Thieves force homeowner into closet, closet full of guns, suspect shot

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
Unbelievable that some are suggesting that the victim/hero did anything wrong. Had there been any fatalities the blame goes 100% to the home invaders ... no matter what.

edit on 5/16/2013 by RedParrotHead because: (no reason given)

HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG!!!! IF YOU BREAK INTO SOMEONES HOUSE YOU ALONE ACCEPT WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU

Serves the criminals right. Why didn't he kill them all, now they may come back for revenge.

Originally posted by ExCommando
I guess the problem with this story is the man was relatively safe in his closet - if the robbers were going to harm him, surely they would have done so at the start?

He busted out and exchanged shots - he could easily have been killed, for what? The possessions in his home?

Surely the most sensible option would have been to arm himself but stay in the closet. Avoiding the risk of death, but also being in a great position if they attempted to harm him during the process.

I'm all for self defence, but was this guy acting in self defence?

If someone breaks into my home, the ones who will be defending themselves the most are the ones breaking in. It has nothing to do with losing my belongings, they are insured, it is for making me have to go through the work of filing an insurance claim. I will defend my right to not be stolen from or have my life endangered. What am I supposed to do, let someone walk in and take my stuff, soon everyone that is a criminal will be targeting me to see what I have bought for them. I have known people that used to break into places, they keep their eyes open for those they know will not respond and target them. They aren't going to rob a place where they know there will be a firefight unless they are positive that there is something valuable there.

Originally posted by ExCommando
I guess the problem with this story is the man was relatively safe in his closet - if the robbers were going to harm him, surely they would have done so at the start?

"relatively safe", does not equal safe, it just means at that point their was a CHANCE he might not come to harm. who is to say they didn't want him dead right away as he might prove useful later if they encountered something like a safe or lock box they wanted open, or passwords/ pin codes for things like atm or credit cards? in no way does "locking" someone in a closet mean they are safe, it just means they are "contained" in an area where they know where they are, and generally speaking making it safe for the criminals.

He busted out and exchanged shots - he could easily have been killed, for what? The possessions in his home?

why should he not try to protect his possessions? sure living is a good thing but why should he just let himself be ripped off, in the end no matter what even with insurance he will have lost a lot. and SOME things have NO calculable value they are PRICELESS to a person. i see that type of view as just as an excuse to let criminals have their way. do you lock your doors, car other property? why? after all why not just let criminals take what they want? or do you want to PROTECT your possessions, even if YOU are not willing to fight for them.

Surely the most sensible option would have been to arm himself but stay in the closet. Avoiding the risk of death, but also being in a great position if they attempted to harm him during the process.

I'm all for self defence, but was this guy acting in self defence?

have you been in a closet? how do you know what is happening outside? can you tell if someone is just about ready to open the door to kill you, if they even bother opening the door? could you tell if there had been say a fire set that will kill you before you are trapped? no being trapped in a closet is no safety at all. at that point you are still a victime for whatever the criminals want to do. so YES this is still self defense.

reply to post by buni11687


Too bad the home owner wasn't able to tag all of the intruders.

I am sure they will get a nice cushy lawyer, pushing the racial angle and the criminals will get like 2 years in jail.

I would have serious hesitation in calling police, if people came into my residence.

Originally posted by Sacri



These guys got off lucky to be perfectly honest most people would have double tapped all three of them

Yep...

Originally posted by buni11687
[...]
This just goes to show, there are some pretty dumb criminals out there.

Indeed... the smart ones wear fancy suits, drive big cars and have a real big office, not to speak of their annual income, which is more than the common man earns in a lifetime.

Some here question the morality of using force or deadly force to defend your property, saying "is mere property worth killing someone over?"

The person breaking into your home apparently thinks so. In the story at the top of this thread, one of the intruders had a gun. Why bring a gun to a breaking and entering? A gun will not help you carry out a TV or video game system. A gun will not help you paw through someone's jewelry box.

A gun is for shooting people. You take a gun with you to invade someone's home, because you are ready to kill someone if necessary to get their property.

The intruder is ready to kill YOU for mere possessions. He has decided a life (your life) is worth less than your stuff.


Who are you to argue with him?

reply to post by tovenar


I say "Doom on those that break into my house".

When a person makes the decision to enter someone else's home or business, without permission, they are accepting anything that comes their way.

If people don't want someone to be shot, don't break into my house.

Originally posted by Dominar
Thanks for posting, I love hearing about citizens taking the situation in their own hands and reversing the tables on the criminals!

They are lucky they were pushed in the closet where they store their guns though, I'm glad the home owner had the courage to do something too.

Yeah, gotta cherish these 1 in a million stories! Forget all those people who just called 911 and took all the fun out of it.

Myself, I'd just have used the 5 different fighting styles I've learned to beat the crap out of my assailants -- cuz I'm a real man. No offense. You have to work with what you got. So if you need a gun -- more power to you.

>> I'm sure NRA patriots will have this story laminated so they can appreciate it with a box of tissues and lotion.

Originally posted by Sirrurg

Originally posted by buni11687
[...]
This just goes to show, there are some pretty dumb criminals out there.

Indeed... the smart ones wear fancy suits, drive big cars and have a real big office, not to speak of their annual income, which is more than the common man earns in a lifetime.

Truly. If the criminal had more of a work ethic and a parent to pay for a good finance education -- why they could have gone into banking. More reward -- less risk. Maybe this is why violent crime is down so much, the thieves just make you re-read your contract when they take all your stuff.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst


Myself, I'd just have used the 5 different fighting styles I've learned to beat the crap out of my assailants -- cuz I'm a real man. No offense. You have to work with what you got. So if you need a gun -- more power to you.

Oh, so which style beats 45acp???
Just wondering.

I thought that Bruce Lee died a while back. Maybe not.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Maybe only 1 of them was armed. Even if the other 3 were also armed, that doesn't necessarily mean that they actually wanted to shoot someone.

The poor CRIMINALS were not thinking about hurting anyone... they just wanted to strip clean this man of the possessions he got through his hard work, that's all.

If a criminal is armed and enters my home I am not going to ask "are you going to hurt me or my family?"... My weapon will do the talking, thank you very much.

It has actually been proven that when a citizen is armed it stops criminals on their tracks most of the time because they don't expect anyone to confront them. The criminals think the citizens will play nicely along cowering from them...

There are plenty of cases like this one, when a group of armed criminals try to rob even a store, and a concealed weapon carrier pulls out his gun and shoots at the robbers making them run away.

Criminals also have the fight or flight response when they see their life in danger.

Just because they are criminals doesn't mean they are "bad a$$"

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Yeah, gotta cherish these 1 in a million stories! Forget all those people who just called 911 and took all the fun out of it.

Riiight, it's like the millions of lives that have been saved by people being armed doesn't matter... People must be "macho men" like you, and must think they are superman and superwoman like you obviously think to be...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Myself, I'd just have used the 5 different fighting styles I've learned to beat the crap out of my assailants -- cuz I'm a real man. No offense. You have to work with what you got. So if you need a gun -- more power to you.

>> I'm sure NRA patriots will have this story laminated so they can appreciate it with a box of tissues and lotion.

Oh yeah, you are such a macho man... But of course, you don't use the muscle that really matters... For "macho-men" like yourself that might not know which is the muscle that matters, it is the brain btw...

I guess you think that all your training will make you faster and stronger than a bullet coming at you...

The stupid arguments some people make are just hilarious I swear...

Trying to demean American citizens that want to exercise their RIGHT to own and bear arms by trying to claim we are not men...

Stupid is as stupid does...

reply to post by coldkidc


Its a tough thing to decide when deadly force is necessary.

You should always take into consideration your surroundings and if possible choose the least destructive path for their sakes.

At least your playing your part as a stereotype well.

And btw "macho man", I have 32 years of experience in Martial Arts, including Ninjutsu/Ninjitsu(in Spain under Sensei Juan Hombre Dopazo), American Kenpo, and Jhoon Rhee's Taekwondo style.

I am an expert on several white weapons like the Katana, and bo, but can use any other white weapon. But even with all this experience, plus my experience in the U.S. military, I still know that against an armed opponent, it is best to be armed, than thinking your Martial Arts experience can overcome everything...

It is obvious that either you had really bad Sensei's/Masters, or you didn't learn enough from your Martial Arts experience...

I am going to give you some advice.

Rule # 1 in Martial Arts... You are not superman/superwoman so when you don't have to fight run, and this is true in most street fights.

Rule #2 in Martial Arts... a street fighter can beat the crap out of the most experienced Martial Artist, so don't be overconfident.

Rule #3 in Martial Arts... if you can get an advantage such as being armed against an opponent, seize that advantage.

reply to post by Wertdagf

I wonder how many walls those bullets could go through?

That's why I use MagSafe rounds for home protection.

It's expensive, but they are far less prone to ricochet or penetrating walls, due to the way they are made, plus they do a nasty job on the target. Besides, you don't need to have much of this type of ammo, so worth it for a few rounds.

magsafeonline.com...


To another:

A gun is for shooting people. You take a gun with you to invade someone's home, because you are ready to kill someone if necessary to get their property.

Gun or no gun, if they are on my property after dark (meaning they bypassed two fences to get there), their life is forfeit, as I have NO idea what their goals are, could be property, could be raping women, could be just wanton bloodshed, who knows? And I don't care, they are still going to get shot. Is it worth it to protect mere property? I'm not just protecting mere property, I'm protecting my loved ones, and their piece of mind.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Maybe only 1 of them was armed. Even if the other 3 were also armed, that doesn't necessarily mean that they actually wanted to shoot someone.

The poor CRIMINALS were not thinking about hurting anyone... they just wanted to strip clean this man of the possessions he got through his hard work, that's all.

If a criminal is armed and enters my home I am not going to ask "are you going to hurt me or my family?"... My weapon will do the talking, thank you very much.

It has actually been proven that when a citizen is armed it stops criminals on their tracks most of the time because they don't expect anyone to confront them. The criminals think the citizens will play nicely along cowering from them...

There are plenty of cases like this one, when a group of armed criminals try to rob even a store, and a concealed weapon carrier pulls out his gun and shoots at the robbers making them run away.

Criminals also have the fight or flight response when they see their life in danger.

Just because they are criminals doesn't mean they are "bad a$$"

I am unsure of your point. I think some of that↑ may be sarcasm, but I'm just not sure.


All that I do know for sure is that I don't know what they were or were not thinking, and unless you are one of them, then neither do you.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


In the most simple terms, if someone CHOOSES to engage in criminal activity (in this case, armed with a lethal weapon); and the criminal activity directly impacts the security of a law-abiding citizen (in this case, in their own home...in US law a location traditionally held to be sacrosanct); Then the aggressor forfeits their rights to safety and security of their person should a victim choose to defend.

Attacker and defender are very distinct roles, and have been legally defined for thousands of years. Justice has always favored the defender until the last few years. Think about that. Maybe this new warm and fuzzy "what was he feeling" mentality isn't right. Time has tested what justice works, and what doesn't. An armed intruder imprisoning a victim with unknown intent does not, nor has ever before, deserved compassion at the expense of the victims' right to defend against attack.

reply to post by ExCommando

Originally posted by ExCommando
I guess the problem with this story is the man was relatively safe in his closet - if the robbers were going to harm him, surely they would have done so at the start?

He busted out and exchanged shots - he could easily have been killed, for what? The possessions in his home?

Surely the most sensible option would have been to arm himself but stay in the closet. Avoiding the risk of death, but also being in a great position if they attempted to harm him during the process.

I'm all for self defence, but was this guy acting in self defence?

[color=CFFFDA]The man thought the suspects had left when he came out armed.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

 

 

[color=CFFFDA]When he thought the intruders were gone, the man left the closet, armed with a gun that he kept there, he told police.

www.chron.com...