Man who shot and killed 3 teens who broke into his house, not charged.

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

While I consider myself gifted with an ability remain calm-headed and rational in stressful situations, that can't be said for everyone; especially with the flight-or-fight response. Hey we share that idealism, but we need to both accept reality of human nature.

That car is not a good. It cannot be reproduced. Maybe this will help you understand the type of person I am: ISIS destroying ancient historical sites pisses me off a lot more than when they murder innocent people. This is not to say that I am a psychopath but rather that I value items which have meaningful significance and can provide value to many generations of people.

The way I see it is: would the mass majority of people be pissed if a petty criminal died or if an extremely rare and valuable piece of art was destroyed?

LMAO this is hilarious. This is fair enough though, for all this fella knew they were here to rape or kill him.

Originally posted by NemeBro
And I hope he's not someone who values the life of some stranger breaking into his house with malicious intent over his own safety.

I think the issue here was there malicious intent towards the shooter or people in his house.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Don'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.

Would of shot in the air

Originally posted by Kurk
The point is, all semantics aside Robby, that they were repeat offenders.

While I consider myself gifted with an ability remain calm-headed and rational in stressful situations, that can't be said for everyone; especially with the flight-or-fight response. Hey we share that idealism, but we need to both accept reality of human nature.

That car is not a good. It cannot be reproduced. Maybe this will help you understand the type of person I am: ISIS destroying ancient historical sites pisses me off a lot more than when they murder innocent people. This is not to say that I am a psychopath but rather that I value items which have meaningful significance and can provide value to many generations of people.

The way I see it is: would the mass majority of people be pissed if a petty criminal died or if an extremely rare and valuable piece of art was destroyed?

Yes, thievery. Not murder, rape or assault,

Fair enough, I fully acknowledge that's it's easy to talk when you weren't in said situation. As you'll notice not once have I said the shooter needs to be punished for executing three people.

ISIS' destruction of historical artifacts is indeed a massive loss. But you really need to grow up.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
Would of shot in the air

When the bullet came back down and hit a 3 year old, what would you have done then?

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?

Absolutely. If an intruder illegally enters my home, then I will use deadly force to protect myself and my family. I don't know the intentions of said intruder, and I will assume a worst case scenario that grievous harm is imminent and will not hesitate to shoot to kill.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think the issue here was there malicious intent towards the shooter or people in his house.

Originally posted by Kurk
nah. I'd rather let them steal my toyota corolla and file a police report later than risk dealing with court fees, lawyers, possibly a tarnished reputation, unwanted attention, etc. Depending on my state's laws I might hold them at gunpoint, but I would be very hesitant to open fire. This is why everyone needs a taser 🙂

Originally posted by NemeBro
Or property, and yes I am saying I value my property over the lives of people I don't know, particularly if they have broken into my house.

Fair enough. I've held similar views when younger.

.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
.

????

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough. I've held similar views when younger.

Good for you robbie.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough. I've held similar views when younger.

Robbie you remind me of Brian from family guy tbh

Originally posted by Kurk
Robbie you remind me of Brian from family guy tbh

Because he thinks criminals lives are more important than regular people, or because he doesn't realize that bullets can kill people even after traveling through walls, so firing warning shots in a neighborhood can be extremely dangerous?

The amount of posturing and eBadassery in here is kind of epic.

Tell us more about how this was an execution rather than self-defense.

My eBadassery translates to irlBadassery a billionfold.