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

reply to post by coldkidc

Originally posted by coldkidc

No - you're right - he should have stayed in the closet letting them ransack his home & hoping they wouldn't shoot him in the head on the way out since he'd seen their faces

That's always the best way to handle a situation like that - just roll over & hope it doesn't get any worse

It seems that your sarcasm has turned out to be accurate, after all.

[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...

It's always easy to play the role of the 'Badass' with the far too common remarks of "If that had been me, I woulda blah blah blah, and then blah blah blah....."...... but what people think they would do, often differs from what they actually will do if they were to ever find themselves in such a situation.




reply to post by Wertdagf

Originally posted by Wertdagf

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.

Apparently, he didn't feel that it was necessary↓↑.

[color=CFFFDA]"He actually confronted one of the suspects who was still at his home and shots were exchanged," Sgt. J. Brandon told KTRK.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not certain of it, but the way this↑ is worded leads me to believe that he may have given them a chance to leave, even after he exited the closet, and before any shots were fired.

reply to post by blamethegreys

Originally posted by blamethegreys

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.

and you're telling me this because...??

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
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.

They are CRIMINALS, and worse yet ARMED CRIMINALS... You can't rule out the fact that as CRIMINALS they could very well be willing not only to hurt, but to rape, and even kill your family and yourself.

The point was/is that as CRIMINALS you can't depend on them not hurting your family or yourself, hence why it is not a good idea to try to second guess the intentions of CRIMINALS, and worse yet ARMED CRIMINALS...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

They are CRIMINALS, and worse yet ARMED CRIMINALS... You can't rule out the fact that as CRIMINALS they could very well be willing not only to hurt, but to rape, and even kill your family and yourself.

The point was/is that as CRIMINALS you can't depend on them not hurting your family or yourself, hence why it is not a good idea to try to second guess the intentions of CRIMINALS, and worse yet ARMED CRIMINALS..

I'm still not positive of what the hell you're talking about, but I do have a guess........



My guess is that the both of you (blamethegreys & ElectricUniverse) completely overlooked the context in which my words were used, thus leading to gross misinterpretations.

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.

This↑ was clearly a direct reply to the previous post, which implied that the 'thieves' were stupid for running away, and that since it was 3 against 1, they should have stayed and fought.


I was simply trying to point out that running away was not a dumb thing for them to do. I see it as quite the opposite. Regardless of their reason for doing so, running away was probably the smartest move they made all day. I was just giving a couple possible reasons for why they may have chose to run away.





[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ul519565bb.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by BrokenCircles


wow...

I made sure to "quote" exactly what I was responding in your post. Let me try to "refresh" your memory as to the context for my response...

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.
..

You are assuming that ARMED CRIMINALS "might not want to shoot someone", and my point has been that they are CRIMINALS and you can't assume anything concerning criminals...

Capiche, or no capiche?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

I made sure to "quote" exactly what I was responding in your post.

I didn't want you to quote it. I wanted you to read it, so that you would hopefully make an attempt at correcting your previous misinterpretation.

You're still missing one specific relevant detail: [color=E3CFA6]Why did I make that remark?

I thought you'd be able to comprehend it, after I broke it all down. Apparently, I was wrong.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

You are assuming that ARMED CRIMINALS "might not want to shoot someone", and my point has been that they are CRIMINALS and you can't assume anything concerning criminals...

Nope. That's not even close to being accurate. I was simply providing a couple possibilities, to be used as examples.

Even without the necessary context, it should have been quite obvious that they were merely possibilities, and nothing more.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

[color=F0CF8E]Maybe only 1 of them was armed. [color=F0CF8E]Even if the other 3 were also armed, that [color=F0CF8E]doesn't necessarily mean that they actually wanted to shoot someone.

As I already stated: I don't know what they were or were not thinking.

Pertaining to the perpetrators, the only assumption I made was that running away was most likely the smartest decision they made that entire day. I stand firmly by that assumption, regardless of what their actual reason was, for why they ran away.

Context:

[color=F0C689]1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

Part 1
Part 2

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
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.

edit on 16-5-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

When I said;

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.

I was using hyperbole. Yes, I do believe that martial arts an give people the presence of mind to react fairly well in a violent situation. No, I don't believe it can stop bullets.

I was making fun of people who like to talk so tough about being 2nd amendment armed. We are long past the age when some Rambo with a machine gun is going to "make a stand for Liberty" against the US military. At the very least they can pick him off from 2 miles away with thermal imaging and he wouldn't have time to know he'd been snuffed out.

I'm sorry if I spoiled your opportunity to promote all those fighting styles you learned. Of course, I'd win any hand-to-hand combat with you because I'm quicker and God is on my side. It works that way with the good guys, after all.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


I feel with you trying to discuss things with this ElectricUniverse fellow.

and my point has been that they are CRIMINALS and you can't assume anything concerning criminals...

That's some recursive magic thinking right there. Criminals will do anything because they are criminals? Because we called them that? It's the "brain turns off with magic word" concept we applied to terrorism. People are driven by motives -- even terrorists. They don't often wake up one day, twist their mustache, and say; "I've got to do something evil, because I'm evil." Everybody extreme is righteous. That boot on your neck belongs to a person with God on their side.

Maybe I've misconstrued things --- but to be sure, I'd have to go back and read ANOTHER post of twisted logic. No thanks.

This person also calls everyone stupid -- consider it a badge of honor.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

I feel with you trying to discuss things with this ElectricUniverse fellow.

It definitely wasn't easy.

I wished that the conversation had never began in the first place. One particular problem of mine is that I usually just have to have the last word. I especially have difficulties moving away from a conversation, wherein the other person thinks they have proven me wrong, and I know for a fact that they have not.lol.

I don't like it, but that's just the way it is.