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

a reply to: spirited75

Thank you for the reply.

a reply to: randyvs

originally posted by: randyvs
See if I have this straight now. When really dumb guys,
sound like really dumb guys, to really dumb guys?
It's because there are some really dumb guys?

That's a possible outcome. Despite appearances due to the partisan bickering in the US there aren't simply two solutions to every problem with one being smart and the other being stupid. A group of dumb people can have a dumb idea that still sounds dumb to everyone else.

well randyvs, here is your explanation directly from the horses mouth.
please do not re read it too many times.

Ia reply to: intrepid

How was the woman supposed to magically know that those boys were only there to rob her? It's completely retarded not to defend yourself AND your property. Especially your home. They got exactly what they deserved.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
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.

Theft = death? Property is worth more than a life? Only in America.

*shakes head*

Nice fallacies. If you rob someone in the US, you will go to prison. If you break in to someone's home, chances are you will be shot before the police can arrive.

Human beings have every right to defend their homes with lethal force.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

At what point during a home invasion/ robbery is it okay to defend yourself and your home?

When you or your family is in danger. Many of these kids that have gotten killed lately were unarmed the people that did the shooting could have just as easily held them at gun point until the police arrived there was no need to shoot them. Even in states that recognize Castle doctrine you have to prove that you feared imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another.

The owner of the property shouldn't have to prove anything. Finding someone on your property in the dead of night, whether that person is being "threatening" or not is terrifying enough. The only thing law enforcement should concern themselves with when they get a call for a breaking and entering is how many bodies need cleaned up.

Seriously. The people who cry foul because they don't like the amount of "unnecessary force" someone may use when defending their property, all need to be taken out and beaten.

How I defend my home is none of your business.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: spirited75

Judging them by what they would be like in 6 years and using that to justify their deaths now is like the police hauling you away because they think you're going to beat a child you don't even have yet 6 years in the future.

Were they on a good path? Not at all, but you can't judge someone on future actions they haven't yet taken.

I can judge anyone for any reason when they are trespassing on my property. They were trespassing, the ELDERLY woman defended herself. End of story.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

you are correct. the law gives the homeowner the
presumption that they are in grave danger.
if it ever goes to trial, the prosecution would
have to prove that the homeowner was not feeling threatened.

the result of stand your ground and castle doctrine and
self defense laws is that they cast all the favor onto the homeowner.

basically, the laws allow leeway and favoritism to the party that is abiding by the law.
and the laws cast the maximum suspicion and displeasure towards the criminals