BF2S Forums Man shot and killed two burglars

IRONCHEF wrote:

lowing wrote:

Parker wrote:

"quality of life" means my couch and HDTV.


i agree that your family is worth protecting. i would do the same in a heartbeat.
but your TV?
totally agreed lowing, you should DEFINITELY shoot someone for taking your TV


im done with this debate, and trying to convince Neanderthals to quit dragging their fucking knuckles.

Ya know, you are trying to be rational about B&E...........Well the reality is, when a home intruder is IN MY HOUSE, I am not inclined to try and find out what EXACTLY he is there for, I am inclined to protect my domain. I also doubt the intruder is inclined to announce before coming in that all he wants is my TV.

So Parker, lets get into the realms of reality and home intrusion shall we?

So aside of kicking down 50 grand for legal fees to defend yourself..and if you are found guilty of shooting an unarmed intruder..regardless of your best intentions and god given rights to defend yourself, you showed too great a disparity and therefore are found guilty and the victim's family gets to rape you..and oh yeah, you lose your guns rights...but hey, you hung on to that tv.

You don't have to engage in a conversation over tea with an intruder..you also don't have to yield your drop on him.  Watch that TV of yours and you'll see that sometimes the defender will approach the perp, having the drop on him, leaving him no recourse but to calmly respond to your verbal command "don't move or you will die!"  If he chucks the knife he has in his hand, or grabs for a gun...it's over for him.  So no, it doesn't make sense NOT to engage in a conversation with a bad guy.  Sure, sneak up on him, confirm he's alone, get your drop on him...(a whole 3 seconds to do all this)...then decide:
1) kill him without a warning or dialogue, lose everything inlcuding freedom, guns, lots of cash, etc....
or
2) command him to yield or die if he assaults you with a weapon or not.

If you realize it's some scrawny little 18 yo meth head who's unarmed, then yes, you should be obliged to not shoot.  And no, you don't worry about him coming back because he is scared to death of you, is in jail, or both.

I agree that the potential follow up threat is scary to think of...I know if I scared some BMA out of my house with a death threat and warning, that he and his 3 BMA bro's might take courage..because no, they may like the odds and will risk one of them dying.  I've seen the shit around my neighborhood and they'd gladly risk their life to take out a fool with a gun smart enough to not use it.  To that I say..be vigilant?  Get a dog, an alarm system, move, etc...this all assuming the cops didn't catch him when he fled..which they usually don't.

Ok now I am lost.......you condemn for defending myhome, then you agree with me that a return visit from an intruder is highly possible........

i think part of the argument here is that some people are considered to be 'materialists' and are perceived to be overly concerned with their possessions whereas others value the preservation of life above any possession since they feel that possessions can be ultimately replaced and not worth losing a life over (either the owner or the burglar).

perhaps some people may change their views once they start accumulating wealth.  once that wealth is taken away from them, they may feel differently.  those that have it tend to want to preserve it.

i am probably in the materialist camp.  i value my material possessions since i spent a fair amount of time toiling to improve my standard of living over what i have had in the past.  when i was in my early 20s, i had nothing to speak of - no house, no car, etc.  my only things of value were textbooks and a crappy stereo and tv. 

now, i have spent the past 17 years building wealth and providing for my family.  some of these things include tv, stereo, computer and so on.  Can the TV and stereo be replaced?  could the homeowner's insurance take care of this?  i'd think so technically.  however, one cannot help but feel extremely violated by the act of agression of a home invasion.  at least i feel this way. 

Let's suppose i had a $30k Halcro amp for my home theater (i don't - i wish i did).  i invested perhaps a few years of savings to do that (for me).  now some dude breaks into my house and takes it.  my two years of work have just gone down the drain.  i bought the item for my family's personal enjoyment and let's suppose it is within my means to do so.  why wouldn't i be extremely upset with this act?  should i just resolve myself at that time that the thief stole it and i'll just get another one?  perhaps lowing and others lose patience with this attitude since it's just so crazy in their minds.  we should be able to protect our own homes and land and possessions.  obviously cops are there to help provide this service and in many times, one has to act in split second where the cops can take 10-30 mins to show up.

fine, there was the classic stereo example.  what other kinds of things are there.  well, i have a computer.  it might contain tons of personal information.  how about all my tax returns, social security numbers, bank statements, etc.  if some theif comes into my house and makes off with THIS information, basically my life could be ruined.  they could make my credit rating decrease, drain my bank accounts and cause me to lose my house.

if any thief comes between me and losing my house, i'm going to make sure that guy pays and pays dearly.

yeah, a stereo can be replaced, but not my identity and credit.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

i think part of the argument here is that some people are considered to be 'materialists' and are perceived to be overly concerned with their possessions whereas others value the preservation of life above any possession since they feel that possessions can be ultimately replaced and not worth losing a life over (either the owner or the burglar).

perhaps some people may change their views once they start accumulating wealth.  once that wealth is taken away from them, they may feel differently.  those that have it tend to want to preserve it.

i am probably in the materialist camp.  i value my material possessions since i spent a fair amount of time toiling to improve my standard of living over what i have had in the past.  when i was in my early 20s, i had nothing to speak of - no house, no car, etc.  my only things of value were textbooks and a crappy stereo and tv. 

now, i have spent the past 17 years building wealth and providing for my family.  some of these things include tv, stereo, computer and so on.  Can the TV and stereo be replaced?  could the homeowner's insurance take care of this?  i'd think so technically.  however, one cannot help but feel extremely violated by the act of agression of a home invasion.  at least i feel this way. 

Let's suppose i had a $30k Halcro amp for my home theater (i don't - i wish i did).  i invested perhaps a few years of savings to do that (for me).  now some dude breaks into my house and takes it.  my two years of work have just gone down the drain.  i bought the item for my family's personal enjoyment and let's suppose it is within my means to do so.  why wouldn't i be extremely upset with this act?  should i just resolve myself at that time that the thief stole it and i'll just get another one?  perhaps lowing and others lose patience with this attitude since it's just so crazy in their minds.  we should be able to protect our own homes and land and possessions.  obviously cops are there to help provide this service and in many times, one has to act in split second where the cops can take 10-30 mins to show up.

fine, there was the classic stereo example.  what other kinds of things are there.  well, i have a computer.  it might contain tons of personal information.  how about all my tax returns, social security numbers, bank statements, etc.  if some theif comes into my house and makes off with THIS information, basically my life could be ruined.  they could make my credit rating decrease, drain my bank accounts and cause me to lose my house.

if any thief comes between me and losing my house, i'm going to make sure that guy pays and pays dearly.

yeah, a stereo can be replaced, but not my identity and credit.

I think everyone here would agree that life is definitely more important than material possessions, but here's the problem:  There is no way to really know what a criminal's real intentions are.  If he's in your home you must assume the worst.  Your life and the people who you care about depend on it.

Ironchef wrote:

DBBrinson1,
I agree, a shotgun isn't always best.  The tacticality level is diminished..especially in a small place like my condo..it's spread radius (which would still only be a few inches at the 7-10 yards max I'd be shooting it) won't outweigh the diminished handiness.  ANd it is two hands sacrificed instead of one.  And as for the racking of the shotgun, which is a great tool in itself, it's also a way to lose a surprise advantage.  But then, you could just leave it loaded and ready at night and let the surprise be when you hit the badguy with a 200 lumen mounted light..or strobe!

I recommend a sure fire flashlight.  Small, rugged and the spot is perfect.  And yes, it will blind.  You'll pay for one though ~$100.  Didn't one of the Justices on the recent verdict write something to the effect of "handgun is the preferred method for your other hand is free to call 911"?

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-07-02 12:57:16)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So we should make sure that all criminals in the act of a crime are assured protection? Maybe set up a special police force that they can call beforehand for some backup to make sure no one shoots at them?

Jebus what drivel. Where do you draw the line, flaming_maniac? Shoot litterers and people speeding on the highway?

This argument has been made and responded to I think five times now. Speeding specifically has been used I think three times now.

So it seems. Where does your low regard for the value of human life stem from? Low self-esteem?

Edit: typo.

Last edited by apollo_fi (2008-07-02 13:03:11)

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

another way of attacking this problem is through better prevention.  are there ways to make yourself less of a target?  most burglaries are due to crimes of opportunity - ie, an unlocked door.  alarm systems can be purchased (i have one) and this is tied directly to a service that works with law enforcement.  further, video cameras can be installed to get a photo of the intruders so you can prosecute them later. 

i've even heard of people employing traps - but this is probably not a good idea.  haha.  one guy put an electric fence inside his house and electrocuted an intruder.  other people put glass on top of fences to prevent people from climbing over, etc.  When i worked in car stereo installations, i heard of guys in the city putting fish hooks and stuff like that on the back of stereos.  they did this because in older cars the stereos could be accessed from underneath the dash and they would often just grab it and break it loose from the back.  dude did this and was caught the next day because he was hooked.

on a personal note, my 92 year old grandmother recently was robbed.  she sleeps on the first floor about 1 room away from the front door.  the thief broke into her house and entered the kitchen - rifling through some things.  then he went into the living room where my grandma was sleeping.  she heard all of this and was quietly saying her rosary thinking he'd kill her.  the dude said 'oh you are here' and then proceeded to turn around and leave quickly.  nothing was thankfully taken and my grandma was ok - just really shook up.  anyway, what we have done is gotten an alarm system and surveillance system installed at the house.  along with tons of signs and so on.  This should deter the less determined thieves from trying to mess with her.  i wanted to find this guy and throttle him big time.  she's 92!.  WTF!

One old lady had a rather large apex predator cat (can't remember what type) for a pet.  The hallway was dark. The burglar entered the hallway and shut the door behind him.  He described hearing a loud cat like snarl.  He then turned back to the door and reached for the knob.  He didn't make it in time.  He didn't die, but was caught, less a bit of flesh and blood.

I don't rely on alarms.  I have one.  I wish my wife would stop paying for the subscription.  Shit, the thief doesn't know if your house is "plugged in" to the main system.  You are basically paying for the signs.  Read my above *edit at the top of the page as to why I refuse to put any faith in them.

Try the sicklight:  http://www.sicklight.com/2007_08_01_archive.html

LED pulses make the person sick. 

Tazers to the nuts work well also.

i'm also busy digging a moat and trapdoor. 

lowing wrote:

I read all of this shit and I can get passed the fact that NONE of you will say...........Hey don't steal someone elses shit or you could get killed, it ain't worth it. You insist on saying ..........Hey don't kill someone who is trying to steal your shit, because your shit ain't worth it..........God I hate liberals.

Poor criminals
Poor lazy asses
Evil achievers
Evil rich people..


You guys are something else.

There's a difference: if someone comes into my house I have the right to defend myself, and I will, and no court will convict me. OTOH in this case there is no question of selfdefence hence the guy should be convicted.

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

I read all of this shit and I can get passed the fact that NONE of you will say...........Hey don't steal someone elses shit or you could get killed, it ain't worth it. You insist on saying ..........Hey don't kill someone who is trying to steal your shit, because your shit ain't worth it..........God I hate liberals.

Poor criminals
Poor lazy asses
Evil achievers
Evil rich people..


You guys are something else.

There's a difference: if someone comes into my house I have the right to defend myself, and I will, and no court will convict me. OTOH in this case there is no question of selfdefence hence the guy should be convicted.

Hell, You do that in Florida and the downside is that you'll have to stay up all night talking to the police, the upside apart from surviving?  You will get to sleep in your own bed when you do finally get a chance to rest, for Florida law prohibits prosecution in that instance.

SenorToenails wrote:

Pierre wrote:

There's a difference: if someone comes into my house I have the right to defend myself, and I will, and no court will convict me. OTOH in this case there is no question of selfdefence hence the guy should be convicted.

I don't know if it has been mentioned, here is something to confirm self-defense.

Mr. Lambright reiterated that Mr. Horn believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them out of fear for his life when they came into his yard and threatened him.

Why is this not pre meditated murder.  He quite clearly informed the dispatcher that he had a shotgun and was going to kill them.  He went out with the clear intention of killing the 2 dudes...

lowing wrote:

I read all of this shit and I can get passed the fact that NONE of you will say...........Hey don't steal someone elses shit or you could get killed, it ain't worth it. You insist on saying ..........Hey don't kill someone who is trying to steal your shit, because your shit ain't worth it..........God I hate liberals.

Poor criminals
Poor lazy asses
Evil achievers
Evil rich people..


You guys are something else.

1. i have said many times that if someone chooses a life of crime, they can get killed. go ahead and look back if you need to.
2. im not a liberal, and im STILL telling you that material possessions that can be replaced, are not worth a life.
3. i dont have pity for criminals, but i dont think shooting robbers in the back is justified.
4. same goes for the lazy people. no pity, but i dont shoot them in the back either.
5. i am an achiever.
6. i wouldnt call myself rich, but im pretty well off for my age.

i have many "things" that are important to me. i have worked my ass off to get what i have, and im pretty proud of my accomplishments.
you seem to think that i would just hang out with the robbers, shoot the shit, help them load up their truck and send them on their merry way. nah, but i also wouldnt come running and gunning out of my bedroom looking to smoke the first thing moving.
cause along with my "things", i know what guns can do. ive seen it first hand, and im not as liberal with my trigger finger as you are.

i know what the laws are where i live, and unless someone in my house is in physical danger, i am not allowed LEGALLY to take the shot. that might suck, but i live in missouri and thats how it goes. other than texas, i dont know where you can SHOOT PEOPLE IN THE BACK and call it self defense.
i have been through PLENTY of self defense training, and NEVER have i heard of a threat from someones back. maybe they were illegal ninjas?
i dont know...

Ok. i am gonna go out there and say u can defend ur posessions without lethal force. taser the guy. use non-leathal ammo.... something like that... u protect ur stuff and no one dies. but just think if u shot someone accidently thinking that they were an intruder but werent. i really love the shoot first ask questions later attitude, but this isnt movies and in the dark at night u WON'T know exactly who is in ur house and if u kill them that is on ur mind forever.

(mainly directed at lowing/others)

apollo_fi wrote:

I disagree completely, though. There are more important things in life than your own life, yes, but that has absolutely no weight as an argument when judging the value of someone else's life.

How can you value someone else's life if you don't value their own?