Originally posted by ISeekTruth101
Your weird bro?
No, I am not weird at all. I would suggest you go back a few pages and actually take the time to read the post in full.
i dont understand what you're arguing about than? because it sounds like your defending his actions?
It would sound like that to a person who failed to read the post in full. The only argument I have made to YOU is that a warning shot is foolish.
That's it. I am not defending this man. I am not defending his actions. I have been very clear in that his actions go beyond self defense and that he
actually become the aggressor. The only argument I have made towards you is that firing a warning shot can get a gun owner killed. That's it.
I have already made my opinion very clear on this topic?
Yes you have made your opinion clear and your opinion is completely misguided if you want to insist that people should fire warning shots in a
situation where a stranger has entered your home and you as the victim have no information about weather that intruder is armed or what his intentions
What is your conclusion? that you think he 'didn't know if the intruders were armed or not?''
My conclusion is posted already. Try actually reading it.
That being said, I highly doubt that he knew if they were armed or not at the moment they entered his home. That is not something anyone can possibly
know. However as a citizen you have the right to shoot an intruder who enters your home in the middle of the night. You are not required to ask them
if they are armed or not.
Is this the point your arguing for?
I have explained my argument, numerous times now.
Ok well if he had time to get his gun ready, and get past the jamming thing, and watch the girl laugh at him but not know if they were armed or
not? what else can i say to you???????????????????
Now here what you are describing is a complete twisting of everything I have stated and you are again displaying your ignorance for all to see. I
would again suggest you go back and read my previous post.
For starters, most people do not need to "get the gun ready". For many gun owners, it is a simple issue or removing the firearm from a gun safe or
removing a trigger lock. For people like myself who live alone, it is a simple matter of picking up the weapon. I keep my weapon right next to my bed,
already loaded. All I have to do is pull the slider and get a round in the chamber.
Secondly, you jump right over to the gun jamming and skip a large part of this story. Did you forget that he shot the first intruder twice? He shot
the boy, who then fell down the stairs. He then shot him a second time in the face before (as the shooter claims) dragging the body to the back of the
basement. Now if you want to discuss the law.... it was at the moment of the second shot that this man was no longer defending himself, although this
is a point that can be argued in court. At this point he also knows if ONE intruder is armed or not. He has no idea if the second intruder is
Next, according to the shooter, he then shots the girl as she enters the basement, causing her to fall down the stairs. It was when he attempted to
shot her a second time that the gun jams and she laughs at him. At this point, there is no doubt that this is no longer a case of self defense. She
was shot, she is down, at this point he knows if she is armed or not. Yet he attempted to shot her again while she was down. Then the gun jams, she
laughs at him, he produces a second weapon and fires multiple rounds into her chest. At this point, there is no self defense. This is murder in the
eyes of the law.
Your lacking in common sense and logic? ive presented my logic here.
if you say so. I would suggest that what you are presenting here is a lack of reading comprehension and not logic.
[quoteNow let me know what exactly your conclusion is to this matter? is he right or wrong?
Again- go back and read my initial post in this thread. I explain my position perfectly and I even quoted for you where I said he was wrong in that he
crossed the line from self defense to murder.
Self Defense laws in this country are VERY specific in that you can use as much force as necessary to eliminate a threat. Again, I will use you and I
as an example.
Let us say you walk up and punch me in the face. I now have a right to defend myself from your attack. So I punch you back and you fall down and hit
your head and you are now unconscious. It is in this moment that If I were to attack you further, I am not longer defending myself, I am now the
attacker because you are unconscious and no longer a threat to me. Make sense yet?
edit on 27-11-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason
edit on 27-11-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)