First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect
20753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

DeadlyOats wrote:

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.




Well if he broke into my home that doesn't mean he is a threat to my safety or going to kill me actually if he is unarmed or fleeing i would morally be wrong and legally be wrong to shoot him.

You protect yourself and your family against an ATTACKER you don't just jump to conclusions and assume the unarmed attacker is a killer and shoot...people like that shouldn't own a gun


Learn to be not so trigger happy you can protect your family without killing an unarmed man or women you don't need to kill a home intruder nor should you unless he is definitely a threat to your safety.

In the case that the robber was running or had no weapon that would make him the victim to excessive force.
20753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

ChinaCat89 wrote:

He was committing a crime, and she was protecting her property. It's unfortunate but I don't think she did anything wrong here.


she didn't unless he was unarmed and running away.
20753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

kiltmaker wrote:

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


She shouldn't have shot if she wasn't in danger or he was fleeing or unarmed (and not proceeding towards her)

She shouldn't have shot at all if this was the case because that would make her the criminal.

However if he was a danger was proceeding towards her or had a weapon then she has every right to shoot
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16 , edited 3/14/16

runec wrote:


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.



Wow. Am I literally the only person left on the internet who does not jump off to wild assumptions?

So, first, just because she had security cameras and an alarm system does not mean that the cameras live-streamed the feed to her phone. She may, or may not have, known if it was a false alarm. You do not know if it was "just a signal trip she was responding to". There were cameras. Did they transmit live? You don't know. Did they just record locally? You don't know. Did they transmit to a security company, but not to her cell phone? YOU. DON'T. KNOW.

Either way, it is irrelevant, because while you can argue it was unwise of her to rush home, you can NOT with any credibility claim she did not have the right to be at her OWN HOME.

Next: way to go, Mr False Dilemma. Actually, I'm pretty sure you just committed a half-dozen logical fallacies, but I'm not going to go through each in detail. However, in your hurry to condemn private firearm ownership as useless, you left out:


5: The suspect is armed, but the homeowner shoots the suspect- the majority of petty criminals are kind of idiots, very rarely actually practice with their weapons, and frequently do not even know the basic of operating their weapons. There are plenty of examples out there of moron gun-plumber crooks who think they can stuff any caliber bullet into a gun and make it work (seriously, like.... wrap a .38 special in duct tape to make it fit in the cylinder of a .45 colt. Or buy those red snap-cap dummy rounds because homie on the corner said they were special "poison" bullets. You can't make this stuff up)

6: The suspect is armed and homeowner is not, but the homeowner takes the weapon from the criminal and kills the criminal with it... which is just as likely as the other way around, all things being equal (in this case, of course, they are not equal, as I doubt a 50+ year old woman will hold her own in personal combat with a 17 year old male).

7: The suspect is armed, but neither attacks nor complies, but attempts to flee. The homeowner lets them flee.

8: The suspect is UNarmed, but neither attacks nor complies, but attempts to flee. The homeowner lets them flee.

9: The suspect armed, but neither attacks nor complies, but attempts to flee. The homeowner perceives a threat and fires.


Still, for some reason, you highlight every possible bad option, without any logic behind why you think they are the only possible outcome. Agenda much?

Incidentally, option 4, 7, or 8 are in fact by FAR the most likely: most people, including criminals, rather like living, and know just enough about the legal system to know that the punishment for housebreaking is far preferable to either being found guilty of murder, or being found DEAD.
Posted 3/14/16
It's nice to have a bit of good news on here once in awhile. His family seems like they should just go ahead and join him though.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

Well if he broke into my home that doesn't mean he is a threat to my safety or going to kill me actually if he is unarmed or fleeing i would morally be wrong and legally be wrong to shoot him.

You protect yourself and your family against an ATTACKER you don't just jump to conclusions and assume the unarmed attacker is a killer and shoot...people like that shouldn't own a gun


I agree that there is such a thing as excessive force; however, if someone forces their way into your home, it is a safe assumption that they mean you harm. It's too late to second-guess once they HAVE done you harm, and it's very easy for a perp who entered your home with every intention of harming you to later deny that he meant to hurt anyone, AFTER you have caught him in the act.

Would I shoot someone climbing out the window (if they did not in some way present a direct threat to me or others)? No.

But if I catch you climbing IN my window in the middle of the night, I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I want to live to tomorrow, and if you're breaking into houses, a bullet to the face is an occupational hazard.
2005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
i have no sympathy for this guy, he shouldn't have broken into someone's home , this woman was completely in the right to defend whats hers. To the family- shut your filthy guilt spewing mouths
10595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
we should also consider the consequences if the lady just stood there and stayed quiet as the criminal went his way (whether he actually stole stuff or not). maybe he will come back and rob her again. maybe he'll tell others how easy it is to rob her, making her an even bigger target for thieves and criminals. criminals prefer easier targets, so guess what would happen if nothing was done instead.
28224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16 , edited 3/14/16

outontheop wrote:
Either way, it is irrelevant, because while you can argue it was unwise of her to rush home, you can NOT with any credibility claim she did not have the right to be at her OWN HOME.

Next: way to go, Mr False Predicament. Actually, I'm pretty sure you just committed a half-dozen logical fallacies, but I'm not going to go through each in detail. However, in your hurry to condemn private firearm ownership as useless, you left out:


I made no such claims. If you're going to complain about logical fallacies don't come back with two strawman arguments.



outontheop wrote:Option 5: The suspect is armed, but the homeowner shoots the suspect


Yes, that was an oversight on my part. Not an intentional omission. For that I apologize. It doesn't make sense for me to omit that scenario given that we don't know if the suspect here was armed or not.



outontheop wrote:
- the majority of petty criminals are kind of idiots, very rarely actually practice with their weapons, and frequently do not even know the basic of operating their weapons. There are plenty of examples out there of moron gun-plumber crooks who think they can stuff any caliber bullet into a gun and make it work (seriously, like.... wrap a .38 special in duct tape to make it fit in the cylinder of a .45 colt. Or buy those red snap-cap dummy rounds because homie on the corner said they were special "poison" bullets. You can't make this stuff up)


There are also plenty of examples of gun owners making equally stupid if not more stupid mistakes. Stupid people with guns will do stupid things regardless of whether they legally own the firearm or not.





outontheop wrote:Still, for some reason, you highlight every possible bad option, without any logic behind why you think they are the only possible outcome. Agenda much?


Thus far you have accused me of implying the woman has no right to her own home and of rushing to condemn private firearm ownership. Neither of which I did. I am not the one with an "agenda" here.




outontheop wrote:
Incidentally, option 4 is in fact by FAR the most likely: most people, including criminals, rather like living, and know just enough about the legal system to know that the punishment for housebreaking is far preferable to either being found guilty of murder, or being found DEAD.


No, it's not. Guns do not deter crime ( feel free to check with the FBI or any number of studies ). More guns simply means more guns being used by all involved. If gun control laws were better there might be a disparity between "bad guys" and "good guys" with guns. But they are not despite the majority of Americans wanting at least some common sense gun control.

Which is ultimately my point: Introducing a firearm into a situation only, obviously, increases the chance of someone being shot and the statistics don't care if its the "right" person or not. Obviously there are scenarios where this risk is acceptable such as self defense. But in this case the situation did not require the intervention of lethal force. It only allegedly required it after she confronted the situation herself instead of waiting for police who were, as you pointed out, only "seconds" away.

Yes, it is her property and her right to be on her property. I made no argument otherwise. My argument is that someone did not have to die here. Whether or not popular opinion decides the person "deserved" it or not after the fact is irrelevant. The sentence for burglary is not death. She could have just as easily been killed herself as well.

Regardless, I assume and hope we will have clearer answers as to what happened after they pull footage from her cameras.



8984 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M
Offline
Posted 3/14/16
I have too many questions to say whether or not the lady in question was justified in shooting the teenager. Questions like:

Did her security system's information seem to suggest that this was the real breech, rather than a false alarm?

Has she been the victim of a violent crime or robbery in the past?

Does she have a past that suggest that she she isn't - or is - a responsible gun owner?

Did the teenager try to attack her, or move in a fashion that led her to think she was going to be attacked?

Was the teenager visibly armed?

Did she warn the teenager - or demand that he stop - before firing?

Since I don't have the answers to these, and other questions, I'll just state the following :

I am not a gun owner. I have not shot a rifle in years. But I have in the past. And I was taught that a gun is dangerous. I have been told that if you pull a gun, you should be prepared to use it - and to accept the consequences of using it. That bullets won't stop just because you want them to. (Warning shots can end up hitting people. Completely innocent and uninvolved people.) And I have been told that unless you are extremely good with firearms, that shooting to wound or disarm someone is one of the stupidest things you can do with a firearm.

In my personal opinion, choosing to rob someone's home is more than a bit like drinking and driving. It is a crime. It can result in various damages, injuries, and even deaths; even before legal considerations come into play. By itself, dying due to it is a rather sub-optimal outcome, especially if you aren't the drunk driver - or even in the drunk driver's vehicle. But it can happen. And when it does happen, I'd honestly rather have the only person to die be the drunk driver in question.

Maybe the lady shouldn't have shot the teenager. But the teenager should have definitely not been trying to exit her house through the window after the house had been broken into. So, given the information I currently have, I just hope that the lady doesn't get charged with murder, or gets sued by the teenager's relatives.

10595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

CluelessProgram wrote:Has she been the victim of a violent crime or robbery in the past?


the article omits this info, but yes, she was robbed in the past, which is why she installed the security cameras.
27597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 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.


2 people doing the wrong thing? There were two burglars? I thought it was only one?
27597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

CluelessProgram wrote:

I have too many questions to say whether or not the lady in question was justified in shooting the teenager. Questions like:

Did her security system's information seem to suggest that this was the real breech, rather than a false alarm?

Has she been the victim of a violent crime or robbery in the past?

Does she have a past that suggest that she she isn't - or is - a responsible gun owner?

Did the teenager try to attack her, or move in a fashion that led her to think she was going to be attacked?

Was the teenager visibly armed?

Did she warn the teenager - or demand that he stop - before firing?

Since I don't have the answers to these, and other questions, I'll just state the following :

I am not a gun owner. I have not shot a rifle in years. But I have in the past. And I was taught that a gun is dangerous. I have been told that if you pull a gun, you should be prepared to use it - and to accept the consequences of using it. That bullets won't stop just because you want them to. (Warning shots can end up hitting people. Completely innocent and uninvolved people.) And I have been told that unless you are extremely good with firearms, that shooting to wound or disarm someone is one of the stupidest things you can do with a firearm.

In my personal opinion, choosing to rob someone's home is more than a bit like drinking and driving. It is a crime. It can result in various damages, injuries, and even deaths; even before legal considerations come into play. By itself, dying due to it is a rather sub-optimal outcome, especially if you aren't the drunk driver - or even in the drunk driver's vehicle. But it can happen. And when it does happen, I'd honestly rather have the only person to die be the drunk driver in question.

Maybe the lady shouldn't have shot the teenager. But the teenager should have definitely not been trying to exit her house through the window after the house had been broken into. So, given the information I currently have, I just hope that the lady doesn't get charged with murder, or gets sued by the teenager's relatives.



He's dead Jim.
27597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 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.


Come to my house and try to rob me white boy, I got something for you. You rob a mans house, be prepared to die.

Never been robbed have you? never had someone come into your house and try to rob and kill your family have you? I have. Only young white punks talk like this. Well I'm going to warn you up front, this black man will shoot to kill if you come into my house with the intent to rob or hurt me. I don't give a shit about your pussy ass ideology, nobody, but nobody is ever coming into my home ever again! to rob or kill my family, you will die. You think I live in fear?!! damn straight!! Once in a life time is enough!
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/14/16

runec wrote:

I made no such claims. If you're going to complain about logical fallacies don't come back with two strawman arguments.


Yes, you claimed that the ONLY outcomes were the ones you outlined. You also stated that she obviously rushed home to catch the intruder (which you do not know), and that she "tried to play police", which... well, is legal. If you catch someone doing something illegal, citizen's arrest.

Yes, that was an oversight on my part. Not an intentional omission. For that I apologize. It doesn't make sense for me to omit that scenario given that we don't know if the suspect here was armed or not.


runec wrote:

Thus far you have accused me of implying the woman has no right to her own home and of rushing to condemn private firearm ownership. Neither of which I did. I am not the one with an "agenda" here.


No, I stated that you (as in anyone) cannot argue that she had no right to be there, and stated that you had very selectively chosen only the negative outcomes of the situation. Both of which are true. I heavily implied that you seemed to do so to push an agenda, and you have given me no reason to change my opinion.


runec wrote:

No, it's not. Guns do not deter crime ( feel free to check with the FBI or any number of studies ). More guns simply means more guns being used by all involved. If gun control laws were better there might be a disparity between "bad guys" and "good guys" with guns. But they are not despite the majority of Americans wanting at least some common sense gun control.


I think you are confusing deterrence in the context of overall crime rate in an area, versus deterring an attacker in a specific case. The presence of firearms in the area may not affect overall rate (arguable, but I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole), but having a firearm drawn on them DOES deter individual criminals at the time of the incident from continuing their aggressive activity.


runec wrote:
Which is ultimately my point: Introducing a firearm into a situation only, obviously, increases the chance of someone being shot and the statistics don't care if its the "right" person or not. Obviously there are scenarios where this risk is acceptable such as self defense. But in this case the situation did not require the intervention of lethal force. It only allegedly required it after she confronted the situation herself instead of waiting for police who were, as you pointed out, only "seconds" away.


Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. You don't know, and neither does anyone else here. But people are jumping to conclusions anyhow.


runec wrote: She could have just as easily been killed herself as well.


Oh, well, if she could have just as easily been killed, then it's a good thing she shot him first, right?

Seriously, this stupid "criminals will just pull the guns from your hands and use them against you" narrative is the most intellectually flawed premise ever. To believe it has any merit presupposes that all law-abiding citizens are idiots who cannot retain their own firearm, while all criminals are kung-fu masters who can ninja-snatch a gun away from anyone.

So, a criminal with a gun is an unstoppable killing machine and you can never take away their gun, but a law-abiding citizen with a gun is completely impotent? Please.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.