First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect
27486 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Kaguya's Panties
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
Someone tries breaking into my house, the first thing I'm doing is shooting to kill. Doesn't matter in the slightest who they are or what they're normally like. DON'T BREAK INTO PEOPLES HOMES AND TRY TO STEAL.
16127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Bay Area, CA
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

MadBovine wrote:

A very large amount of alarms that go off are in fact false alarms. It's a fact, police usually don't even respond to them unless someone calls it in as an actual break-in. So it is very possible she was just going home to reset the alarm and was surprised to find an actual intruder. Main point is, you can't just assume she was looking to shoot someone, the article doesn't give enough details to make any judgements to be honest.


This is true. Plus some cities actually fine you if they respond to a false alarm. It ain't cheap either. I could see the urgency to get home to reset it just to avoid a potential fine.
37319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

relt95 wrote:

Stop trying to turn the criminals into the victims...


EXACTLY SO!!!

It's the anti-gun and anti-defend your family lobbyists, and the blind sheep that follow them, who would find that a criminal who endangered the lives and safety of a family was the victim, while the individual who stood up to defend the safety of their children is the bad guy!

If you can honestly say that you would let a criminal harm your family, because you thought, "Poor criminal. He's had it rough..." Then you are no more than an utter fool who is unable to, or unwilling to, fight to protect his children!
Posted 3/14/16
If she shot him while he was escaping, then that is against the law in some states. Heck, even police can't legally shoot some suspects unless they pose a grave danger to the public in some states. However, by confronting him, it may have given her legal actions to shoot.
Posted 3/14/16

relt95 wrote:

Stop trying to turn the criminals into the victims...


^ This.
Banned
6934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
In a basket of de...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
Hopefully more criminals get shot dead soon.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16 , edited 3/14/16

sundin13 wrote:

I agree that there is not an excuse to break into someone's home, but the death penalty does not fit the crime. When you are fleeing the scene, can you call that self defense? While it may be legal (not entirely sure the laws surrounding loss of property), and I'm not sure about the details about the "confrontation", but whatever the case, this seems to be a case of two people doing the wrong thing.


You are doing an awful lot of presupposing.

When the robber broke in, he was doing the WRONG thing.

When the owner rushed home after being notified their home had been broken into, they were doing a BRASH thing, but not morally wrong. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with checking up on or personally securing your belongings.

What may have happened that provoked the shooting is unknown. If the robber rushed the homeowner with an improvised weapon (or purpose-built weapon: the article says "shots were fired", but makes no mention who initiated the gunfire), the homeowner acted in legitimate self defense. If the robber rushed the homeowner with bare hands, there was still cause for legitimate self defense. If the homeowner just shot him because she was angry, then she was morally and legally wrong. But we can't yet judge that, without further information

Except, you already have.
Banned
6934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
In a basket of de...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16 , edited 3/14/16
Only criminals mourn the deaths of other criminals. The rest of us just want to celebrate.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16 , edited 3/14/16

runec wrote:


D4nc3Style wrote:
Something happened that resorted in her shooting him, he wasn't fleeing when he was shot.


She rushed home to confront him herself though. There's self defense and then there's vigilantism. Also, the article straight up states he was leaving the home when he was confronted.



namealreadytaken wrote:
home intrusion. use of gun was justified (self-defense) harsh, but true. some people might complain that the kid did not pose a thread, but those people likely never experienced home intrusion, burglary, theft, etc.


She was not home at the time. She went home after her security system alerted her to a break in. So she was looking for and found a confrontation. When she found him he was leaving through the window. Its doubtful he would climb back IN to the house through the window to confront an armed homeowner inside. So she probably caught him outside as he was leaving and confronted him.

That's not self defense and it doesn't matter fuck all what the kid's story is one way or another because the penalty for burglary is not death.


If you get a text alert from your security alarm, how do you know if someone's breaking in, or it's just a false alarm? Going home to check may have been *foolish*, but I very much doubt this older woman rushed home with blood in her eyes just ITCHING to shoot someone. It's far more likely her motivation was to check on her home. How do you know she had not ALSO called the police, but arrived before them? In fact, I'm going to go with "that's exactly what happened", because how else do you explain the police arriving "seconds after the shooting"?
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

TotalQuirk wrote:


relt95 wrote:

Stop trying to turn the criminals into the victims...


^ This.


well they are technically victims if they are killed from excessive violence that was unnecessary when it's because of robbery...

shooting someone who is fleeing the scene is literally turning them to the victim...
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 3/14/16 , edited 3/14/16
As someone who grew up in that sort of life I can see why he would attempt to burglarize someones home. It's easy and if you're careful you won't get caught. Doesn't make it right (or smart for that matter) to do such a thing though. Shooting him might be a bit excessive (this is coming from a gun lover too). You could always just detain him... A guy like that will almost certainly run/submit in that situation when you grow up from that lifestyle. I doubt she was in any real danger, but as I don't know the details of the "confrontation" I can't be sure of what happened or if she felt threatened enough to shoot.

In the end it sounds like each party made an unwise decision.
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


relt95 wrote:

Stop trying to turn the criminals into the victims...


EXACTLY SO!!!

It's the anti-gun and anti-defend your family lobbyists, and the blind sheep that follow them, who would find that a criminal who endangered the lives and safety of a family was the victim, while the individual who stood up to defend the safety of their children is the bad guy!

If you can honestly say that you would let a criminal harm your family, because you thought, "Poor criminal. He's had it rough..." Then you are no more than an utter fool who is unable to, or unwilling to, fight to protect his children!


They are victims when you shoot them whilst they are fleeing that is called excessive violence and does not count as self defense if they are fleeing the scene.

Yes they broke into your house and stole shit they are a criminal and deserve to be punished however shooting them is not a reasonable response nor a legal response.

If he was a danger to the women and had a weapon then by all means she could shoot but from what we have here the victim just made herself just as much in the wrong as the thief.

Protecting your children and family is one thing but shooting an unarmed robber who is fleeing is another.
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

dotsforlife wrote:

As someone who grew up in that sort of life I can see why he would attempt to burglarize someones home. It's easy and if you're careful you won't get caught. Doesn't make it right (or smart for that matter) to do such a thing though. Shooting him might be a bit excessive (this is coming from a gun lover too). You could always just detain him... A guy like that will almost certainly run/submit in that situation when you grow up from that lifestyle. I doubt she was in any real danger, but as I don't know the details of the "confrontation" I can't be sure of what happened or if she felt threatened enough to shoot.


depending on where she is it doesn't matter if she felt threatened or not she was mad and in possesion of a gun she isn't likely to make a rational decision to not kill an unarmed man fleeing the scene for instance and probably would do so and make it up that he was a threat when he wasn't.

Now i hope this is not the case but....some people do shit like this and honestly it makes them just as bad as the criminal :/
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16 , edited 3/14/16

kinga750 wrote:

Both sides are wrong. Kid should not have stolen, took a risk breaking into a stranger's home. Woman overreacted. Shouldn't shoot/kill someone unless your life is in danger. Pretty simple. It's a tragic story.

I personally can't see charging the woman with a crime, but hopefully she gets rid of the gun. Clearly she's not level headed enough to own one.


Assumption much?

How do you know that the shooting was not a perfectly justifiable, logical, and sane response from the woman? Fully-grown 17 year-old against 54-year-old woman. Can you definitively say that he didn't try to escape by physically attacking her? Because I can't say; the article doesn't mention one way or another.

As to her rushing home: she has EVERY RIGHT to be on her own property, and to check on the welfare of her belongings. You can perhaps call it foolish, but not wrong.

24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


relt95 wrote:

Stop trying to turn the criminals into the victims...


EXACTLY SO!!!

It's the anti-gun and anti-defend your family lobbyists, and the blind sheep that follow them, who would find that a criminal who endangered the lives and safety of a family was the victim, while the individual who stood up to defend the safety of their children is the bad guy!

If you can honestly say that you would let a criminal harm your family, because you thought, "Poor criminal. He's had it rough..." Then you are no more than an utter fool who is unable to, or unwilling to, fight to protect his children!


They are victims when you shoot them whilst they are fleeing that is called excessive violence and does not count as self defense if they are fleeing the scene.

Yes they broke into your house and stole shit they are a criminal and deserve to be punished however shooting them is not a reasonable response nor a legal response.

If he was a danger to the women and had a weapon then by all means she could shoot but from what we have here the victim just made herself just as much in the wrong as the thief.

Protecting your children and family is one thing but shooting an unarmed robber who is fleeing is another.


If. IF. You don't know that he was passively fleeing the scene, you are ASSUMING that he was.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.