First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
AR15 stops Three baddies in home invasion
runec 
40048 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Uh, she drove 3 armed men to a residence and supposedly was the one to order them to rob it. They could've raped, tortured and murdered the occupants. If you don't want to be held responsible for the bad shit that happens when you decide to do stuff like this, don't do it in the first place.


Don't even start dude. The charges are a stretch. But, it is Oklahoma. They're effectively charging her with the crimes of the other three then using that to charge her with first degree murder.



Amyas_Leigh wrote:
I imagine he probably yelled 'get the fuck out' and they refused or threatened and were shot. In all articles I've read it said both the father and son were home, and that the son reacted when he heard the back door being broken into.


You would have to be pretty stupid to bum rush someone with an AR-15 even after being confronted and verbally engaged. Especially when between the 3 of you, you only have a knife and one set of brass knuckles ( wat ). But from an investigative standpoint there are questions there that need answering just to make sure everything is as it says it is. If they did actually bum rush someone with an AR-15, well...

But, again, this is Oklahoma and I don't live in America let alone a kill happy state like Oklahoma. When it comes to self-defense Everywhere Else(tm) the use of force still has to be reasonable. Someone's life isn't automatically forfeit because you caught them on your porch.



Amyas_Leigh wrote:Local outlets reported the son as 19 first, not just Fox btw.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/28/oklahoma-home-invasion-shooting-suspected-getaway-driver-arrested.html


The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. Some reports indicted the rifle was an AR-15.


Fox also says 23 now. There's definitely some crossed details going on either from the cops themselves or confused local affiliates I guess. Fox is also noting that investigators say more charges could be pending to.
27134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Ryulightorb wrote:

If they had weapons that's fine but if they didn't have weapons no one should have died unless they attacked that's the end of the story.


A knife is a viable weapon I believe, so fists, which may be unknown to the shooter, especially with the presence of 3 thieves. There is no issue of fairness or honor when it comes to a fight. When you fight for your lives, you fight to win, and this often lies in who can get the first shot in. The bigger question is, was the shooters life in danger, or did he reason to believe it, and were the thieves effectively neutralized "before" their deaths?

It is hard to categorize these situations into simple categories. They all involve different people, different motives, and different circumstances. It could have ended in many ways.

In any case, I consider breaking in to be the move of an aggressor. I also expect people to natural prioritize lives, especially those of family and friends, and I cannot blame them.

People should not break into houses to begin with.



31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

A knife is a viable weapon I believe, so fists, which may be unknown to the shooter, especially with the presence of 3 thieves. There is no issue of fairness or honor when it comes to a fight. When you fight for your lives, you fight to win, and this often lies in who can get the first shot in. The bigger question is, was the shooters life in danger, or did he reason to believe it, and were the thieves effectively neutralized "before" their deaths?

It is hard to categorize these situations into simple categories. They all involve different people, different motives, and different circumstances. It could have ended in many ways.

In any case, I consider breaking in to be the move of an aggressor.






Knife yes fists yes however the guy with the gun had the upper hand he should always try to scare them off first.

but the circumstances are always different.

Breaking in is not an aggressive move it's a criminal move alot of thieves are not even agressive and will run away at confrontation atleast where i live they are.

I disagree with this whole "your in my house so i get to kill you" bullshit unless they are an obvious threat or getting close enough to you to hurt you it's your obligation to scare them off i believe if they don't leave then well fire away.
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Ryulightorb wrote:



It's as if people think you don't have time to think in a house robbery it makes me doubt many people here have been in many house robberies in their life.



House robberies are not a normal thing man.
You don't have time to think unless you want to end up getting your throat cut by some thugs who just want a few bucks for their fix.
Why is it the responsibility of the homeowner to 'access' the situation? Why can't home invaders just not commit crimes? We live in a country where even the poorest of the poor have to have willpower and TRY not to eat themselves into morbid obesity, its not like they were burgling to survive.
For the record, my house was almost broken into when I was home alone with my sister when I was 13. They were beating on the front and back doors and saying they were going to kill us if we didn't let them in. If I had a gun at that time I would have shot through the door 100%.
309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
61 / M / Toledo, Ohio
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17
Myself....if someone breaks in and poses a THREAT to My Life...I will teach Them the FINE Art of Knife Fighting....MUCH TO THEIR DISMAY !
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:



It's as if people think you don't have time to think in a house robbery it makes me doubt many people here have been in many house robberies in their life.



House robberies are not a normal thing man.
You don't have time to think unless you want to end up getting your throat cut by some thugs who just want a few bucks for their fix.
Why is it the responsibility of the homeowner to 'access' the situation? Why can't home invaders just not commit crimes? We live in a country where even the poorest of the poor have to have willpower and TRY not to eat themselves into morbid obesity, its not like they were burgling to survive.
For the record, my house was almost broken into when I was home alone with my sister when I was 13. They were beating on the front and back doors and saying they were going to kill us if we didn't let them in. If I had a gun at that time I would have shot through the door 100%.



You do have time to think i have been in enough to tell you that is complete bullshit.
The invaders can't commit crimes but the homeowner can't kill them either.

In the case you said you would have had right to kill them.

Both times i have been robbed the attacker had no intention to hurt me and was unarmed and ran away from confrontation.
If they don't run away from confrontation then they have motives to attack you.

The home owner is responsible for their own actions including those of killing someone who shouldn't be killed unless it comes down to it.

As i said though your views are those of a typical Americans i guess it's mostly cultural the shoot first ask questions later attitude i just personally find it disgusting as anyone can have time to think.

Even in fight or flight mode you have time to think rationally if you aren't capable of that then i would consider that worrying personally.
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

tuzzy wrote:

Myself....if someone breaks in and poses a THREAT to My Life...I will teach Them the FINE Art of Knife Fighting....MUCH TO THEIR DISMAY !


if they are a threat and won't leave i say chop them the fuck up
27134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Ryulightorb wrote:

Knife yes fists yes however the guy with the gun had the upper hand he should always try to scare them off first.

but the circumstances are always different.

Breaking in is not an aggressive move it's a criminal move alot of thieves are not even agressive and will run away at confrontation atleast where i live they are.

I disagree with this whole "your in my house so i get to kill you" bullshit unless they are an obvious threat or getting close enough to you to hurt you it's your obligation to scare them off i believe if they don't leave then well fire away.


I believe it is an aggressive move, regardless of the personality of the people doing it. They are taking advantage of someone's or some people's inability to guard their belongings so that they may take them, by going on their property, bypassing their defenses, and so forth. All of those actions appear to correlate with the definition of aggressive, to promotes one's welfare at the sake of others.

I am not terribly sure about this case. I was only responding to the article because you appear to have reference weaponless aggressors should be dealt with differently. I believe that with coordination they can overwhelm a shooter, especially in the interior of a home likely to be full of obstacles. It is possible.

In any case, the law protects against summary executions, if it can be proven that the thieves were shot while fleeing or that they surrendered and were shot.


Scaring them off as a legal requirement seems unwieldy to force on all situations, which invariable is what a law would do, since specific situations and circumstances are rarely dictated.
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I believe it is an aggressive move, regardless of the personality of the people doing it. They are taking advantage of someone's or some people's inability to guard their belongings so that they may take them, by going on their property, bypassing their defenses, and so forth. All of those actions appear to correlate with the definition of aggressive, to promotes one's welfare at the sake of others.

I am not terribly sure about this case. I was only responding to the article because you appear to have reference weaponless aggressors should be dealt with differently. I believe that with coordination they can overwhelm a shooter, especially in the interior of a home likely to be full of obstacles. It is possible.

In any case, the law protects against summary executions, if it can be proven that the thieves were shot while fleeing or that they surrendered and were shot.


Scaring them off as a legal requirement seems unwieldy to force on all situations, which invariable is what a law would do, since specific situations and circumstances are rarely dictated.



Well we will have to agree to disagree.
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


You do have time to think i have been in enough to tell you that is complete bullshit.
The invaders can't commit crimes but the homeowner can't kill them either.

In the case you said you would have had right to kill them.

Both times i have been robbed the attacker had no intention to hurt me and was unarmed and ran away from confrontation.
If they don't run away from confrontation then they have motives to attack you.
.


Wut.
Since you like anecdotes here's a nice one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders



Right well that doesn't change that fact that it's bullshit to attack someone who isn't a danger you should always access the situation first.

I doubt i will see America evolve past this primitive view set it holds though you guys are stuck in your way with the shoot to kill attitude no offence i just find it very stupid and wrong on many levels.

The link you sent they were obviously threats if they had weapons.
3871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


tuzzy wrote:

Myself....if someone breaks in and poses a THREAT to My Life...I will teach Them the FINE Art of Knife Fighting....MUCH TO THEIR DISMAY !


if they are a threat and won't leave i say chop them the fuck up ;)


wow...

so this is where the culture difference is shot them death vs chopping them up

if you chopped them up even if they are armed.. you will be going to prison for manslaughter...

you have the right to defend yourself/your family/property against any threat but within the law's limits

breaking into another person's house is stupid since according to the law the homeowner are allowed to defend it.. the only times i see the homeowner being charged is if the robbers are already on the public streets or they were killed execution style..

this is the reason why the authority will not give out advice of what you should or should not do in each situation.. since you don't know what will happen during a robbery..


btw.. someone quoted me in this thread before? i thought it was from the car thread



31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

dulun18 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


tuzzy wrote:

Myself....if someone breaks in and poses a THREAT to My Life...I will teach Them the FINE Art of Knife Fighting....MUCH TO THEIR DISMAY !


if they are a threat and won't leave i say chop them the fuck up ;)


wow...

so this is where the culture difference is shot them death vs chopping ..

if you chopped them up even if they are armed.. you will be going to prison for manslaughter.


btw.. someone quoted me in this thread before.. i missed that





well yeah i mean personally i wouldn't chop them up but killing them with a weapon when they are ARMED that's fine just not when they aren't a threat.

that's how we are over here atleast.
7198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17
They broke into a home. This was their choice. Nobody made them do this. At any time before doing this they could have stopped. They did not. They faced the consequences of their actions. All of this could have been avoided if these criminals had not broke into the house.

It doesn't matter if they were armed or not. If someone breaks into my house I am not waiting to find out of they are armed or not. They are getting shot and then double tapped.

In this case they were armed. Dunno if the person should be called a hero but I find nothing morally or legally objectionable about what he did.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

MadBovine wrote:

Like perhaps it was a scheme between her and the homeowner's son to kill the three others. That would be the ONLY case where she could be charged with 3 counts of first degree murder. You know, since first degree murder means there was explicit intent to kill the victims beforehand. If it was truly a burglary and the burglars were killed, I doubt she could be charged as anything but as an accomplice to burglary and maybe criminal trespass. Oh and let's not forget that since nothing was actually stolen it would be Attempted Burglary. Articles reek of fake news.


I've seen this type of thing before. 2-5 criminals commit some crime together. Some of them get shot. The survivors get charged with murder because their "plan" directly caused them to be killed.

I think it might be some sort of state law.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/28/17 , edited 3/29/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


You do have time to think i have been in enough to tell you that is complete bullshit.
The invaders can't commit crimes but the homeowner can't kill them either.

In the case you said you would have had right to kill them.

Both times i have been robbed the attacker had no intention to hurt me and was unarmed and ran away from confrontation.
If they don't run away from confrontation then they have motives to attack you.
.


Wut.
Since you like anecdotes here's a nice one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders



Right well that doesn't change that fact that it's bullshit to attack someone who isn't a danger you should always access the situation first.

I doubt i will see America evolve past this primitive view set it holds though you guys are stuck in your way with the shoot to kill attitude no offence i just find it very stupid and wrong on many levels.

The link you sent they were obviously threats if they had weapons.


People have a right to protect their person and their property. Unless the robber goes out of his way to prove they are not a threat, does not threaten anyone, and does not demand what is unlawfully theirs then I have a right to fight back. If someone tries to rob me unarmed they are going to leave dead or a bloodied mess.

It's called natural selection and we need more of it. If every home invader got shot at every home invasion there would not be as many home invasions. Criminals would either die off, git gud, or find another line of work.

In a survey of criminals(read that as FELONS IN PRISON), Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts conducted a study in 1982 and 1983 paid for by the U.S. Department of Justice. (Professor Rossi was a former President of the American Sociological Association.) The researchers interviewed 1,874 imprisoned felons in ten states.

88% of the criminals surveyed by Wright and Rossi agreed with the statement that, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.”(read this to mean that these felons are not obeying the gun laws and the Legislature cannot figure this out)

Wright and Rossi reported that:
81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.

74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.

57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.

40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.

57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.

34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.