Outrage after popular students are found murdered in man's basement after 'they robbed his home on

reply to post by TKDRL


So then, and while they are gasping for air, you will go close to them, put your gun to their chin(in this case a 18 yr old girl, gasping for air from punctured lungs* and shoot up to their brain?

Then follow up with stashing the bodies in the basement and not call the cops?

Does this fit for a self defense from home invasion theory? or did you forget to read the whole thread?

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Sir, you are a criminal's wet dream. Why don't you post your home address so various burglars can rob with confidence knowing that the resident at worst is going to have a brief and polite chat with them regarding their background and ultimate intentions so as not to upset them by defending himself.

If I hear my window or door get busted in and subsequently find someone in my house, they will be shot without consideration of age, size, gender, GPA, or anything else.

Originally posted by ISeekTruth101
- secondly why the HELL would a swat team ask a hostile to drop the weapon and shoot at the same time, its drop or we will open fire, so you can eat your hat because if i start looking for videos where that has happened im sure there are plenty,

Because it would indicate that they gave him the opportunity to do so. Have you never seen a warrant served? They yell "police open up" as they break down the door. Then they run around the house yelling commands (hands up get on the floor drop it, all of the commands differ to create confusion in the minds of the suspects) of various kinds. They will shoot anyone who has a weapon in their hands immediately - period. The verbal warnings and requests are just for show. Sorry, that is just a fact. No police officer is going to approach a person armed with an assault rifle and ask them to put it down. A trigger pull is a fraction of a second...

Originally posted by ISeekTruth101
- PLEASE tell me you read the OP word by word? what is your assessment of this PARTICULAR scenario? if it was a different scenario then fine, but we both know a warning shot was needed.

A warning shot is never required or needed. It is obvious you have no knowledge of the law regarding self defense. It is also clear you have no training in the proper use of a handgun in personal home defense. If you can provide for me one credible source of training in self defense that recommends and warning shot you will win at the internets.

Originally posted by ISeekTruth101
If this was in a court of law, the judge would tear you into pieces.....killing those kids than hiding the body doesnt help the 'self defence' motive AT ALL.

I agree with you - he lost any benefit of the law when he started covering his tracks. I think he is screwed. However, I don't think he was wrong for shooting the intruders in his home.

Originally posted by ISeekTruth101
Argh!!!! some people wind me up.

The truth will set you free...know the laws in your State and you can't be "wrong".

reply to post by MidnightTide


The only moral reason to ever kill another human being is if your life our other people lives are in direct danger. I love guns and if you ever read my posts you know I am very conservative at heart.


If I was to see someone breaking into my garage I would call the police. And if someone was in my house and did not pose a threat to my life or my families life I would not shoot.


Cars and TVs are not worth a life even if that life belongs to a criminal. Empathy and compassion are missing in this world and threads like this only drive it home.

Click here for more information.

In the past people were conditioned not to risk their life to resist looters, to turn the other cheek. That is because a lot of times the rulers were behind the looters. If you had something more than others the rulers would take it and add it to their kitty. That didn't go over so well in northern Europe, not until Christianity arrived and told people the only way to salvation was to not put faith in material things, your reward is in heaven....The royalties reward was here I guess...TPTB gets everything here. Well, I agree that we should not argue over material things, when we do the only ones that get anything is our lawyers and the courts. Sounds like nothing is changed, just a different song and game. In this case things are more complex. I do not agree with how the old guy handled this but the kids were definitely in the wrong and the action to shoot them was appropriate. A dead thief cannot sue you, there is no way that the thief could convince the jury that the old guy was wrong. With the double shooting, as some say, I feel the kids said something that was not appropriate after being shot. Like "I'll see your ass in court old man" or something that made him reshoot. This is only speculation, but I know kids with this kind of attitudes and most of the ones with this kauki attitude come from families that spoil them. I can't judge this situation because I do not know everything. I know what I would do if someone broke into my house. A warning to people, never break into a home when it is occupied, that is a very bad idea.

If they weren't there then they'd be alive ... never rub another mans rhubarb eh.

If you want to go around nicking stuff then unfortuantely not everyone is a pacifist, the law in the UK is just being changed to enable homehomers ot use much greater violence against intruders without fear of presecution... this doesn't make the world a better place imo... but it does show how the western world is slowly but surely ripping itself apart at the seams.

reply to post by luciddream


Nah, that is where he went overboard. I would like to think with all my training I would have more control over myself than that. I can't say for sure though, people lose their heads all the time in situations like that. Training taught me when they are on the floor, look at hands for a possible weapon, if there is none, check em quick for weapons to make sure, if they are still moving. Two hollow points to the chest will usually stop any threat dead in their tracks, if they are still alive, they are probably in too much pain to be thinking about anything other than ouch.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by mee30

 

Take a position of advantage, around a corner for example, fire a warning shot and tell them to get out, call the cops if possible before the standoff...

Killing an intruder should be the absolute LAST resort, it wasn't in this case.

This is the silliest advice I have ever heard.

First of all, your alone, in the dark and your old. You have no idea what you are up against all you know is people have entered your home.

Firing a warning shot is the dumbest thing you could do.

You do not fire a weapon with the intent to disable people. You do not fire a weapon in the hope to scare someone else off. You fire a weapon with the intent to hit your target and kill it. That's it. Any other intention and your doing it wrong.

Let us say he fires a "warning shot" and the people entering his home happen to be armed as well. Then the old man just gave up any element of surprise and any advantage that he had.

I understand the point you are attempting to make, but this is the wrong way to make it. This idea of "shooting a warning shot" or "shooting in the shoulder" and all these other silly ideas I have seen in this thread is how gun owners get themselves killed when they could have saved their own life. Rules are pretty simple for gun owners.

1. You never pull out your weapon unless you intend to use it.

2. You shoot to kill.

Anything else can get you killed. Anti Gun people love to echo the statistic that many gun owners are killed by their own weapon and it is true. However, it is true because those gun owners failed to follow the 2 simple rules I outlined above.

Now that being said, in regards to this case there are some things I am reading here that make no sense at all. With that in mind, dead people tell no tales so these details have to be coming from the only other person in the room at the time of this shooting, and that is the shooter.

For starters, he claims he shot the young man as he entered the home. The young man falls down the stairs and he then shoot him again in the face.

Then the girl comes into the home?

Think about that a minute.

Your the girl, you know you and your cousin are unarmed. You hear 2 shots go off after your cousin enters a home that he has no business being in,.. and you then go in? That makes no sense.

Second issue I have.. Girl enters the home. He shoots her and she falls down the steps as well. He goes to fire another shot at her and his gun jams and she laughs at him? Makes no sense. You are lying on the ground after being shot. Your not laughing. Even if the gun jams, I can not imagine that anyone would laugh at that point at the guy who just fired 3 shots hitting you one time and killing your cousin. It might make some sense if she had no idea she was shot, but she just fell down a flight of stairs. I am pretty sure she knew she had been shot. So again, makes no sense and if it does not make sense, it probably is not true, but this story is what the shooter is telling. So why is he lying?

In any event, after shooting the girl and her supposedly laughing at him after the gun jams, he admits he pulled a revolver and shot her in the chest multiple times. Well guess what? At this moment he is no longer defending himself or his property. He is committing murder. However, he didn't stop there. After all that he still walked up on his victim, put the gun under her chin and fired one more shot into her head.

That description is not self defense. Self defense is very clear in that you use as much force to eliminate the threat. If someone punches you in the face, you have a right to defend yourself. If you knock that person out cold, and you continue to beat on them, you are no longer defending yourself. You have, in that moment, become the aggressor.

So what this man has described is not self defense at all. It is murder. However, I have to seriously question the story he is telling.

reply to post by Urantia1111


Man if I had a dollar for everyone who exaggerated my point and intent in this thread...

Which is basically that the shooter in this case was wrong, that defending your property is fine, but killing should be avoided if at all possible..which means there should be an attempt to access the situation and find an alternative to shooting if possible.

Not saying the way to go is light some candles and ask the intruder if they'd like some tea.

reply to post by MrWendal


Yeah, that wasn't my best post here and doesn't serve my point all that well. Good post, you raise fair questions.

reply to post by Golf66

They will shoot anyone who has a weapon in their hands immediately - period

But i proved your wrong sir, please view the video i attached in my previous post/reply to you.

I agree with you - he lost any benefit of the law when he started covering his tracks. I think he is screwed. However, I don't think he was wrong for shooting the intruders in his home.

Well i disagree, here i think he was wrong and the way he conducted himself after he shot, just proves how his judgement and style of thinking is seriously impaired, a physcologist will offer a conclusion similar to this in a court of law.

A warning shot is never required or needed

But then why does the term ' warning shot' exist? it was definitly the best choice for this particular scenario where two young, unarmed 'regular' kids with no apparent 'crackhead' appearance could have survived a brutal shooting.

''warning shot is a military term describing harmless artillery shot or gunshot intended to call attention and demand some action of compliance''

this is what was needed, police do it, the army do it, swat team do it.



''A 64-year-old man may have his wife to thank for fending off two men who attacked him Saturday at his home on the northwest side''

VERY similar situation, look how a warning shot SAVED THE DAY!!!!, the outcome was much safer for everyone.

Suprisingly this man was also 64 years old, but it was his wife that fired the warning shot lol

reply to post by ISeekTruth101


Hindsight is 20/20. It is real easy to sit back after the fact and praise the almighty warning shot.... but let's be real.

Warning shots only work if you fire a weapon towards attackers who are not armed. If your attackers ARE armed, your warning shot may not work at all and may actually tell your attackers that you are armed as well. So any intention your attackers may have had to not kill you, just went out the window.

This stupid idea of warning shots is how gun owners get killed by their own guns. You shoot to kill, period. End of story. Anything less than that can easily get you killed.

Originally posted by ISeekTruth101
VERY similar situation, look how a warning shot SAVED THE DAY!!!!, the outcome was much safer for everyone.

The difference:

The two attackers lived to attack another.

reply to post by MrWendal


Ok....you know the intruders were unarmed right?

reply to post by MrWendal


If his story is true, maybe they were all hopped up on drugs. The only time I ever heard about anyone laughing after they were shot and such things as that was PCP. If they find that in their system, his story would be a lot more believable

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Yeah like I said, I understand the point your trying to make and just dont think your making it very well.

However, I agree that this is murder. Is it a double murder? I can't say. If he shot the boy in the face knowing he was unarmed and no longer a threat, then yes. However, there is no question as to weather or not he murdered the girl . By the shooters own account, that is murder.

That is not to say these two teens should have been in his home, they shouldn't have. They had no business being in his home and attempting to rob the old man. However, there is a fine line that can not be crossed in self defense cases and this man crossed that line by his own admission.

reply to post by MrWendal


Not to mention, firing warning shots is illegal in many places. People have been arrested and convicted for it before.

reply to post by HandyDandy


No,that is your opinionated speculation.....MAYBE they decided that was a close call im going to change my life, why look on the negative??? anyways all im saying is judge each situation as it comes, if they ar eunarmed its wise to fire a warning shot......if they are armed, then maybe a warning shot will not help the situation

As human beings we are the most intelligent species on this earth, we rely on our common sense to assess a situation and not resort to human instinct and just shoot shoot shoot, and hide the body.........

reply to post by TKDRL


If these two were robbing him for his narcotics, then it is pretty safe to assume that he was on his perscription narcotics at the time.

People don't think correctly on narcotics. Including 18 y/o kids.

reply to post by TKDRL


Ok so in those same places? is it illegal to fire a warning shot but to shoot a tress passer to death? with more shots than was needed?

What about hiding the body?