Org Mobile Site
Thread: Tried to rob the wrong house....
http://www.counton2.com/cbd/news/nat...borhood/20524/
I guess these guys were use to sissy-
waiting for the cops to show, but instead got a lesson on the 2nd ammendment. Is the owner right to defend himself or should he let Pablo and the gang Alamo his because "only cops should have guns"?
I guess these guys were use to sissy-
waiting for the cops to show, but instead got a lesson on the 2nd ammendment. Is the owner right to defend himself or should he let Pablo and the gang Alamo his because "only cops should have guns"?Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
http://www.counton2.com/cbd/news/nat...borhood/20524/
I guess these guys were use to sissy- waiting for the cops to show, but instead got a lesson on the 2nd ammendment. Is the owner right to defend himself or should he let Pablo Jesus and the gang Alamo his because "only cops should have guns"?
http://www.counton2.com/cbd/news/nat...borhood/20524/
I guess these guys were use to sissy-
waiting for the cops to show, but instead got a lesson on the 2nd ammendment. Is the owner right to defend himself or should he let because "only cops should have guns"?Fixed
It illustrates several points;
- the utility of normal and high-capacity magazines
- the benefit of having a gun easily accessible and not locked away in a safe
- the benefit of being prepared to take action
- the usefulness of security cameras
- that owning a gun, unlike anything else, enabled one man to drive off multiple, similarly armed, attackers
Some people who bleat on about how having a gun just means the criminals will get guns or more people and then you'll be no better off should take a long hard look at that last point.
CR
Took a long hard look at the last point... would still prefer not to have uk criminals armed to the teeth and me similarly disarmed rather than have both of us 'packing'
Good surveillance camara, lotsa pixels.
A study where n=1... What do we call that? Oh yes - worthless.
There is significantly more to this story than 2nd amendment issues.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
A study where n=1... What do we call that? Oh yes - worthless.
Don't forget the hole in the neighbor's house. What do we call that? Oh yes - property damage and endangering others.A study where n=1... What do we call that? Oh yes - worthless.
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
Took a long hard look at the last point... would still prefer not to have uk criminals armed to the teeth and me similarly disarmed rather than have both of us 'packing'
So you could have four men beating up on you instead of fleeing? I see.Took a long hard look at the last point... would still prefer not to have uk criminals armed to the teeth and me similarly disarmed rather than have both of us 'packing'
Originally Posted by :
What do we call that? Oh yes - property damage and endangering others.
Legally? I doubt it.What do we call that? Oh yes - property damage and endangering others.
CR
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
So you could have four men beating up on you instead of fleeing? I see.
Legally? I doubt it.
CR
Basic disconnet CR, again, on this issue. To some people, increasing the risk to your own life (even slightly) by using firearms for defense is not justified in the defense of one's property. Property is not viewed as integral to the individual as it is in our more Lockean system here in the USA. In fact, a number of others would probably assert that the increased risk to the intruder's life is not justified in the defense of property.So you could have four men beating up on you instead of fleeing? I see.
Legally? I doubt it.
CR
And it is an increased risk to you to possess firearms and actively use them to defend self or property. For the most part, it is rare for the armed intruder to kill the person who seeks to flee or passively awaits whatever the armed intruder chooses to do. If you produce a firearm, you actually do increase the statistical chance you'll end up dead, and even though you have greatly increased your chance to finish the encounter without material loss, many would not agree with the worth of such a choice.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Basic disconnet CR, again, on this issue. To some people, increasing the risk to your own life (even slightly) by using firearms for defense is not justified in the defense of one's property. Property is not viewed as integral to the individual as it is in our more Lockean system here in the USA. In fact, a number of others would probably assert that the increased risk to the intruder's life is not justified in the defense of property.
I didn't think we were talking about defense of property, but LittleGrizzly can clarify that.Basic disconnet CR, again, on this issue. To some people, increasing the risk to your own life (even slightly) by using firearms for defense is not justified in the defense of one's property. Property is not viewed as integral to the individual as it is in our more Lockean system here in the USA. In fact, a number of others would probably assert that the increased risk to the intruder's life is not justified in the defense of property.
Originally Posted by :
And it is an increased risk to you to possess firearms and actively use them to defend self or property. For the most part, it is rare for the armed intruder to kill the person who seeks to flee or passively awaits whatever the armed intruder chooses to do. If you produce a firearm, you actually do increase the statistical chance you'll end up dead, and even though you have greatly increased your chance to finish the encounter without material loss, many would not agree with the worth of such a choice.
Hmm. Are you sure? I remember seeing data that suggests otherwise. Importantly, people using guns for defense faced more difficult circumstances (which might cause them to use guns in defense):And it is an increased risk to you to possess firearms and actively use them to defend self or property. For the most part, it is rare for the armed intruder to kill the person who seeks to flee or passively awaits whatever the armed intruder chooses to do. If you produce a firearm, you actually do increase the statistical chance you'll end up dead, and even though you have greatly increased your chance to finish the encounter without material loss, many would not agree with the worth of such a choice.
Originally Posted by Gary Kleck:
These data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection actually face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they are, may still be misleadingly high compared to to other self-protection measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime circumstances.
CRThese data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection actually face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they are, may still be misleadingly high compared to to other self-protection measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime circumstances.
Well, 4 men armed with assault rifles probably weren't there to steal his TV. I suspect they were there to assassinate someone.
Nothing about this incident sounds random. The attackers sound more like hired killers and the victim's reaction seems to indicate he was expecting such an attack on some level.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
There is significantly more to this story than 2nd amendment issues.
There is significantly more to this story than 2nd amendment issues.
Nothing about this incident sounds random. The attackers sound more like hired killers and the victim's reaction seems to indicate he was expecting such an attack on some level.
So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!Originally Posted by Idaho:
So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!
So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!
Oh God, speaking of shooting yourself in the foot...
Tucson is an utter ****hole.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!
I think that remains to be seen, but it's definitely an odd situation. So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!Regardless, even if the worst were true and this was a Mexican drug cartel's hit squad sent to take the guy out, the point that one armed man can hold off several better armed men, would stand even stronger. Whether the victim turns out to be a druglord or a the victim of mistaken identity, it still illustrates that point nicely.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I think that remains to be seen, but it's definitely an odd situation.
Regardless, even if the worst were true and this was a Mexican drug cartel's hit squad sent to take the guy out, the point that one armed man can hold off several better armed men, would stand even stronger. Whether the victim turns out to be a druglord or a the victim of mistaken identity, it still illustrates that point nicely.
And if there were claymore mines on the driveway it'd be better still.I think that remains to be seen, but it's definitely an odd situation.
Regardless, even if the worst were true and this was a Mexican drug cartel's hit squad sent to take the guy out, the point that one armed man can hold off several better armed men, would stand even stronger. Whether the victim turns out to be a druglord or a the victim of mistaken identity, it still illustrates that point nicely.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
And if there were claymore mines on the driveway it'd be better still.
We should probably stick to security cameras. Mines might slow down your mail delivery. And if there were claymore mines on the driveway it'd be better still.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
A study where n=1... What do we call that? Oh yes - worthless.
A study where n=1... What do we call that? Oh yes - worthless.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!
Jump to conclusions much? Maybe the fact that the area in which the guy lives is infested with, well, anyway, sometimes citizens must take measures because the government won't do what its suppose to do because its too busy trying to save some sort of swamp mouse or assisting a homosexual congressman's boyfriends with their banks. So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!But I'd hate to generalise...
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
assisting a homosexual congressman's boyfriends with their banks.
But I'd hate to generalise...
You are getting more and more Westboro Baptist by the week Dave assisting a homosexual congressman's boyfriends with their banks.
But I'd hate to generalise...
Nothing to do with global capitalism. Nothing to do with working people bailing out the failed projects of multi-millionaires.
No it's all about gays.
I am appalled that this guy is not being charged for discharging a firearm. I mean seriously, what if those were just Airsoft Guns? Maybe those guys were looking for the paintball field and took a wrong turn and now he's made them late for the PanAmerican Paintball Tournament? Is he gonna re-imburse them for the entry fee?????
People should really be shot or dying before being able to defend themselves with deadly force
BTW Dave your post reminds me of a local "civil rights" leader who tried to sue to have the states conceal-and-carry law stricken because it was discriminatory. His rationale was that blacks and hispanics could not afford the cost of the licensing fees and a handgun. It was summarily dismissed 10 minutes after he showed up to court.
People should really be shot or dying before being able to defend themselves with deadly force
BTW Dave your post reminds me of a local "civil rights" leader who tried to sue to have the states conceal-and-carry law stricken because it was discriminatory. His rationale was that blacks and hispanics could not afford the cost of the licensing fees and a handgun. It was summarily dismissed 10 minutes after he showed up to court.
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
BTW Dave your post reminds me of a local "civil rights" leader who tried to sue to have the states conceal-and-carry law stricken because it was discriminatory. His rationale was that blacks and hispanics could not afford the cost of the licensing fees and a handgun. It was summarily dismissed 10 minutes after he showed up to court.
It is discriminatory if the fee for the license is too expesive for people, not neccessarily blacks or hispanics but whomever is poor, and keeps them from having the means to protect themselves.BTW Dave your post reminds me of a local "civil rights" leader who tried to sue to have the states conceal-and-carry law stricken because it was discriminatory. His rationale was that blacks and hispanics could not afford the cost of the licensing fees and a handgun. It was summarily dismissed 10 minutes after he showed up to court.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
It is discriminatory if the fee for the license is too expesive for people, not neccessarily blacks or hispanics but whomever is poor, and keeps them from having the means to protect themselves.
Pfeh, thoze lazy no-goods should get off their couch and TV and get a job!It is discriminatory if the fee for the license is too expesive for people, not neccessarily blacks or hispanics but whomever is poor, and keeps them from having the means to protect themselves.
I don't have a link (yet), but I've heard ammunition sales in the US are at historic highs (as are the prices), and stocks are falling. Some second-tier ammo retailers can't get stock re-supply quickly enough. The stuff is flying off the shelves.
Sounds like middle-america is arming up. I think I'm a little worried about this.
Sounds like middle-america is arming up. I think I'm a little worried about this.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
I don't have a link (yet), but I've heard ammunition sales in the US are at historic highs (as are the prices), and stocks are falling. Some second-tier ammo retailers can't get stock re-supply quickly enough. The stuff is flying off the shelves.
Sounds like middle-america is arming up. I think I'm a little worried about this.
Despite the 2008 SCOTUS decision, many are convinced that firearm and ammo restrictions will be greatly increased by the new federal leadership cadre. I don't have a link (yet), but I've heard ammunition sales in the US are at historic highs (as are the prices), and stocks are falling. Some second-tier ammo retailers can't get stock re-supply quickly enough. The stuff is flying off the shelves.
Sounds like middle-america is arming up. I think I'm a little worried about this.
A good friend at the local Bass Pro shop works at the gun counter there. Says they don't bother stocking the ammo, except for the exotics. The .30 '06, .38, .40, 9mm, & .45 boxes are brought to the gun counter and sold from there...in minutes.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
I don't have a link (yet), but I've heard ammunition sales in the US are at historic highs (as are the prices), and stocks are falling. Some second-tier ammo retailers can't get stock re-supply quickly enough. The stuff is flying off the shelves.
Sounds like middle-america is arming up. I think I'm a little worried about this.
That's why I roll my own. "If bullets cost $5,000 apiece there'd be no innocent bystanders. I'd blow your headoff if I could afford it." I don't have a link (yet), but I've heard ammunition sales in the US are at historic highs (as are the prices), and stocks are falling. Some second-tier ammo retailers can't get stock re-supply quickly enough. The stuff is flying off the shelves.
Sounds like middle-america is arming up. I think I'm a little worried about this.
*Chris Rock* I'd post the youtube link but the language is not PG13. Funny stuff.The right to use deadly physical force to protect one's life or another's, and home from the threat of imminent harm or death comes with many responsibilities too. A man's home is his castle and no citizen is required to retreat from it. All states have statutes in their penal code that deal with this, and they do vary somewhat. From what I see on this video this homeowner appeared okay, legally speaking, until the perps retreated into their vehicle to leave and he fired those shots into the windshield. In my state, once the aggressor has retreated, indicated verbally or physically to stop their use of deadly physical force, then one cannot use or continue to use deadly physical force against them. In other words, if the thief is running out your door with your property you can't shoot him in the back and claim you were afraid for your life.
There appears much more to this story than a simple attempt of armed robbery. This may have been a gang related attempt at assassination or kidnaping. How did the authorities know the name of one of the perps? Identified by the victim or was the perp known by police from other encounters?
I support the right of all to defend themselves and others including their homes using deadly physical force if it comes to that, within the guidelines spelled out in the NYS Penal Code. However, I believe the homeowner depicted in this video has crossed the line and could be/should be charged.
They probably got his name when he sought treatment for the injury. Hospitals are required by most state laws to notify cops of such injuries.
Likely more than just a 2-bit burglary attempt, but these guys were far from professional hitmen. More like bungling retards. I'm guessing local drug gang of ignorant thugs, or maybe just some run of the mill gangstas he made angry. If it was cartel that whole scene would have played out much more differently
Likely more than just a 2-bit burglary attempt, but these guys were far from professional hitmen. More like bungling retards. I'm guessing local drug gang of ignorant thugs, or maybe just some run of the mill gangstas he made angry. If it was cartel that whole scene would have played out much more differently
I have a couple of thoughts here.
First, my position on if this bloke went too far with the gunshots through the windshield. I'm going to agree with about 95% of what Hosakawa said in his previous post. The only part that I would further qualify/differ/embelish on would be where exactly to draw the line. I would first submit that what constitutes "retreat" can be a grey area. If a person or persons break and enter into someone's house and armed conflict ensues, a "shooting retreat" in my opinion does not qualify as "retreat". In other words, if the criminals keep shooting at me but are running out, I believe that shooting back is still fair game as the conflict is still on. Thus, if the perps in the article kept firing but were attempting to get back into their vehicle, then I think this guy is justified putting rounds through the windshield. The conflict isn't over until they either drop their weapons and are running full tilt away, or have stopped firing and are running away full tilt. Shooting = attacking = conflict.
Second, I would echo Hosakawa's sentiment about "a man's home is his castle" and castle doctrine. It is a place where people should feel safe and secure, and that the world is locked away outside the walls if needed. It is a refuge and place of well-being for one's family. Violating that sanctity is a very egregious act, however I don't believe that in of itself is worth a lethal response. My belief is and has been that if someone breaks into a house and the owners are present, that "sufficient" warning should be given to reveal their presense. In other words, shout at the top of one's lungs "WHO THE #@$ IS THERE!?!?!?" to clearly indicate they are home. If the perp flees, then the purpose is served and the authorities can deal with the situation when they arrive. If the perp(s) hear this and STAY,then I believe it has just escalated into a life or death situation. Knowingly remaining in someone's house when one has broken and entered indicates to me that they recognize they represent a real and deadly threat to the residents yet choose to remain (to plunder or to cause physical harm, it doesn't matter at that point). If those conditions are met, I believe that a lethal response is warranted. If the perp survives and flees, actually flees, then one must stop their response. Otherwise, they should be able to fight to protect themselves and their family.
Third, and this is just my musing, I am going to wager a guess that most of the people who don't believe that any kind of lethal response in protection of one's home and family do not have homes and families of their own. As food for thought, I would submit that when one gets married and has a family, especially children of their own, the need to protect them goes through the roof. At least that is how I was raised. Anyone breaking into my house when we are home represents a real and true dangerous and deadly threat to myself but most importantly my wife and eventual children. I know exactly what the point is that I would kill another human being, and that is it, to protect my family.
First, my position on if this bloke went too far with the gunshots through the windshield. I'm going to agree with about 95% of what Hosakawa said in his previous post. The only part that I would further qualify/differ/embelish on would be where exactly to draw the line. I would first submit that what constitutes "retreat" can be a grey area. If a person or persons break and enter into someone's house and armed conflict ensues, a "shooting retreat" in my opinion does not qualify as "retreat". In other words, if the criminals keep shooting at me but are running out, I believe that shooting back is still fair game as the conflict is still on. Thus, if the perps in the article kept firing but were attempting to get back into their vehicle, then I think this guy is justified putting rounds through the windshield. The conflict isn't over until they either drop their weapons and are running full tilt away, or have stopped firing and are running away full tilt. Shooting = attacking = conflict.
Second, I would echo Hosakawa's sentiment about "a man's home is his castle" and castle doctrine. It is a place where people should feel safe and secure, and that the world is locked away outside the walls if needed. It is a refuge and place of well-being for one's family. Violating that sanctity is a very egregious act, however I don't believe that in of itself is worth a lethal response. My belief is and has been that if someone breaks into a house and the owners are present, that "sufficient" warning should be given to reveal their presense. In other words, shout at the top of one's lungs "WHO THE #@$ IS THERE!?!?!?" to clearly indicate they are home. If the perp flees, then the purpose is served and the authorities can deal with the situation when they arrive. If the perp(s) hear this and STAY,then I believe it has just escalated into a life or death situation. Knowingly remaining in someone's house when one has broken and entered indicates to me that they recognize they represent a real and deadly threat to the residents yet choose to remain (to plunder or to cause physical harm, it doesn't matter at that point). If those conditions are met, I believe that a lethal response is warranted. If the perp survives and flees, actually flees, then one must stop their response. Otherwise, they should be able to fight to protect themselves and their family.
Third, and this is just my musing, I am going to wager a guess that most of the people who don't believe that any kind of lethal response in protection of one's home and family do not have homes and families of their own. As food for thought, I would submit that when one gets married and has a family, especially children of their own, the need to protect them goes through the roof. At least that is how I was raised. Anyone breaking into my house when we are home represents a real and true dangerous and deadly threat to myself but most importantly my wife and eventual children. I know exactly what the point is that I would kill another human being, and that is it, to protect my family.
I agree with that Whacker, if someone came into my home to stay while I was there I'd really start to think darwinistic, I wouldn't even care about any laws, not just because I don't know the exact laws.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO