Georgia man guns down immigrant after GPS sends him to wrong driveway

Originally posted by Noinden

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by xedocodex

 

We are talking about one person out of 7 Billion aren't we?

The death of one person usually affects more than one person to be blunt. Family, friends, etc. Mind you I'm a biased poster in this, I am a green card holder

The point that I think this poster was making, and that has been misconstrued by others in this thread, is that these things are a statistical anomaly, not the norm.

Yes, that one person's death affects many people. It is STILL a statistical anomaly, and not indicative of a society as a whole.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Noinden

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by xedocodex

 

We are talking about one person out of 7 Billion aren't we?

The death of one person usually affects more than one person to be blunt. Family, friends, etc. Mind you I'm a biased poster in this, I am a green card holder

The point that I think this poster was making, and that has been misconstrued by others in this thread, is that these things are a statistical anomaly, not the norm.

Yes, that one person's death affects many people. It is STILL a statistical anomaly, and not indicative of a society as a whole.

So then say it, don't make a throwaway comment. If one is trying to convey a point, one needs to actually make the point, not mumble something. The "7 billion people" is actually pointless here, as statistically we need to observe the city, or state, or at most the nation, not the whole fricking world.

Yes its a blip. No argument here. No comment on the gun debate either.

reply to post by Noinden


When you read it in context, it makes sense, and he doesnt need to say it any different than he said it. The op states that this event is indicative of americas gun culture. The poster was making the point that one person doing something stupid is indicative of nothing.

That simple.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes

We are talking about one person out of 7 Billion aren't we?

Are you suggesting that this is the first time such an incident has occurred. If not then it is not one person out of 7 billion. Is it...

You people calling this man guilty of murder without a just trial is the furthest thing
from what an American is...

The same crowd passes judgement while telling his fellow man not to...

GET A GRIP

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Noinden

 

When you read it in context, it makes sense, and he doesnt need to say it any different than he said it. The op states that this event is indicative of americas gun culture. The poster was making the point that one person doing something stupid is indicative of nothing.

That simple.

I read it in context (it at the start of the thread), and it is still vague. Reading between the lines is what most people on the interwebs do. So it would have been smarter to make the point that OTHERS are implying that the poster wished he had.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

 

We are talking about one person out of 7 Billion aren't we?

Are you suggesting that this is the first time such an incident has occurred. If not then it is not one person out of 7 billion. Is it...

Exactly! Also the point is every country, hell every state in the US has different laws over guns, and also has different demographics. So the 7 billion is a pointless number. Lets say its one (or more) in whatevet the population of Georgia is. Still a low percentage, but not quite as meaningless as implied (one or several from 7 billion).

Well, I can at least understand where the OP was coming from.

There is, a significant portion of the gun owners in America, believes in shoot first and ask questions later.

I am pro-gun and anti-gun control. This is apparent through out many of my previous participation in gun control discussions. But from my older postings, you can also discover that I had some what of an odd argument in one thread where an 80 year old man shot and killed 1 of 2 thieves robbing his trailer.

From that thread alone, it is very apparent that many many many many many gun owners, specifically those who reside in the Southern states, would prefer to shoot first then ask questions later.

In my personal opinion, firearms should only be used when you or your family members are in an immediate life threatening situation.

Let me repeat that.

Firearms should only be used, when the lives of you or your family members are under immediate threat.

However, a lot of gun owners don't feel this way. This is evident from many many home defense related threads on ATS.

I also believe that there is a difference in gun-ownership and operation laws varying between states, so you really have so many different mentalities on this subject.

For instance, I was schooled on another thread, by some Southern state resident, I can't remember if it was Texas or whatnot. Basically, it is legal and perfectly ok to shoot anyone, who trespasses their property.

Meaning, if some body starts walking on your lawn by mistake, you have every right to take your gun and shoot them dead.

I don't know if any gun owners who currently resides in the South can verify this for us but if this is even remotely true, then this is a real concern.

I mean, if your motto is shoot first ask questions later, then I believe you shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Then again, that would mean we would need to probably disarm the entire Southern states population...

Originally posted by truthseeker84
Well, I can at least understand where the OP was coming from.

There is, a significant portion of the gun owners in America, believes in shoot first and ask questions later.

I am pro-gun and anti-gun control. This is apparent through out many of my previous participation in gun control discussions. But from my older postings, you can also discover that I had some what of an odd argument in one thread where an 80 year old man shot and killed 1 of 2 thieves robbing his trailer.

From that thread alone, it is very apparent that many many many many many gun owners, specifically those who reside in the Southern states, would prefer to shoot first then ask questions later.

In my personal opinion, firearms should only be used when you or your family members are in an immediate life threatening situation.

Let me repeat that.

Firearms should only be used, when the lives of you or your family members are under immediate threat.

However, a lot of gun owners don't feel this way. This is evident from many many home defense related threads on ATS.

I also believe that there is a difference in gun-ownership and operation laws varying between states, so you really have so many different mentalities on this subject.

For instance, I was schooled on another thread, by some Southern state resident, I can't remember if it was Texas or whatnot. Basically, it is legal and perfectly ok to shoot anyone, who trespasses their property.

Meaning, if some body starts walking on your lawn by mistake, you have every right to take your gun and shoot them dead.

I don't know if any gun owners who currently resides in the South can verify this for us but if this is even remotely true, then this is a real concern.

I mean, if your motto is shoot first ask questions later, then I believe you shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Then again, that would mean we would need to probably disarm the entire Southern states population...

The problem is, if you wake up in the middle of the night to find that people have broken into your home, you don't have the luxury of trying to decide their intentions, RE your personal life and wellbeing.

The roads where I live are really confusing, even GPS systems get screwy around here. In the seven years I've lived at my current address, I've had at least a score of people stop and ask directions. I'm the first house on a half mile road that ends in a cul de sac. My yard is well kept (usually) and shows the signs of a young family. Most of the time I catch them in the driveway, but there have been a others where they made it to the door to knock and ask how to get somewhere, or back to a main road.

The first couple of times it kinda freaked me out, but then I remembered one time as a teen,some friends and I got lost in this area and didn't hit a landmark we knew until we were in a town we'd heard of a county (and state no less) over from where we started. It's happened a couple of times early in the morning, at dusk, and even at night. I always armed myself before investigating the car in the yard or the knock on the door in the early morning, dusk, and night occurrences, and sometimes during the day. Even though this has become fairly routine (once every other month or so on average), I still feel that I'd rather be the one giving the "surprise" than receiving it. Never once have I brandished my pistol even though i had a round in the chamber, never needed to. I doubt that the people I helped find their way even knew I was armed.

I did however get tired of a weekly door to door salesperson(steaks from a cooler on the back of a pickup) stopping by while I was asleep when I worked a late shift. I haven't seen him since the time I racked my 12 guage just before opening the door and telling him I'm not interested. Still didn't have to show him the weapon I believe the sound was enough to scare him off.

Without further digressing, I look at it like this. I'm not going to shoot the neighbors thuggish teen, the local meth head, or ne'er do wells from a couple of roads over if I see them running off with my weed eater. However, if you are attempting to enter my home without my consent you should fully expect to leave with more holes in your body than you entered with.

As far as the OP source, sounds to me like it could be a horrible mistake, a case of dementia, or maybe more to the story than what's in the source. The legal process will decide I'm sure and don't really have an opinion on it.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by truthseeker84
Well, I can at least understand where the OP was coming from.

There is, a significant portion of the gun owners in America, believes in shoot first and ask questions later.

I am pro-gun and anti-gun control. This is apparent through out many of my previous participation in gun control discussions. But from my older postings, you can also discover that I had some what of an odd argument in one thread where an 80 year old man shot and killed 1 of 2 thieves robbing his trailer.

From that thread alone, it is very apparent that many many many many many gun owners, specifically those who reside in the Southern states, would prefer to shoot first then ask questions later.

In my personal opinion, firearms should only be used when you or your family members are in an immediate life threatening situation.

Let me repeat that.

Firearms should only be used, when the lives of you or your family members are under immediate threat.

However, a lot of gun owners don't feel this way. This is evident from many many home defense related threads on ATS.

I also believe that there is a difference in gun-ownership and operation laws varying between states, so you really have so many different mentalities on this subject.

For instance, I was schooled on another thread, by some Southern state resident, I can't remember if it was Texas or whatnot. Basically, it is legal and perfectly ok to shoot anyone, who trespasses their property.

Meaning, if some body starts walking on your lawn by mistake, you have every right to take your gun and shoot them dead.

I don't know if any gun owners who currently resides in the South can verify this for us but if this is even remotely true, then this is a real concern.

I mean, if your motto is shoot first ask questions later, then I believe you shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Then again, that would mean we would need to probably disarm the entire Southern states population...

The problem is, if you wake up in the middle of the night to find that people have broken into your home, you don't have the luxury of trying to decide their intentions, RE your personal life and wellbeing.

Well, I disagree.

For me, if I am awoken in the middle of the night, groggy and don't know what the hell is happening, more reason for me to wake the # up real quick and figure this thing out before I start unloading bullets.

Would you feel good if you take down a 13 year old boy who's looking for a quick buck? How would you feel when you watch him drown in his own blood? Would you feel indifferent because he invaded your property first?

Hell, by all means, you have every right to scream on top of your lungs "I HAVE A GUN AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO USE IT!" Then, you can wait for a brief second before you decide on what you should do.

If the thieves/robbers don't leave, shoot a warning shot to the floor or to the wall. If they still don't leave by then, put them down but try to make sure that they are facing you and coming towards you. Don't ever shoot them in the back when they are not facing you or approaching you.

If the robbers tries to get out of your house, you let them. You are not Judge Dredd, you are not the Judge/Jury/Executioner. You don't get to shoot people dead because you're afraid. You need to determine, to the point that is beyond any reasonable doubt, that this person who is invading your property has the intent, the capability and also in process of attempting to kill you and/or your family members.

If the thieves, robbers tries to get out of your house and you chase them out and shoot them dead, then in my opinion you should go to jail for First Degree Murder.

There should be no arguments with this, so I'm really perplexed as to why this is varying from State to State.

If the person committing the crime is fleeing, you know for a fact that they are no longer a threat to you, then you proceed to chase them down and unload a couple of your .45 ACP hollow point or buck shots... well that's Premeditated Murder. Because you are fully aware of what your doing, you planned for that to happen. The thief could have gotten away if you didn't chase them down and take their lives.

Just my own 2 cents worth..

Originally posted by poloblack

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by SpearMint

 

How do you know it wouldn't have happened if he didn't have a gun?
If he didn't have a gun he would have had something else.
It's a crazy old man who was trained how to kill was my point.

If he had a knife or something then the man had a chance to defend himself or run, if he got stabbed he wouldn't necessarily die from his wounds. Someone is a lot less likely to try to kill someone with a knife or other hand held weapons because of this. The man had no chance though. Bang. Dead.

No offense, really, but your post reflects that you have very limited knowledge on weaponry, or man to man combat using a knife. A knife is very deadly, my friend.

Not nearly as deadly as a gun, it's short range and you can defend against it. Time and time again people have survived knife attacks. Use your common sense.

reply to post by truthseeker84


I gotta disagree. Someone who would violate your home, especially in a state with a Castle Law, should have known that their life was forfeit when they intruded upon mine, in my place of peace and sanctity. Also given the legal system and the past history of those who have committed burglaries and then won settlements against the homeowner after being injured while leaving in a hurry, I think it's probably a better decision to kill them if you have the law on your side.

On the street or even in my yard I'm going to do everything I can to either leave the area unmolested or make the aggressor leave. If me or mine isn't in immediate life threatening danger, I agree there is no reason to shoot.

In my home it's much different. I don't care if they are 12 or 40. Enter my house with criminal intent(even if it's only to make a quick buck) against me or my family and you will die. There will be no warning shot, the most you may get if you are listening closely is the metal on metal sound of the 12 guage or my pistol being loaded. I'm not a good enough marksman to attempt anything but a center mass shot and that's what I'll take.

Sure I'd feel bad if I killed a kid who thought it might be some easy money. His parents should have taught him better, and if you're doing a B&E at 13 in the middle of the night with people at home,odds are you'll have moved on to violent robbery within a decade. I'd probably lose a little sleep, but at the end of the day I think my conscience could deal with handling any intruder in my home regardless of their age or circumstance.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

I think some are missing a very simple point here. If you are on a stranger's property in the US then you should be cautious....it is NOT your property and there are laws protecting it.

You can't shoot someone just for trespassing.

Maybe you should re-read GA's Castle Doctrine and its code sections

Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect real property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)

If there is a reason to believe the trespasser is there to do harm or commit a felony then he is within his rights to shoot.

Once the investigation is complete and we have all the facts, this could very well apply in this situation. There are plenty of things in the story already that don't add up with the story the kids in the car are telling.

Originally posted by xedocodex
This is just one more unfortunate case of America's gun culture.

Wrong again. This is one incident, one guy. You don't know the whole story, either, and you can bet the news isn't giving it to you.

This is not an example of "America's gun culture", it is an example of one old bastard using really poor judgment.

Once again, the anti-gun nuts love to pounce on the occasional story and blow it way out of proportion.

Update:

It seems that Mr. Sailor's arraignment judge, felt that the story isn't what the Media is pumping it up to be, either.

The 69 year old veteran, accused of Malice Murder, has already been released on a $10,000 property bond.

Here is the story found HERE...

Is this a normal bond for such a charge, in Georgia? Seems rather low to me....

What do you make of it?

Here's yet another article on the story.
This one covers an interview with the father of the young man who was killed.

Found Here... the article offers some more testimony, that again seems to contradict much that has been published to this point.

My heart goes out to all who have been affected by this tragedy, but the thought still lingers, that something simply doesn't add up.

I guess we will have to wait and see...

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


That's an incredibly light bond for Georgia. I had a family member get arrested for about a half ounce of pot (misdemeanor at the time) and a little bit of Meth (felony) back in the mid nineties. First offender too bond was $5k.

Two possible ideas here. The first is that there is some information that the bonding judge has that hasn't been released or reported as stated by goofyfoot.

The second is it might be due to his age and some underlying medical conditions. The county becomes liable for any medical treatments needed while jailed. I know of a person in a town not far from Atlanta that can pretty much walk down the street smoking a joint and the cops will just make him throw it away. He requires dialysis and if he's in jail the county has to pay for his treatment. Better to let him out on a low bond and let his Medicare take care of it, maybe.

I'm leaning toward the first assumption but the second wouldn't surprise me.

Originally posted by jefwane
reply to post by truthseeker84

 

I gotta disagree. Someone who would violate your home, especially in a state with a Castle Law, should have known that their life was forfeit when they intruded upon mine, in my place of peace and sanctity. Also given the legal system and the past history of those who have committed burglaries and then won settlements against the homeowner after being injured while leaving in a hurry, I think it's probably a better decision to kill them if you have the law on your side.

On the street or even in my yard I'm going to do everything I can to either leave the area unmolested or make the aggressor leave. If me or mine isn't in immediate life threatening danger, I agree there is no reason to shoot.

In my home it's much different. I don't care if they are 12 or 40. Enter my house with criminal intent(even if it's only to make a quick buck) against me or my family and you will die. There will be no warning shot, the most you may get if you are listening closely is the metal on metal sound of the 12 guage or my pistol being loaded. I'm not a good enough marksman to attempt anything but a center mass shot and that's what I'll take.

Sure I'd feel bad if I killed a kid who thought it might be some easy money. His parents should have taught him better, and if you're doing a B&E at 13 in the middle of the night with people at home,odds are you'll have moved on to violent robbery within a decade. I'd probably lose a little sleep, but at the end of the day I think my conscience could deal with handling any intruder in my home regardless of their age or circumstance.

I find this post incredibly disturbing. What if the person surrenders and puts any stolen items down. It would be more reasonable to order them to stop, and detain them until police arrive. If they come at you, blow them away.


Ive never killed anyone before, but I am sure I would lose a lot more than "a little sleep" if I took somebody's life. Whatever the circumstances, and especially if it was a young person.


I have a bad feeling this is going to become the next left vs right Trayvon thing here on ATS.

reply to post by DarthOej


In the state I live in, I have no legal duty to warn, back down from, or otherwise accommodate anyone within my home who is not supposed to be there either threatening me or committing a forcible felony.

That being said, I'd like to think if I were to hear"please don't kill me" in between the time I have a round ready to fire and getting a good sight picture followed by immediate compliance with my orders to "lie down, keep your hands where I can see them, and you better tell me now if there is anyone else with you because the first bullet is yours." I would allow the person to learn a lesson that didn't cost him his life, only his freedom.

A person looses their protections that society provides when they choose to abuse someone in their home. The state I live in recognizes my rights to protect my family and even my property by using lethal force within my home. Anyone thinking of such should be aware of that, and it's not my job to educate them about that.

This may sound like typical redneck bluster, and you may think that all you like. However, I wouldn't recommend anyone attempting to rob or injure my family in our home while I still breathe. I know my duties as a citizen, husband, and father. I take those just as seriously as I did the duties that I carried out as a soldier, and I have much less moral uncertainty in the former than the later.