Originally posted by KurkThere is a case right now in Washington state where a dude killed a guy in his shower but's facing murder charges. The reason being it wasn't self-defense. He confronted the guy verbally, left, came back with a gun and killed him.
Maybe you misworded, but that sounds like murder and not self-defense. If you leave, come back with a gun and shoot someone after a verbal disagreement?
Edit: Nevermind, "his shower", yeah, would have to know more exact details
How about feeling sorry for the kid that had to shoot, he was woke up came face to face with people WEARING Masks, not young kids, he would not have known.
Originally posted by SurturI find it disgusting that the news network only collected photo's of slain when they were kids. They looked so much older in other places that I read. lol
I think if you are going to break into someones house then all bets are off. From the article there is this:"The group actually targeted the property earlier that day, the first time breaking into the unattached garage and stealing liquor and some electronic equipment."
So they had a somewhat successful robbery earlier and decided to come back and hit the same place again.
Then you have another link where all the friends seem to be in disbelief over this, as is usually always the case:
This probably wasn't the first time the little thugs tried to break in somewhere either.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Then by all means post the source that stated that the armed intruders made zero threats or threatening moves before the young mad shot them.
Yeah, the article says there was an altercation in the kitchen and they got shot. It would be one thing if the thieves announced they gave up and put their hands up and were clearly unarmed and then the guy shot them anyways. But that doesn't seem to be what happened.
If you're stupid enough to physically attack someone with a gun then you brought your death upon yourself. It is possible indeed these people could have turned their lives around in the future, but the guy is not a mind reader. He had no idea what they were capable of, he had no idea if they had any weapons at all on them.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Where in the article does it say that they never attacked, tried/threaten to attack him or wield the weapons they brought?
Oh, this game?
Do you even know what happened? They attempted to break in and he opened fire on them. haha
You'll have to do better than to try and play these games with me. I don't give a **** about the pissing matches you like to play. It doesn't matter in this thread.
Participate in the thread or don't.
Here is the topic of debate:
Should you be able to shoot home invaders dead if they are not attempting to harm you?
Here is the audio so you can pretend like you can argue against this thread. But you're missing the point if you want to make a case about "self defense." Good luck arguing with someone else: I will not argue that point.
Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, the article says there was an altercation in the kitchen and they got shot. It would be one thing if the thieves announced they gave up and put their hands up and were clearly unarmed and then the guy shot them anyways. But that doesn't seem to be what happened.If you're stupid enough to physically attack someone with a gun then you brought your death upon yourself. It is possible indeed these people could have turned their lives around in the future, but the guy is not a mind reader. He had no idea what they were capable of, he had no idea if they had any weapons at all on them.
It says confrontation, does that mean they actually threatened with violence or tarnished weapons? Confrontation could also be they cussed at the shooter.
I find it odd that the story wouldn't specifically cite that if that were the case, instead it focuses on the 'they broke in; therefore they could be killed' law.
You even go on to note that the shooter was unaware they had a knife and brass knuckles on their person at the time of shooting.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, this game?Do you even know what happened? They attempted to break in and he opened fire on them. haha
You'll have to do better than to try and play these games with me. I don't give a **** about the pissing matches you like to play. It doesn't matter in this thread.
Participate in the thread or don't.
Here is the topic of debate:
Should you be able to shoot home invaders dead if they are not attempting to harm you?
Here is the audio so you can pretend like you can argue against this thread. But you're missing the point if you want to make a case about "self defense." Good luck arguing with someone else: I will not argue that point.
At no point in that audio does he state that the intruders didn't try and attack or threaten him before he shot. so what proof do you have that it wasn't self-defense?
Originally posted by RobtardMaybe we should chop off hands then; Sharia law isn't all that bad. These "kids" were hardened criminals. The driver was interviewed and she said herself that they burglarized homes before. I mean statistically speaking about 82% of property offenders are rearrested for crime within 5 years.
With DDM on this overall. Execution isn't the punishment for thievery; at least it shouldn't be. They were 18, 18 and 16, no reason to believe they couldn't have turned their lives around and become contributions to society.It's unfortunate that they decided to be thieves and it's unfortunate that the shooter opted to execute all three of them instead of firing a few warning shots to scare the piss out of them. Hopefully that person learns from this and if they're ever in a similar situation they won't shoot first and ask questions later.
I like my things; I like my things a lot, but I would rather have someone steal my goods over me killing them, as goods can be replaced. Killing someone should only be an option in defending your well being/life or that of another innocent.
Might have missed it, but why is the female driver being charged with murder? Are OK laws really that twisted? Charge her for being an accomplice to thievery, sure.
In retrospect the shooter could've taken another route, sure. I would have in his shoes too, but we can't know for sure. Once they're in the house and armed, it's fair game.
Many things can be replaced, but I would legally kill someone if they were trying to steal/vandalize say, a 1 of 2 built 1971 Hemi Cuda.
https://www.mecum.com/lots/WA0614-185434/1971-plymouth-hemi-cuda-convertible/
Protecting a piece of history is far more important to me than some peasant's life.
Your idealism isn't welcome here.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is the topic of debate:Should you be able to shoot home invaders dead if they are not attempting to harm you?
Well wait man this is an entirely different question than what you originally asked, don't you agree? Like I said, I agree that if you clearly know people do not mean you any harm it is wrong.
It was not clear in the article that this man was aware they were making no attempt to harm them or that they posed no danger.
Here is the audio so you can pretend like you can argue against this thread. But you're missing the point if you want to make a case about "self defense." Good luck arguing with someone else: I will not argue that point.
How did they break in? The articles do not seem to say. I ask because there is a comment from the dailycaller article that says this:
"The original reports were that these guys broke into the house, via a glass door, with brass knuckles and a knife. How is it NOT self defense. And I can tell you, I would not disarm until the police were actually outside my room and have the house cleared."
If they smashed through a glass door to get in..I can understand why the guy freaked out and shot without allowing them to get close enough to potentially do him harm.
Originally posted by Robtard
It says confrontation, does that mean they actually threatened with violence or tarnished weapons? Confrontation could also be they cussed at the shooter.I find it odd that the story wouldn't specifically cite that if that were the case, instead it focuses on the 'they broke in; therefore they could be killed' law.
This is true it is vague as to what specifically went down. Having now listened to the 911 call, he goes on to say he didn't even get a good look at them, so it sounds like they broke into his house and he panicked and shot at them. I guess the question would then be if he should have risked his own life by waiting, since if it turned out they were armed or something that could have given them time to use their weapons.
Originally posted by RobtardMy intent was to show the contrast between what is and isn't self-defense. Perhaps you thought I was pushing some sort of agenda? 🙂
Maybe you misworded, but that sounds like murder and not self-defense. If you leave, come back with a gun and shoot someone after a verbal disagreement?Edit: Nevermind, "his shower", yeah, would have to know more exact details
Originally posted by Kurk
Maybe we should chop off hands then; Sharia law isn't all that bad. These "kids" were hardened criminals. The driver was interviewed and she said herself that they burglarized homes before. I mean statistically speaking about 82% of property offenders are rearrested for crime within 5 years.
"The report also found that recidivism was highest among males, blacks and young adults."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/In retrospect the shooter could've taken another route, sure. I would have in his shoes too, but we can't know for sure. Once they're in the house and armed, it's fair game.
Many things can be replaced, but I would legally kill someone if they were trying to steal/vandalize say, a 1 of 2 built 1971 Hemi Cuda.
https://www.mecum.com/lots/WA0614-185434/1971-plymouth-hemi-cuda-convertible/
Protecting a piece of history is far more important to me than some peasant's life.Your idealism isn't welcome here.
No, mutilating people isn't good either. No, they were not "hardened criminals". They would have had to been caught, released and gone back to crime several times over for that.
As I said, I hope the shooter learns from this and in the future doesn't take the shoot first and ask questions later approach.
While that's a lovely car, if you actually think that's worth killing someone over, then you really need to grow up.
Not killing people over goods isn't "idealism", it's common sense.
Rob's right he should've complied with the 3 robbers, potentially let them stab him (with the knife they had/bludgeon him with knuckles) after pilfering his valuables, and pray on circumstance that they didn't use the AR15 he had because they "would've" eventually become producing members of society.
Its not like he should defend himself or anything, based off of legal precedent in the state or was in his rights.
Originally posted by carthage
Rob's right he should've complied with the 3 robbers, potentially let them stab him (with the knife they had/bludgeon him with knuckles) after pilfering his valuables, and pray on circumstance that they didn't use the AR15 he had because they "would've" eventually become producing members of society.Its not like he should defend himself or anything, based off of legal precedent in the state or was in his rights.
Well that's not what I said, but I understand that's what you need to push.
Originally posted by RobtardAnd I hope he's not someone who values the life of some stranger breaking into his house with malicious intent over his own safety.
No, mutilating people isn't good either. No, they were not "hardened criminals". They would have had to been caught, released and gone back to crime several times over for that.As I said, I hope the shooter learns from this and in the future doesn't take the shoot first and ask questions later approach.
While that's a lovely car, if you actually think that's worth killing someone over, then you really need to grow up.
Not killing people over goods isn't "idealism", it's common sense.
Originally posted by KurkDon't be a nerd. The car itself doesn't matter, why care if it's a piece of history? All that matters is that they would deprive you of what is rightfully yours, so you must stop them, lethally if need be.
Maybe we should chop off hands then; Sharia law isn't all that bad. These "kids" were hardened criminals. The driver was interviewed and she said herself that they burglarized homes before. I mean statistically speaking about 82% of property offenders are rearrested for crime within 5 years.
"The report also found that recidivism was highest among males, blacks and young adults."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/In retrospect the shooter could've taken another route, sure. I would have in his shoes too, but we can't know for sure. Once they're in the house and armed, it's fair game.
Many things can be replaced, but I would legally kill someone if they were trying to steal/vandalize say, a 1 of 2 built 1971 Hemi Cuda.
https://www.mecum.com/lots/WA0614-185434/1971-plymouth-hemi-cuda-convertible/
Protecting a piece of history is far more important to me than some peasant's life.Your idealism isn't welcome here.