First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect
33051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

ZenZaku wrote:

I don't know about this one it's a little fuzzy. I mean she comes rushing home when she gets word of the break in, finds him exiting her house. I'm not sure what the confrontation was but if it happened inside the home, or if he re-entered the house then I'd say she's within her right of defending herself from possible threat.

However if he was halfway out of the window and set to run off the property, not much of a threat now. WHich makes it hard to say, without knowign more about the confrontation, whether she was justified.

Really though woman should have never gone into the house without waiting for police. CPL holder or not.


Yea, but in situations like this I don't think it's easy to think rationally... for both the aggressor and defender.
20737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 3/14/16

outontheop wrote:


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.


from what people have said here he apparently was leaving the scene.

still even if he didn't he had no weapon apparently so shooting him is extreme...a warning shot would work better and be legal.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16 , edited 3/14/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

from what people have said here he apparently was leaving the scene.

still even if he didn't he had no weapon apparently so shooting him is extreme...a warning shot would work better and be legal.


See, now this is the problem with the world today: intellectual laziness. The article says that the woman came home to find the guy climbing out the window. It does not then explain what subsequently happened between that time and the time the shots were fired. However, as the new media has repeatedly foisted the "innocent kid (who oh-by-the-way was engaged in criminal activity) was brutally murdered by heartless vigilante/ police" narrative so heavily the past few years, people just assume that means the criminal was attempting to passively flee and was somehow obviously no threat to the shooter.

All that is stated is that the woman went home to check on her house alarm, saw the robber climbing out her house window, then *something* happened, and the robber was shot shortly before the police arrived. That *something* part is kind of important, and is entirely speculative right now. It is stated there was a confrontation before the shooting, but not the nature of that confrontation (Verbal argument? Stare-down? Robber trying to beat the hell out of an old woman? Dunno; it doesn't say!), nor who initiated the confrontation.

The robber's COUSIN, who WAS NOT THERE, stated the homeowner "waited until he was out the yard or something" to shoot him, but that is not proof of anything except that the robber has a cousin who is prone to wild-ass speculation. This is, mind you, the same cousin that also appears to believe that being from "the hood" gives people the right to invade and burglarize other people's homes to get money for new clothes.

The media narrative is so strong *you* have even explicitly assumed the robber was unarmed, though the article makes no mention of his being unarmed or armed, one way or another.

Also, other reporting outright states "it is not clear if he was armed" http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article65319257.html

edit: I would also note that it was not an official source with placement and access to actually *know* who says he didn't actually steal anything: it was the robber's own family and friends who said he didn't. The homeowner and police, who are the only ones in any position to say one way or another, have not commented.

*edit 2: Also, no, warning shots are NOT legal (they count as reckless discharge of a firearm in most locales; if there is not sufficient self-defense justification for an aimed shot, there is not enough for a "warning shot".... and merely presenting- IE showing- the gun has the same effect as a warning shot: it shows you possess a gun.) Warning shots are, in fact, wildly irresponsible. That bullet is going to go *somewhere*. It doesn't just magically stop in mid-air because it was intended as a "warning" shot. I happen to have personally witnessed a kid (in Iraq) dying because someone fired a "warning shot" at someone else (who was, in all fairness, acting aggressively enough the shooter should have gone straight to the kill shot). Ricochets still carry plenty more than enough energy to kill someone.
13129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 3/14/16

outontheop wrote:


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.


Whats wrong with speaking about the information we presently have? If more information comes out, I would gladly change my position, but there is no reason for me to not state my opinion about the situation from the information given.

You are certainly working yourself up into a bit of a tiff over a few people stating an opinion about the information on hand.
1108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
He shouldn't have been in her home in the first place. Nobody's fault but his own. I wish we could defend ourselves and our property with lethal force here in the UK...
10593 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Online
Posted 3/14/16
the prompt response from the old lady suggests that she's not unfamiliar with burglary cases, and maybe she was already a victim herself. according to same news site, there's a rise in younger criminals and gun violence in Miami


"We’ve noticed a trend lately where criminals are becoming younger and younger, and more and more violent. And that is a struggle,” said Miami-Dade Police Major Ricky Carter.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/03/03/miami-police-vow-crime-crackdown-using-technology-community-help/

of course, she had no way of knowing whether he was armed or not, but given the rise in crimes and gun violence by the youngster in Miami, it's probably not unreasonable to assume that she felt threatened in some way (possibly moments before a shot was fired)
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

sundin13 wrote:


outontheop wrote:


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.


Whats wrong with speaking about the information we presently have? If more information comes out, I would gladly change my position, but there is no reason for me to not state my opinion about the situation from the information given.

You are certainly working yourself up into a bit of a tiff over a few people stating an opinion about the information on hand.


There's nothing wrong with speaking about the information we presently have, but at present, as I pointed out, we cannot state that the homeowner did anything "wrong", only perhaps "foolish".

I'm in no "tiff" whatsoever; I am quite emotionally calm at the moment. However, I do feel obliged to point out the facts of the matter and help people maintain a more logical perspective.

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

namealreadytaken wrote:

the prompt response from the old lady suggests that she's not unfamiliar with burglary cases, and maybe she was already a victim herself. according to same news site, there's a rise in younger criminals and gun violence in Miami


"We’ve noticed a trend lately where criminals are becoming younger and younger, and more and more violent. And that is a struggle,” said Miami-Dade Police Major Ricky Carter.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/03/03/miami-police-vow-crime-crackdown-using-technology-community-help/

of course, she had no way of knowing whether he was armed or not, but given the rise in crimes and gun violence by the youngster in Miami, it's probably not unreasonable to assume that she felt threatened in some way (possibly moments before a shot was fired)


The link to the other newspaper's coverage of it, which I provided, indicates her home had been burgled before, and that is what prompted her to install the security device.

*edit, oops, wasn't the one I linked earlier, was in the video on this one: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/03/11/teen-burglary-suspect-killed-homeowner/
10593 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Online
Posted 3/14/16
hmm..interesting that that bit of information was completely omitted in the article.
in fact, the article was written almost as if to put the entire blame on the old lady.
23206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Long Island
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
He was committing a crime, and she was protecting her property. It's unfortunate but I don't think she did anything wrong here.
2360 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / The Bay
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
She was 100% allowed to shoot the "kid", and I'm happy she did. It's stupid that people are trying to defend the actual criminal, don't believe most news sources anymore, they're usually omitting information to support themselves. Even reading the quotes from the kids family and his defense, you know very well that they're a bunch of criminals. How else is a 17 year old supposed to get a job? Obviously this was his only option to support his bright "future".

In before #BlackLivesMatter try to say that he was shot because he was black and this racist lady should have let him "support his future"

Also to those who say she only should have shot if the intruder was armed, you never wait and see if someone's armed, by the time you see if they're armed your already on the ground.
68892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
East Coast
Online
Posted 3/14/16
Those who say she should not have shot should tell that to all the women who have been subjected to home break-in and been raped and/or kidnapped. 100 years ago people would leave their houses unlocked. Unfortunately that time has passed. To me, seeing him climb out of the window gives a clear message of intent. If he had just been knocking at the door this might have been different, but such is not the case in this instance. If you want examples, just look at all the women who have been ganged raped in Sweden and Germany recently
28210 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

outontheop wrote:
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"?


She has surveillance cameras set up over the windows. It wasn't just a signal trip she was responding too. So yes, she rushed home armed to confront an intruder and confronted him as he was exiting the home through a window. Likely cutting off his escape and cornering him. Her home had already been robbed in the past so she had motivation to catch someone in the act not just check on her home.

So the likely scenario is that she caught him on the way out and tried to play police by holding him there until the actual police arrived. This all occurred in broad daylight so there's no "It was dark I couldn't see what he was doing" explanation.

Putting yourself into this kind of situation instead of waiting for police basically only has 4 outcomes:

1. The suspect is unarmed and gets killed or injured.
2. The suspect is armed and you get killed or injured.
3. The suspect takes your weapon and you are killed or injured.
4. The suspect obligingly lays down on the ground for you and goes along with you playing cop.

4 is by far the least likely.





37315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
You people who would rather wait and see if the burglar will harm you are a bunchy of sheep. A wolf brakes into your pen, threatens your safety, but you want to wait to see if the wolf actually starts eating you, before you do something about it.....?

Fine, if that's how you want it, then let the burglar hurt/kill you and your kids. I'm going to mow the damned wolf down. Don't tell me how to protect..., or how not to protect me and mine.
20737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 3/14/16

outontheop wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

from what people have said here he apparently was leaving the scene.

still even if he didn't he had no weapon apparently so shooting him is extreme...a warning shot would work better and be legal.


See, now this is the problem with the world today: intellectual laziness. The article says that the woman came home to find the guy climbing out the window. It does not then explain what subsequently happened between that time and the time the shots were fired. However, as the new media has repeatedly foisted the "innocent kid (who oh-by-the-way was engaged in criminal activity) was brutally murdered by heartless vigilante/ police" narrative so heavily the past few years, people just assume that means the criminal was attempting to passively flee and was somehow obviously no threat to the shooter.

All that is stated is that the woman went home to check on her house alarm, saw the robber climbing out her house window, then *something* happened, and the robber was shot shortly before the police arrived. That *something* part is kind of important, and is entirely speculative right now. It is stated there was a confrontation before the shooting, but not the nature of that confrontation (Verbal argument? Stare-down? Robber trying to beat the hell out of an old woman? Dunno; it doesn't say!), nor who initiated the confrontation.

The robber's COUSIN, who WAS NOT THERE, stated the homeowner "waited until he was out the yard or something" to shoot him, but that is not proof of anything except that the robber has a cousin who is prone to wild-ass speculation. This is, mind you, the same cousin that also appears to believe that being from "the hood" gives people the right to invade and burglarize other people's homes to get money for new clothes.

The media narrative is so strong *you* have even explicitly assumed the robber was armed, though the article makes no mention of his being unarmed or armed, one way or another.

Also, other reporting outright states "it is not clear if he was armed" http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article65319257.html

edit: I would also note that it was not an official source with placement and access to actually *know* who says he didn't actually steal anything: it was the robber's own family and friends who said he didn't. The homeowner and police, who are the only ones in any position to say one way or another, have not commented.

*edit 2: Also, no, warning shots are NOT legal (they count as reckless discharge of a firearm in most locales; if there is not sufficient self-defense justification for an aimed shot, there is not enough for a "warning shot".... and merely presenting- IE showing- the gun has the same effect as a warning shot: it shows you possess a gun.) Warning shots are, in fact, wildly irresponsible. That bullet is going to go *somewhere*. It doesn't just magically stop in mid-air because it was intended as a "warning" shot. I happen to have personally witnessed a kid (in Iraq) dying because someone fired a "warning shot" at someone else (who was, in all fairness, acting aggressively enough the shooter should have gone straight to the kill shot). Ricochets still carry plenty more than enough energy to kill someone.




well i was just going off of what others told me but warning shots whilst not legal are better then illegally killing someone running from the scene or unarmed (if what everyone else is saying is true)

Either way shooting when they are running or not a threat is wrong and should be a jailable offence if this is what actually happened.

But lets just hope he initiated the violence and the owner isn't trigger happy eh?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.