What is Digg?1023 Comments
- TheHighChild, on 11/05/2007, -32/+568If anyone enters your home without an invitation or announced warrant, you should be able to blow their ***** head off without fear of legal recourse.
It's about time we stop our coddling and promote some personal responsibility in this country for a change. - irvman21, on 11/05/2007, -11/+198Hopefully, if anyone ever breaks into my house the sound of round being chambered will be enough to convince them to go elsewhere. If not, well there's plenty more where that first one came from.
- APM19D, on 10/29/2007, -6/+162I am an experienced marksman with years of military experience and I don't have the ability to accurately shoot the arm or leg of an intruder at night with your adrenalin pumping. If someone is enough of a threat to shoot them, then shoot them. A wounded enemy is just as much of a threat. A clear conscience is a personal decision, my comment is simply that aimed shots might seem easy enough at a target range, but once stress is added the likelihood goes down.
- hfisher, on 11/01/2007, -14/+166Kizilbash:
Are you for real? You dont know if the intruder is strung out or cracked up or holding a firearm with intent to not just rob you but kill you as well. It is not that property is more important than people its that my life is more valuable to me than his is. By the way property rights are the key to true liberty, tho if you are not American you would not understand i guess. - AriaStar, on 10/31/2007, -12/+147About ***** time. I remember a few years ago in Alamo, California, two guys knocked at the door and shot the housekeeper who answered. The father was upstairs and heard a commotion, grabbed his gun, and went downstairs to defend his family. His wife and kids got away, but he was shot and killed. In the process, he shot both of the intruders, killing one. Charges were pressed posthumously - against the man DEFENDING his family.
And once, while living in Oregon, I was watching TV late at night and a man's face appeared in the living room window going to the back yard. Someone was in our backyard, so I ran to my parents' room and my dad grabbed his Colt and ran out. Didn't find the guy, but he was ready to shoot anyone who was on our property who shouldn't have been.
It's called self-defense. If it's me or someone trying to kill me or someone I love, that *****'s going down. And it's about time more states are acknowledging the difference between wrong (threatening harm) and right (defense). - physphd, on 10/31/2007, -3/+109I'll second every bit of that, APM19D speaks the wisdom of having received good training. When engaged for real, you cannot count on fine motor skills.
We don't shoot to kill, we don't shoot to wound, we don't shoot to scare. WE SHOOT TO STOP THE THREAT. This isn't PC nonsense; we want an intruder or attacker to stop what he's doing first and foremost.
When the threat has been stopped and police are arriving, safety and holster your weapon, make yourself and your hands easily visible and if possible describe yourself to the dispatcher - you don't want cops seeing a scared guy waving a gun. Then say three and only three things to them. 1) I was afraid for my life. 2) I want him arrested. 3) I want to talk to my lawyer. The shut the hell up. They'll understand. 2) may seem odd especially if the guy's a corpse, but when the trial comes around and the first cop on the scene takes the stand, he will verify that you thought you were going to be killed which governed your actions. He will also relay your request for the arrest to the court. In any juror's subconscious mind, only bad guys get arrested. You will have said nothing else which can be twisted against you. - Berkana, on 10/29/2007, -5/+106Anyone remember this?:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/298989/a_gunfighter_ ...
This is why you should be ready to shoot first when burglars break in. This is why we have the second amendment. Scum like those who break in to steal go for low hanging fruit, whom they know will be defenseless. - Grumps, on 10/29/2007, -5/+101Sue me for shooting you? Wtf are you doing in my house dude.
- Ziggygallaway, on 10/31/2007, -4/+94Most of the times, the burlgar breaks into a home when they think the people are out. If he/she is mistaken and there is someone inside the house, this encounter can end up with the burlgar killing/attacking the family/inhabitants. I, for one, if home and someone breaks in, will not give them a chance to attack me or my family. I will defend myself, family and home. And I won't hesitate to think about what some dumb ass in another country, or anyone, is going to say about it.
- DharmaDog, on 10/30/2007, -1/+82Here's an idea.
Don't want to get shot? Try not breaking into peoples' homes. If you decide to break into peoples' homes anyway, don't be surprised if you get hurt or killed doing so. I don't know what your intentions are when you break into my house, and I don't expect to have a friendly chat about your intentions upon your arrival. But even if you mean me no bodily harm, and only want to steal from me, why should you be allowed to do so, and why should I be required to leave my house or hide to better allow you to steal from me?
And don't tell me it's because a human life if worth more than any personal property. The criminal is knowingly endangering himself by committing crimes like these. If he doesn't feel his life is worth more than what he might steal, then why should I? And if he does intend to do me or my family bodily harm, then he doesn't think human life is more valuable than property himself. Why should the victim of his crime be scrutinized more than the criminal? That's what's insane. Protecting yourself and your home from burglars is not insane. It's logical. It's reasonable. It's lawful. And it's my right. - rdj262, on 10/30/2007, -9/+90Guns owned by law abiding free citizens DETER CRIME. As do these laws. A criminal is going to think twice before breaking into someone's home they suspect is armed.
If you don't believe that guns deter crime, I challenge you to stand up for your beliefs: Put up a sign in your front yard that says:
"Against guns. This is a gun free home!"
Go ahead - I dare you. Stand up for your anti gun beliefs. - Doktag, on 10/31/2007, -3/+65Han shot first.
- ggnictee, on 10/30/2007, -31/+91sigh, it's always been legal to shoot someone in your home. It has never been legal (and still isn't) to use deadly force in the defense of property. When you hear about 'this bungler sued and Won!" it's usually because the bugler was shot in the back while retreating.
You can't just shoot someone. If they have a weapon or are moving toward you, then probably. But if someone is running away or you know they pose no danger to you other then the lose of property; you don't get to shoot them.
This is what they told us in lawschool anyway. - Typhoon2009, on 10/30/2007, -1/+55If you break into my home, you essentially sign a waiver that clears me from liability if your ass gets shot. Why the ***** can I NOT shoot a guy who breaks into my house? I am NOT going to go to the kitchen, get some milk and cookies, and ask him why he's there. I am NOT going to pussyfoot around trying to see if he's armed or not. A split second decision can mean life or death for you and your family. Could just be some burglar trying to steal some nice stuff, or it could be a burglar with a weapon on his person. I will NOT ***** risk MY life or the life of my family because some ***** broke into my house.
It's not immoral, it's not cruel, it's natural god-damned selection. - Marc39, on 10/29/2007, -3/+53It's not just the property fool. It's our own welfare and our family we are protecting. Crime might vary from country to country but there are crazy people EVERYWHERE on the planet.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -0/+49"shoot them in the arm"
The classic line from people that only shoot guns on computer games! - petewiz, on 11/02/2007, -1/+50So does this affect the "no-knock raids" carried out by police? To me, that is the most illogical police tactic in practice today. Even if they shout "Police" before they bust in, what's to prevent a criminal from doing the same thing? It's not like cops are the only ones who can shout out the word "police". There have been many cases over the years in which police busted in without saying anything and the homeowner, thinking it was a burglar, shot them, only to get thrown in jail for murder. How does that make any sense?
- roomforpanic, on 11/02/2007, -2/+51My breach-loading 12-gauge doesn't make any sound. The only sounds heard will be an explosion and a dull thud on the tile floor.
- HYPEractive, on 10/29/2007, -2/+49extreme is an unknown, possibly armed intruder breaking into your house where your children sleep.
- fjc8, on 11/02/2007, -8/+52Neither case would happen if the doors were locked.
- Frostman3D, on 10/29/2007, -1/+44Breaking into someones home to steal their ***** they worked hard for is a bit extreme too. If they want it so bad, let them get a job and earn it.
- ruded0g, on 10/30/2007, -2/+44In some state like Rhode Island and many other Northern states here in the US, you must take every available option to escape before you can even think of using deadly force, including someone breaking into YOUR OWN HOME. Don't even think of coming to the rescue of someone in danger, if you're a law obeying citizen who has a CCP (concealed carry permit - for a firearm).
In other states, you can "stand your ground" without having to worry about being prosecuted. So someone forcing their way into your home, you can use deadly force to protect family, yourself and property. You can also come to the rescue of someone in danger.
Example, in RI about 15/20 years ago, a shop owner who's business kept getting broken into at night, started to sleep in said business so he could protect it. Why, because the police could not for some strange reason. One night, a car came crashing in through the front of the building and one or two armed men entered. He shot one while the other escaped. He was charged and prosecuted. Why because he knowingly stayed on his property, when he knew someone would try and break in - {sick}
Thus one of the many reasons I don't live in that state anymore...... - sdigroup, on 10/30/2007, -3/+44Anyone that tries to enter MY HOME without asking is a threat to my family's safety. That person is doing harm. intent to steal or harm or worse So I have to right to pull out the Mossberg 12 gage.
- vault, on 10/29/2007, -20/+61Then leave.
- dartmanx, on 10/29/2007, -2/+42I'd be more worried that an intruder would be a high-risk sex offender than him taking my stuff. And then, yes, shooting him would protect my family and benefit society.
- CrazyArcher, on 10/30/2007, -4/+43We have the second amendment in case we need to change our government again.
- ScornedPatriot, on 10/29/2007, -13/+50Unfortunately you are incorrect. There is more violent crime in Australia and the UK since you guys "banned" guns, and it is on the rise. I wrote a 15 page paper on this in 2004, I just don't have the time to look up all my sources, google makes them easy enough to find.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.ht ... - groverblue, on 10/29/2007, -9/+45*****. a man's home is his castle. if someone breaks in then they should expect the get shot, i don't care if they want my tv, or a cup of earl funking grey. doorbells exist for a reason.
- proliance, on 11/10/2007, -4/+40Pointing a loaded weapon at an intruder DOES work. My family and I are living proof.
- SnowOxx, on 10/30/2007, -3/+38To my knowledge, the 2nd Amendment, was supposed to be used so that people would have weapons in order to stand up against a tyrannical government if need be. Also to protect themselves. So why on earth do some of you people want to get rid of guns. Also, even if there were a gun ban, criminals do not care about a ban. It's called the black market, illegal weapons. If law abiding people have weapons to defend themselves, it would deter someone from just knocking down your door. Just my two cents worth.
- ruded0g, on 10/30/2007, -0/+35In the long run, it all comes down to law abiding citizens protecting themselves. It takes a lot of responsibility to use a firearm to defend yourself, however it takes none to use one in a crime.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/28/2007, -3/+35Right to ones own life doesn't need justifying Rikti. There is no guilt in saving oneself from a probable threat because no one is obligated to risk their survival in deference to an aggressor with malicious intent. Anyone who truly understands the value of innocent life would have a clear conscience after shooting a person with probable intent to harm them. Now, if you want to argue certainty of intent of the intruder thats fine, but if you are reasonably certain the person in your home is an intruder and not say a family member coming home late or something, then no, it would not be better to shoot at an arm or leg. Your life at that point is infinitely more valuable than the one who broke into your home and probably is willing to risk your life to get money and other valuable goods. Doing anything less than maximizing your chance of survival for some notion that your actions would not be morally justified is just denying your own right to live over theirs.
- Genady, on 10/29/2007, -3/+34It doesn't matter. No Knock raids are wrong, and it should be a citizen's right to shoot any cop that tries it. The 4th amendment has been eviscerated in this society.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/29/2007, -1/+32A bit off topic, but I don't think many Americans understand this either. It's still a novel idea, and not one that many people even think about.
- DangerCollie, on 10/28/2007, -9/+38I agree with you and the state I live in agrees as well. My only concern is how to distinguish between a home invasion with bad guys wearing dark clothing pretending to be cops and the real cops accidentally raiding the wrong address. At 3 am you have 5 seconds coming out of a deep sleep to decide. It's not so much of a problem around here where everyone knows each other, but some localities seem to get an inordinate amount of use from their SWAT team. Perhaps we should reconsider the use of aggressive entry for drug raids in residential areas.
Around here the sheriff uses a radical tactic. They send uniformed officers to walk up and knock on the door. - bigcatt, on 10/30/2007, -2/+31I guarantee crime rates would drop if more criminals where killed. Think of it has modern eugenics.
- Berkana, on 10/30/2007, -13/+42If law enforcement isn't there to stop it from happening, and if most of these crimes go unsolved, they have no business telling you not to try to grab some justice of your own. Burglars break into homes and steal things at their own risk; they should have no reasonable expectation to be treated with consideration if they have no consideration for the welfare of the ones they steal from. Your law school can tell you that to help you find some clients if they want, but burglars better not get their confidence up about suing, 'cause any burglar invading my home to take my hard earned goods gets as much consideration as they show me by breaking in.
- Frostman3D, on 10/30/2007, -2/+30When it comes to protecting my family, I'd kill anyone if I had to, so I'm not gonna lose any sleep over some piece of ***** invading my home.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -2/+30It's not exactly a thing that happens every day, ya' dipstick, but it only has to happen once in your entire life to really screw things up. You have insurance on your car I assume.
Is it because you intend to have a wreck every day or is it just in case that you ever do? - OverkillTASF, on 10/30/2007, -1/+29Probably already been said, but no well trained shootist, when faced with a self defense situation, would shoot to kill. You shoot to STOP. Shooting you in the liver or lungs will kill you, but it will take a while. You shoot to neutralize a threat. It just so happens that generally, the fastest ways to stop someone are the fastest ways to make them dead.
Nitpicking semantics I guess, but your interest isn't in whether the intruder is dead or alive, but more whether he is still a threat to you. Death is a side effect. - CoolWind, on 10/29/2007, -1/+29fta: "there were 2.18 million burglaries in the United States in 2006"
This is why people in the USA want the right to protect their homes from intruders without fear of being arrested or sued. - rocket777, on 10/29/2007, -1/+28Just another side effect of the assinine war on drugs. No Knock is to catch people flushing drugs down the toilet.
- MaxPayne3476, on 11/02/2007, -1/+28Here's the problem with your two situations.
1) The girl being drunk is absolutely no excuse for anything. She shouldn't have been drunk walking home by herself. If there is someone in my house in the middle of the night and I do not recognize them, I don't care if they're drunk or high as a kite, I'm protecting myself and my family.
2) I don't want some mentally retarded girl walking into my house. I don't even want regular people walking into my house uninvited. Sorry your kid is mentally retarded, but if she doesn't have the mental capacity to recognize that she cannot go into others houses, then maybe a better watchful eye needs to be kept. - inactive, on 10/30/2007, -0/+27Hopefully they make it apply to law enforcement as well.
If you're sitting in your house and next thing you know someone busts down your front door, you don't really have time to ask questions (hence, "shoot first").
Yet people who are subjected to forceful entry by law enforcement get shafted for shooting a cop who could've very well been a criminal. - CraigJ, on 10/30/2007, -1/+28The law, in Arizona anyway, is written to protect the lives of residents, and only incidentally the property. The assumption is that if someone busts into your home while you are there is that they are there to kill or injure the occupants, otherwise why would they breaking in while you are home? There is a reason why "hot" home invasion robberies are pretty low in Arizona. It's because there is a very good change you will get shot.
- RealmDown, on 10/29/2007, -2/+28"Not every citizen is trustworthy or deserving of their rights."
Only half right. - OverkillTASF, on 10/29/2007, -0/+25Legs are small moving targets. Legs don't stop the threat in the case of an armed intruder, they merely force them to have a seat, IF you hit them. Shots center of mass are more likely to find their target, as well as neutralize them, which means fewer of YOUR bullets sailing through your exterior wall and into the neighbors house, and fewer of THEIR bullets coming back at you.
- Evildudetx, on 10/29/2007, -1/+26Since the article is based on two shooting in TX, you are obviously ignorant of the Castle Doctorine which was amended on September 1, 2007 to allow us to do just what you're claiming is illegal. This site has the full text of the amended item: http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/03/texas- ... But I'll be nice and sumerize - if you are breaking into my house, car, or place of business and I didn't provoke the activity, I can take you down and you can't sue me for it.
- colonelbuckshot, on 10/30/2007, -2/+27In Britain there was a famous and controversial case a few years ago of Tony Martin, who shot two burglars who raided his home in the middle of the night, killing gypsy Fred Barras. He was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life, although later his defence team got his conviction to reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 987 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is