Getaway Driver Arrested After 3 Suspects are Shot to Death

a reply to: Aazadan

Everyone gets a right to trial, in most cases trial by jury in order to tell their side of the story.

You are not going to like this story but it is the truth.. My uncle was a judge in Texas. He told me flat out if someone was breaking into my home and if I had to shoot them be sure they were dead,,, That stops BS stories in court and the story presented is yours and yours alone.. Second if you blow the dude completely out the door it would be better if some part of him is across the point of entry... This was in the 60s...

Agree or disagree with the judge ? That is just the way it was with his way of thinking..Texas never has been the liberal bastion of PC BS even though in many ways it is changing. However you home is the final red line in the sand to stand your ground as it should be.

a reply to: vonclod

No offense intended. Your comment wasn't *that* far off base, just misinformed. I abhor all of the "usual" arguments against defensive firearm use.

Small caliber rifle bullets tend to be light and moving fast, so unless they are designed to do otherwise, they fragment quickly. .223 is actually quite a good choice for home defense.

Pistol caliber bullets can be recovered pretty much intact, even after passing through multiple studs, or even ricocheting off a steel plate.

Long gun handling inside a home is a teachable skill.

Any gun you have is better than no gun at all.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

No worries, no offence taken

originally posted by: vonclod
I just figure besides all that a long gun is a bit harder to wield in a hallway or close quarters in general..to me a handgun makes more sense??..then again I am admittedly no expert.

Some experts would agree with you. But, it's not simple common sense that's at work here. To choose a handgun over a rifle is a decision made when you know you can shoot your handgun better than your rifle. I have a friend who is this good with his pistols. I knew, decades ago, I'd never reach that level.

You're not going to 'know' the answer until you know how well you shoot a pistol and how well you shoot a rifle. Go shoot some 3-Gun competitions and you'll find out how well you can shoot. After you've figured out how to shoot, up your training to the shoot house. If you put your heart into it ... you could come back to this thread by the end of Summer and tell me all the things I left out of this discussion, but you wouldn't tell me I was even a little bit wrong.

a reply to: Snarl

I'm up north of the border, the opportunities for that kind of training are minimal here unless I'm in LE..at least as far as I know.
My dad liked his handguns, he really liked his Gold Cup 1911, also loved his Ruger .41 mag.
I was pretty good at Trap and was good on the .22..never got much chance to shoot handgun. There are indoor ranges I can go to but stationary targets of course..I will get my restricted licence at some point so I can own a handgun.
I appreciate your thoughts/advice.

I've always subscribed to the idea that a pistol is for fighting your way back to the rifle that you should have never laid down.

That said, the competency of the individual shooter as well as frequency of practice come into play. For instance, my wife's pistol and rifle caliber selection will be .22LR. Mine however will be .308, .223, .45, .40, or .357 depending on which room I'm in.

I can handle a M1A indoors, but I practice to do so.

There is another advantage when criminals like this are taken out in home invasions. From that point forward, they won't contaminate the rest of the gene pool.

Darwin can be a bitch sometimes.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Always good to have some Hornady TAP rounds for night time and indoors shooting. Expensive but worth it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Snarl

Really this means that there will be four less people (three permanently) who will never rob or harm anyone ever again.

Three people who will never face a trial by jury, because someone thought they could do better than a courtroom.

And did so very well

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
No surprise that the second news clip was the grandfather acting like his grandson was an angel. This should be a lesson to all stupid teens that if you go somewhere you have no business to be in, there can be fatal consequences. I see it my neighborhood too where kids rob garages in the middle of the night. Fortunately for them, no one sleeps in their garage but these are the same kids that eventually get bolder and break into a house. The ones responsible are parents of these kids.

If that is how their "parents" raised them...and if that is what they decide to do...let them. And I hope each and everyone gets a bullet in the head. Every person who is willing to do so might as well be shot and killed now instead of awaiting them harming an innocent person who WOULDN'T do something like this.

Kill the criminals early. We have no use for them.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
You're right. the person should have let those three kill him and then wait for the law to eventually catch them and try then convict them.

I don't know what I was thinking. I apologize.

Bad survivor! Bad Bad!

I'm well aware that my thoughts on this aren't popular on ATS. But the way I see it, the #1 job of law enforcement is to get people to trial. If you're going to step in for law enforcement and shoot someone, then it's your job to also accept that responsibility. Putting someone down in self defense is fine, but at the same time I also think that doing so obligates you to do as much for them as possible to get them to a trial alive. That means first aid, it means getting an ambulance there, and it means making smart weapon choices.

If you're not capable of doing at least that much, I don't think you're responsible enough to own a gun.

Well...I agree with you that your opinions won't be very popular. If you step in my home without permission, especially in the middle of the night or with the intent to take anything or harm anyone...your rights are gone. You are nothing but a target and once I hit that target, the best you can expect from me is either laughter or a long stare as you drift away.

I can always call the police later. And never intend to call an ambulance...maybe the coroner.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

The homeowner has no ####ing obligation to the person(s) who are violating the homeowners rights.

When you decide to break into a home, cause violence, then you are giving up every god-damned right you have as a human being.

Why not? We've decided as a society that criminals get a trial to determine punishment. Both the home owner, and the burglar are members of society.

I get that things sometimes happen when guns are involved (they are designed to kill afterall), but if they survive the shooting, why shouldn't they get a trial? Maximizing the chances of them getting a trial means the shooter needs to do all that's in their power to ensure the person survives after the threat is neutralized.

If you want to live in society, then you give up the "right" to be judge, jury, and executioner.

You've got that wrong. You said "Both the home owner, and the burglar are members of society." but you are missing a point. To be a member of a group you have to follow the rules of that group. When you don't follow the rules or become detrimental to the group...you are removed from the group. Your membership is terminated. When a member of society breaks into someone's home, they AUTOMATICALLY forfeit their membership in society and become an enemy of society.

At that point...they can be killed or should I say...exterminated.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Aazadan

you know what they say about law enforcement, When Seconds Count, The Police are Just Minutes Away.
it is not your responsibility to render aid to someone that was trying to harm you and you beat them to the draw.
in fact had it been me i would have been adding insult to injury.

____ around, lose around.
is that painful, looks that way to me.
what kinda of bird don't fly, a dead sh@@bird.

maybe later i'd feel bad about it, but probably not.

If I were on a jury when that's the case. I would find you guilty of murder then. Or much worse in the case of the previous poster who fantasizes about people breaking in so that they can disable and then dismember them.

Self defense is one thing, and guns sometimes kill people. If you did what you could reasonably do to get the person to the hospital and authorities alive, then I don't see a problem.

Everyone gets a right to trial, in most cases trial by jury in order to tell their side of the story. Doing what you can to impede that process is vigilante justice.

Which makes YOU a bigger part of the problem than the criminal. You are like a function of the human body that says cancer cells should be allowed to exist and spread. It is the mindset that every life is precious that is faulty. Only civilized people's lives are precious. The uncivilized are the cancer and MUST be destroyed.

But your position actually makes you the biggest part of the problem. It is types like you, with views like yours that allows a species to die.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Stopping them is the goal. Practical measures would be a torso shot because it is the largest target and a home invasion is a high stress environment and not conducive to target practice.

Plus, with our current court system, you might find a surviving criminal suing you for damages if that person is kept alive.

Far better just to kill the person than suffer a home invasion and paying for the criminals hospital bills.

I think we need to change the weapons we encourage people to have for home defense. Shotguns are definitely good on the more lethal range of the spectrum, but beyond that I would say military grade guns and ammo serve a better defensive purpose. Those rounds are designed to incapacitate more often than kill, while the stuff we sell to anyone is designed more so to kill.

I'm not saying people need to do things like shoot for arms and legs, because that doesn't work. Shooting center mass, and shooting until the person is down is the way to do it. But the ammunition you use to put them down is a big factor in this whole mess, and we're selling the wrong ammo for home defense. Also, as I said, I think we're too lenient on how people act after shooting someone. All too often, people take the approach of neutralizing the threat, and then finishing the person off (as you yourself, and several others in this thread have advocated), and when you cross the line to doing that, I think the victim goes over to the dark side and becomes just another criminal.

Personally...I think we need a new gun specifically for home defense. Something that can be kept fully loaded safely, that can be readily available when the time comes, that will kill but not penetrate the wall behind the target (avoid injuring someone else) and something that is lethal even if your aim is off.

If you want to get a bit liberal...you can attach a video camera that will record the incident and alert the police when the weapon is used. I can deal with that.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

So you've been in zero shoot-outs but have the audacity to dictate how people should react.

Yeah.

I've been shot at. I simply haven't shot back, that goes against my personal beliefs (which is why I don't own a gun). I know what it's like when people are attacking you. Losing your cool and running on adrenaline is not a good way to handle such situations.

WOW! Its gotta suck to be a member of YOUR family. You do realize it is typically the male of the species that has testicles and protects the women and children...right?

Nothing wrong with using AR-15 for home defense, you never know how many bad guys you might have to fend off. You would need to remember whats behind the target your shooting at.

I believe the homer owner could of just yelled GTFO or i will shoot you. I bet that would of scared the living hell out of the teenagers to cause them to flee.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
it is typically the male of the species

Don't tell my mom that. She's determined on scoring a Hat Trick with trespassers. One to go.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
And did so very well

Do you think that theft deserves the death penalty?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Well...I agree with you that your opinions won't be very popular. If you step in my home without permission, especially in the middle of the night or with the intent to take anything or harm anyone...your rights are gone. You are nothing but a target and once I hit that target, the best you can expect from me is either laughter or a long stare as you drift away.

I can always call the police later. And never intend to call an ambulance...maybe the coroner.

If those are your honest beliefs, you're the type of person that I think needs to be put away. You aren't mentally stable. Anyone who is capable of shooting another, and then intentionally letting them die once there's no threat to their own safety is a psychopath. You're the type of person without morality, the sort who only doesn't harm others because of laws (or more specifically, the fear of getting caught) rather than because of what's right and wrong. It's the mentality of a serial killer.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You've got that wrong. You said "Both the home owner, and the burglar are members of society." but you are missing a point. To be a member of a group you have to follow the rules of that group. When you don't follow the rules or become detrimental to the group...you are removed from the group. Your membership is terminated. When a member of society breaks into someone's home, they AUTOMATICALLY forfeit their membership in society and become an enemy of society.

At that point...they can be killed or should I say...exterminated.

Why are they removed from society at that point? Deserving of punishment, yes... but exile or death? Harsh societies only breed harsher criminals.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
WOW! Its gotta suck to be a member of YOUR family. You do realize it is typically the male of the species that has testicles and protects the women and children...right?

Ahh, male bravado. You think that killing others makes you a man? Or being biased in life and protecting only those you know or are related to over the innocent bystander? I don't agree with either. I weight my friends and family equally to a stranger on the street, if you want to look at things objectively in life that is the absolute minimum you must be able to do.

originally posted by: Echo007
Nothing wrong with using AR-15 for home defense, you never know how many bad guys you might have to fend off. You would need to remember whats behind the target your shooting at.

I believe the homer owner could of just yelled GTFO or i will shoot you. I bet that would of scared the living hell out of the teenagers to cause them to flee.

Better parenting probably could have stopped it too, or atleast made this scenario happen less often. A society that doesn't have a portion of people who fantasize about this scenario just so they can prove they're hardcore enough to kill a person would help too.

a reply to: Aazadan

Did you listen to the audio file of his 911 call, because he clearly asks for medical assistance after he informed the dispatcher that he had shot the three suspects. His "job" is not the same as law enforcement when he is trying to protect his life and his property. He #1 priority is his own life in this situation, not the lives of the 3 suspects.

I'm sorry but how do you think that this is a case of vigilante justice? Say this young man didn't have the firearm he used to defend himself and he tried to stop the robbery with his fists, he most likely would have wound up dead. This young man did nothing wrong by defending himself and taking these three lives and you know something he will have to live with that memory for the rest of his life, all because four scumbags decided to break into his home and commit a crime. Do stupid things win stupid prizes.

Also you stated that "military grade firearms and ammo and designed to incapacitate more then kill" well that statement right there sir is terribly incorrect. The military green tip version of the 5.56 is designed to do as much damage once inside the human body that it can, it is designed to cause chaos inside the body and kill its victim, not incapacitate. The tip of the round breaks off inside the body and shreds flesh, tissue, muscle, and everything else in its way.

a reply to: caf1550

I didn't comment on this case, I was commenting on people in the thread who are getting off on the idea of wanting to be in that situation just so they can have the excuse to kill someone. There have been 3 or 4 people in this thread so far with such an outlook.