it is presumed that you have fear of bodily harm or death.

by presumption, it means that you do not have to prove that you had fear.
you, in a home situation, prove that they forced entry.

pretty simple to grasp and understand really.

originally posted by: IBelieveInAliens
a reply to: nighthawk1954You can't just kill a person in cold blood just because they're inside your home.

yes, you can. if they forced entry you can stand your ground,
not retreat, and even pursue them till the danger is neutralized"

was it the British mentality that coddled and pacified and
acquiesced to Uncle Adolph, back in the 1930-1940's until
he had your backs against the wall, and who did you guys
come squealing to to pull your bacon out of the fire?

That's right. you came squealing to the Americans,
who do not back down.
So we had to come over there and spend about
250,000 of our sons lives to pay for your pussy response to an aggressor.

and now you are trying to get us to change our philosophy to match yours.

look at the invasion of muslim/islam in your country today,
we will probably have to come over there soon enough and fix things again right?

originally posted by: Son of Will
Simple. If someone acts in such a way that you feel your life to be immediately threatened (this does not include hearing a noise in a dark room, nor does this include simply observing a home intruder) then defend yourself by all means. That would be, a home intruder who makes a physically aggressive gesture, OR a home intruder with a visible weapon.

It is not that simple...


What if the intruder is between you and your kids room? Do I need to wait until they pull a knife and lunge a me? Do I need to wait until that second that I'm being over powered by them. Do I know how many are there? What they want?

If you do not assume the worst then the worst can happen to you, this is not a fair play ground fight, this is real life where you take EVERY advantage, because that advantage can change in a second.

originally posted by: Son of Will
Killing someone without being utterly necessary is absolute cowardice. It's extremely ironic that those most prepared to murder a non-threatening home intruder are those who brag the loudest about how badass they are. I would like to think I'm not alone in seeing that instead as a measure of how cowardly one is.

What are you twelve? Are you going to wrestle the guy(s) and see if you win? There is no such thing as a non-threating home intruder...lol Is he there to clean your dishes before you wakeup? Someone breaks into a house they have a bad agenda planned, and you can only hope it is to steal something and leave.

So what is not cowardly, to trade punches? The bad side is they do not need to play fair either and they will most likely not play fair if you give them an inch. This is not to say that there can be an extreme situations where a person has gone totally overboard in protection, but I would say that the vast majority of these cases to shoot is your safest bet.

a reply to: Son of Will

you can label it pure cowardice for a homeowner to use lethal force, but the law gives the homeowner the presumption that they are in danger right from the beginning.

the law holds that BECAUSE your home was forcibly entered,
you the homeowner are automatically in danger.
this is so that a homeowner does not have to wait to be attacked,
so the homeowner does not have to evaluate and
assess their level of actual or potential danger.

the law allows the homeowner to act as if they were in
danger and then does not require them to prove that they were in danger.

if you do not want to be putting people (criminals)
in danger of serious injury or death then stay out of their house.

i label it ineptitude, infanticity and idiocy to
continue to try to continue to
argue that homeowners can not take lethal action
unless they assess their danger level.

a reply to: Kryties

SNIP!!!

you guys gave up your guns and the right to comment about it in other countries several years ago.

the kids deserved what they got.

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 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.


Mod Edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Truly astounding at the amount of ignorance in this thread.

You have no comprehension at how much of a fear you will feel if someone breaks in your home. You do NOT know their intentions.

And Kryties? Bloodlust? OH PLEASE! You have to be a troll.


And Kryties, Mianeye, WanDash, and others?

I don't see you replying to this

originally posted by: groingrinder

originally posted by: Kryties
Here we go with the bloodlust and the salivating and the excuses for killing people again....

....only in America!

HOME INVASION: MOTHER GUNNED DOWN IN FRONT OF HER CHILDREN

HOME INVASION: HOMEOWNER KILLED

HOME INVASION: 72 YEAR OLD MAN KILLED

HOME INVASION: MOTHER AND TWO DAUGHTERS KILLED

HOME INVASION: TWO VIOLENTLY KILLED

HOME INVASION: MULTIPLE SHOOTING VICTIMS IN RELATED HOME INVASIONS

HOME INVASION:ELDERLY WOMAN KILLED

HOME INVASION:VICTIM SHOT

HOME INVASION: WOMAN KILLED BY 19 YEAR OLD

HOME INVASION: 3 DEAD, 2 INJURED

HOME INVASION: MAN DIES FROM SHOTGUN BLAST TO THE FACE

HOME INVASION: SISTERS KILLED WHEN HOUSE WAS SET ON FIRE BY HOME INVADERS

HOME INVASION: 39 YEAR OLD VICTIM KILLED

You love seeing innocent people killed by criminals. Don't you? I have never seen you mourn the deaths of innocent victims, but I have seen you vilify those who rightfully protect themselves time and again.

I've had 2 guys break in my home and a gun pointed at my face. What is more scary for me? The fact that I am deaf and I can't hear if anyone comes in.

You DO NOT know their intentions. You don't wait it out. You ELIMINATE the threat especially if you have a family there.

Here is another way to look at it.

Suppose you live near the desert, or near the timber.

You are taking a nap and awake to hear two large rattle snakes
crawling around on your floor near your bed.

You have a pistol, a rifle, a gunny sack and a wire cage.

Knowing snakes pretty well, you realize that if captured and set loose in the desert or timber
that the snakes will do their best to make it back to the house.
You feel fortunate that you discovered the snakes
before they were striking at you .

Do you catch them and take them into the desert/timber and let them loose?
Knowing that they will be back sooner or later and that the next time you will
not be so fortunate to discover the snakes before they do some harm,
or do you calmly pull your rifle or pistol out of its storage place and
dispatch the snakes with aimed fire?

The old lady in this instance already had a snake in her house
at least one time that we knew about as reported.
And guess what, the snake came back, the snakes did what snakes do.

And guess what, she was waiting for it this time.

a reply to: spirited75

The old lady in this instance already had a snake in her house at least one time that we knew about as reported. And guess what, the snake came back, the snakes did what snakes do.

It's ok. People like Kryties have no comprehension. For some reason people like Kryties think people like us have bloodlust.