Tennessee man shoots, kills would-be burglars at his home, police say

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: incoserv

You really can't make this stuff up...

You just did. You just created a strawman.

No. The person to whom I responded said that the tougher one acts, the tougher the criminals act. That implies a direct causative relationship between the aggressiveness of victims and the aggressiveness of aggressors. It follows by that reasoning, then, that if the victims act less aggressively, the criminals would act less aggressively.

The reasoning, as I see it in that post, is that if the burglar had not feared for his life, he would not have shot at the homeowner. Somehow, the burglar, who has broken into someone else's home, becomes the victim here. He was forced to shoot at the homeowner to defend his own life because he feared - due to the the second amendment of the US constitution - that the homeowner might own a gun and fire on him as an intruder.

So, it's all the homeowner's fault.

Nope, no strawman there. This is exactly where that line of reasoning goes.

My line of reasoning says the idiot should not have been in the man's house to begin with. My mama taught me that you don't go walking into strangers locked houses uninvited.

This situation did not go wrong when the homeowner fired his gun.

The situation did not go wrong when the second amendment was included in the US constitution.

The situation when wrong when the dumb ass broke into another person's private home.

a reply to: incoserv

My line of reasoning says the idiot should not have been in the man's house to begin with.

Sure. I was referring to your "milk and cookies" example, which you finished with the line " typical progressive reasoning" and "You really can't make this stuff up".

So you did, in fact, make it up and tried to pass it off as a typical/widely-used progressive argument/reasoning.

Complete strawman.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: incoserv

My line of reasoning says the idiot should not have been in the man's house to begin with.

Sure. I was referring to your "milk and cookies" example, which you finished with the line " typical progressive reasoning" and "You really can't make this stuff up".

So you did, in fact, make it up and tried to pass it off as a typical/widely-used progressive argument/reasoning.

Complete strawman.

That's not called "strawman." It's called "hyperbole."

"Hyperbole, derived from a Greek word meaning “over-casting,” is a figure of speech that involves an exaggeration of ideas for the sake of emphasis."

:

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: incoserv

My line of reasoning says the idiot should not have been in the man's house to begin with.

Sure. I was referring to your "milk and cookies" example, which you finished with the line " typical progressive reasoning" and "You really can't make this stuff up".

So you did, in fact, make it up and tried to pass it off as a typical/widely-used progressive argument/reasoning.

Complete strawman.

That's not called "strawman." It's called "hyperbole."

"Hyperbole, derived from a Greek word meaning “over-casting,” is a figure of speech that involves an exaggeration of ideas for the sake of emphasis."

:

It's both.

Straw man:

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

That's exactly what you did. You made up the argument and then tried to state it was the "typical" response progressives would make.

a reply to: introvert

No, I quote the argument that I was responding to: "Your criminals respond equally. The tougher you act, the tougher your criminals act."

First, to say that my acting tough makes the criminals act tough places the blame for criminal aggressiveness squarely on my shoulders.

Second, If my acting tougher makes the criminals act tougher, does it not follow that my acting more kindly will make the criminals act more kindly?

I simply extrapolated from what the individual said in his (or her) post. The criminal (the burglar, in this case) did not act aggressively because the he feared that the homeowner would act aggressively. He did not fire on the homeowner because of the second amendment.

The criminal fired on the homeowner because HE WAS A CRIMINAL - as evidenced by the fact that he had broken into someone else's locked, private home with intent to steal and the fact that he was carrying a gun and used that gun to fire on the homeowner.

Or, maybe in countries where there are stricter gun control laws and law abiding citizens are not allowed to have firearms, the criminals are kinder and gentler because they don't fear being shot at. Is there empirical evidence to support that?
:

a reply to: incoserv

No, I quote the argument that I was responding to: "Your criminals respond equally. The tougher you act, the tougher your criminals act."

I know. The argument you made was not made by the other member. You made it up.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: incoserv

No, I quote the argument that I was responding to: "Your criminals respond equally. The tougher you act, the tougher your criminals act."

I know. The argument you made was not made by the other member. You made it up.

I quoted it.

From their post.

They typed it.

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: incoserv

No, I quote the argument that I was responding to: "Your criminals respond equally. The tougher you act, the tougher your criminals act."

I know. The argument you made was not made by the other member. You made it up.

I quoted it.

From their post.

They typed it.

I know. What you quoted had nothing to do with milk and cookies, or the straw man "typical" argument you created from it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: incoserv

No, I quote the argument that I was responding to: "Your criminals respond equally. The tougher you act, the tougher your criminals act."

I know. The argument you made was not made by the other member. You made it up.

I quoted it.

From their post.

They typed it.

I know. What you quoted had nothing to do with milk and cookies, or the straw man "typical" argument you created from it.

HYPERBOLE...

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: incoserv

No, I quote the argument that I was responding to: "Your criminals respond equally. The tougher you act, the tougher your criminals act."

I know. The argument you made was not made by the other member. You made it up.

I quoted it.

From their post.

They typed it.

I know. What you quoted had nothing to do with milk and cookies, or the straw man "typical" argument you created from it.

HYPERBOLE...

That is true as well.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Krakatoa

The homeowner, who asked to not be named, told FOX13 he was walking into his home in Memphis when he encountered the two alleged burglars, identified as 28-year-old Azell Witherspoon and 17-year-old Demond Robinson. He was returning home from the barber shop and found the door pried open.

“[The suspect] picked up his weapon, turned around and points them at me…two pistols,” the homeowner recalled.

The suspects allegedly began shooting when the man’s friend ran outside. When the suspects dashed out of the house, the homeowner grabbed his gun and began firing.

Source: Tennessee man shoots, kills would-be burglars at his home, police say

This was definitely a case of self defense. When he stumbled across them in his house, they fired upon him. He was able to evade them and barely get out it seems before they left the house, again in his direction. Being that they were at that point a proven deadly threat, and not knowing if they would again fire on him, he fortunately has his own protection on hand to retaliate in kind. Hitting and killing them both before they could shoot at him a second time.

So far, the Memphis LEO have not charged the homeowner for the killings. And, if the story proves to be true, then I do not think he should be charged.

This is another reason U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for self protection. Waiting for the police to arrive would more likely meant them cordoning off the murder scene, and outlining the homeowner's dead body to begin the investigation.

This is the only reason law abiding Americans use their guns anymore. It's not protect their constitution, it's to protect their stuff and and their pride.

He was returning home from the barber shop and found the door pried open. Don't know about Tennessee but this person might very well be charged in my state. The fact that he entered even after finding the door ajar makes him liable. He had the option of not entering the house rather than to confront the intruders. Law dictates that he should have backed out to avoid confrontation and called the authorities.

I've seen films.

The homeowner should have judo-chopped the bullets out of the air and then given them the perineum death pinch. Shooting the burglars was an infringement on their rights to burgle! Shame on him!

(totally being sarcastic here).

Good on the chap. This is the sort of thing I like to see. I'm not American and don't pretend to have a valid say in the matter, but a good example of what the 2nd amendment was for.

Here in the UK, the homeowner would be charged and the burglars given tributes by their scumbag families..

a reply to: CharlesT


that sounds like liberal laws. cant be a red state.thsnk goodness we arent sll helpless wimps eh?

a reply to: CharlesT

The fact that he entered even after finding the door ajar makes him liable. He had the option of not entering the house rather than to confront the intruders. Law dictates that he should have backed out to avoid confrontation and called the authorities.

Nope.
Tennessee is a Stand Your Ground state. They also use the Castle Doctrine and related laws.

I don't know where you're from, but your line of reasoning is BS.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
This is the only reason law abiding Americans use their guns anymore. It's not protect their constitution, it's to protect their stuff and and their pride.

Not the most polished brass in the magazine, are you?

If that's all that you take from this story, you are quite sad in your ability to comprehend the overall reality, here.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: pheonix358

I had a drywall hatchet in my hand before he could pull his gun out of the front of his pants. The only shot came from me and he ran bleeding with his gun. True story. Since you asked.

I see your point but I live in a country where police have guns, criminals have guns and nobody is affraid.

I know, a hard concept to grasp... I get it.

No, I think that you missed the part where he said "when you were shot at."

Neat story, though...sounds like something that might have a police report attached to the incident. Care to share the report number so we can verify this "true story?"

You know, since you shared.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I never shot a person. I was home invaded and the police response here to someone using a gun to rob people is epic. I don't need a gun.

Riiiiight.

This is a mentality held by many people who have been escorted to a morgue by the coroner in every nation on earth. But I'm sure that, in your city, it's absolutely the exception to the rule.

Just out of curiosity--who would have phoned the police in time for them to arrive before said true-story home invader from decades ago would have fired the gun and killed you if you didn't have the hatchet handy? Just a random question with no passive-aggressive intent, I promise.

Remember, police forces are response teams, not psychic protectors to all. But, in all honesty, if you're content living where you live without owning a firearm in case you may ever need it, so be it--that's your choice, and one that many people living in the US make every day as well.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The tougher you act, the tougher your criminals act.

So bend over like a bitch and take it?

Sounds like sound advice.

Must be European.

a reply to: CharlesT

Sucks to live in your state, then, where you must feel a need to wait for police (who will probably respond within 5-10 minutes if you're lucky...a lifetime in such a situation) before you can enter your own home to see if anything bad has happened on your own property.

Here's my take on it--if dude owns an AK, then he probably should be a concealed-firearm carrier as well. He should have had his pistol on him BEFORE entering the house, if at all.

Personally, if it were me, I would have had my pistol in my holster before I had even returned home, and even then, I still would have phoned police and then took up position in my front yard to see if they tried to leave before police arrived. If they did, and they tried to assault me, THEN I would have engaged if necessary.

Dude was relatively reckless, for sure, but what he did was NOT illegal in TN, and it shouldn't be in any state, IMO.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: CharlesT


that sounds like liberal laws. cant be a red state.thsnk goodness we arent sll helpless wimps eh?

Yes, it's a red state. The fact that he entered knowing there may be intruders escalated the possibility of violent confrontation. He placed himself in jeopardy by entering. Also, the way I read it, he shot them as they were exiting and the threat to himself was no longer a valid reason to shoot the intruders.

"When the suspects dashed out of the house, the homeowner grabbed his gun and began firing."

The homeowner committed an unlawful act of manslaughter at that point. This may be hard to accept but he did unjustifiably kill the 2. You can't justifiably kill someone to protect material assets, only because of potential bodily harm.

originally posted by: incoserv


The homeowner fires back to actually and literally defend his life, but the progressive see "stuff and pride."

I just don't know what to say. You simply can't answer that kind of thought.

It's because it isn't thinking - it's dogma.
You are arguing against political fundamentalism.
Fwiw my Colt 45 government model was enough to convince a would-be robber to leave me alone, no shots needed.
He started to reach for his but mine was already in hand.
You can tell some people's intent by the way the approach your vehicle.
Amazing how their attitude changes under that kind of pressure.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The tougher you act, the tougher your criminals act.

So bend over like a bitch and take it?

Sounds like sound advice.

Must be European.

No, silly, you hand out rainbow sherbet to all ruffians and nogoodniks in the neighborhood and they will automatically abhor a life of crime because of your kindness and generosity.

Haven't you ever researched human psychology? Of course rainbow sherbet will have that effect, because no one is ever a criminal because of ingrained community cultures of violence, mental issues, socioeconomic 'necessity,' or just plain disregard for property rights or human life--not to mention that there are never crimes of passion, for sure.

I mean, even the oracle in "The Matrix" knew that Neo would feel "right as rain" by the time that he was done eating her fresh-baked cookie. If a cookie has that power, the effects of rainbow sherbet know no bounds.