E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSView more videos at: http://nbcdfw.com.
A homeowner fatally shot an intruder as he climbed through a window and into his home Monday afternoon, Dallas police say.
Police said the homeowner heard a noise inside his residence and shot a man, later identified as 33-year-old Deyfon Pipkins, aka BJ, as he climbed through the window.
"The homeowner heard a noise. He came around the corner, saw the individual trying to climb into the window and according to the law, the castle doctrine, he used deadly force," said Sgt. Calvin Johnson, with the Dallas Police Department.
According to police, the homeowner then called 911. When police arrived, officers found Pipkins’ body lying lifeless in the window.
For more, visit NBCDFW.com
Pipkins' mother, Catherine, said she had been called to the scene by her daughter-in-law and said the crime sounded like something her son would do.
"Yeah, it's something he would do ... Somebody called me and said my son got shot. That's the reason I'm standing here," said Catherine Pipkins.
The woman said her son did not live at the home.
Pipkins had a lengthy criminal history in Dallas that included numerous charges for theft, trespassing and possession of a controlled substance.
Police said the shooting is a Castle Doctrine case and the Dallas County Grand Jury will decide whether or not the homeowner faces any charges.
NBC 5's Omar Villafranca and Kevin Cokely contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
First !!! :-)
You get the gold medal!
Dont ya just love good news.
The homeowner absolutely should not face any charges for this. Use of deadly force against intruders into your home isn't just a right, but even a necessity.
You cannot hesitate to see who they are and what they intend to do, because doing so gives them the split-second they need to kill you. And, though they might actually be caught and brought to justice for killing you afterward, the justice system can't give you your life back. So, to ever expect you not to use deadly force against an intruder into your home isn't just unconscionable, it's unconstitutional, as is charging you with a crime for exercising that right to protect your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness from someone who, by the very act of breaking into your home, proves an intent to deny you that.
No rights are absolute. All killings should be investigated. If he did nothing wrong then fine.
It's a shame to waste human life no matter the cause.
Defon, the ACLU poster boy for 2013.
Hey!- he had a RIGHT to break into that guys home!
The poor homeowner....now he'll have Jesse and Al parked on his front lawn screaming racism and excessive force. The anti-gun nuts will lump him in with Newtown, and he'll be an altar boy by the end of thweek.
"Deyfon" says it all doesn't it? Am I on the right website reading this story? Oh and Eric, I would have loved to waste this guys life if he was breaking into my home.
Ban all criminals!
Let's start with Congress and the bankers. Then we can work our way down to some dude who was trying to climb in through a window.
Eric - I would hardly call this a waste... unless you're referring to "Deyfon" directly, in which case I would agree with you - Deyfon seemed like a complete waste of life to me... and I'm a liberal. The fact that his mother wasnt surprised by this speaks volumes here.
The guy would have not got past my window, he would have triggered the strobe system and he would have ether had to back out of the window with his eyes shut or he would have been tossing cookies where he stood. If he happened to get pasted that, I have a nice rubber round with his name on it.
Since even in self defense I would have a hard time living with myself if I took a life, the purp will always meet highly effective none lethal force with me ( where it can be applied ).
I am glad the home owner is safe but I would not want to be him. If he tends to be empathetic for others, taking the bad guys life will still be an emotional issue he might have to deal with for a long time to come.
Tommy's post proves that even 2 year old can post here.
And the moral of this story is?
Rock on Tommy, Feisty must be out getting her free obama phone.
The absurdity here is that this incident even needs to go to a grand jury.
The absurdity here is that this incident even needs to go to a grand jury.
------------------------------------------
Na, all killings should be reviewed. You can write a life off easy, but society in general should never get in that habit. The home owner will not face charges but someone still needs to review the taking of a life.
In Texas, we dont mess around, you want WAR, we'll bring it to ya....
Too many illegals and crime waves around here have made the average Texan a force to be reckoned with, heck even my horse "Big Tex" could draw a .44 faster than most punks in here
Dont mess with Texas
Sure it was an intruder ? Might be his son coming in late from an all nighter! Many more people are killed by crazed pyscho gun i.e road rage or people shooting up a cinema or school than the lives saved by killimg intruders.And a hand gun can do the job.Was this intruder killed by a tank..and the rest of his neighborhood blown up ?
I can tell everyone this. The Castle Law protects this homeowner from even having to go to the police Station. I am a liberal but the Castle Law is the best law ever passed. We have it in Michigan where I live and I have had to use it. I cough someone breaking into my workshop with is about 200 ft' behind my house. I held the 2 guys at gun point until the police got there. This young cop got all load with me about having my gun out side of my home. Hell I lived on 12 acres, and I jumped right back at him with the Castle Law. I never did put my gun down until they had the 2 cuffed and stuffed. Then when an older police man got there he set the youngsters right about my rights. The Castle law protects me anywhere on my property. The police don't like it either.
most break in's are to fuel a drug habit.
and this probably was no different.
imagine if this guy had been rounded up in one of the previous times he was caught, shipped to an isolated location where he could consume all the drugs he wants, and the only people he can affect with his choices are other people consuming drugs - just like him?
they'd most likely kill each other, or die of starvation because they wouldnt know how to take care of themselves...but they'd have the right and freedom to do as they wish - consume drugs.
and all without affecting the rest of the population that is responsible and mature.
im not saying ANYONE WHO DOES DRUGS should end up in this fictional place.
im saying anyone who cant handle their drug habit and it begins to affect others in a criminal way - should end up there. let them affect each other, not us.
and im not opposed to sending child rapists and molestors there either. or murders, or whoever.
it might sound cruel and unusual, but im offering the freedom for these people to be how they wish - just amongst each other, not a free and responsible populace.
if they can make it work and thrive, so be it.
australia managed to flourish despite their criminal roots.
OK, so we heard his mother's comments. Wonder what his father has to say?
Agreed QE.137.
The intruder should have been shot and the homeowner not charged (it was this homeowners property where he should feel 100% safe). At the same time though, it should be reviewed.
Not defending the criminal, but it sounds like you have other issues going on there "pardner". No one should WISH to take another life.
Having said that, the homeowner had every right to defend himself and his property. Investigate, exonerate, move on. I wish the homeowner the best. Taking a life, however justified, can't be easy.
hs321
OK, so we heard his mother's comments. Wonder what his father has to say?
------------------------------
People don't have fathers now a days. Seems in this society judges think that dads are only needed 4 days out of a month in a child's life and or his dad took off on his own.
Take your pick.He ether grew up in a judge sanctioned fatherless home or his dad decided to be a creep and leave on his own, but the way things are now I would say its a 50/50 chance for ether situation.
Hey hs321, that's pretty funny! What the "father" has to say. Hahaha. Which one of the 742 possible "fathers" do you suppose that would be? Hahaha!
If you have the nonlethal tools to do the job and your trained to use them no one needs to die. I get what your saying but I do not live in a world where anyone needs to get shot and I do not live in a world where lethal weapons are necessary to feel safe in or outside of my home.
I respect those who take the rout of a gun for self protection but I am highly trained not to need to carry such force for simple self defense. Hard rounds ( lethal ammunition ) represents a high risk to innocents in a given area and harming others unnecessarily is not my way.
After Obama and the gun hating left confiscate your guns, the homeowner would have to beat that guy to death with a louisville slugger.
Another thug eliminated from the planet. No tears. He chose his path.
So it's OK if I shoot a "thug" intruder robbing my home, but when "thug" wall street bankers rob my pension and savings, I can't? That doesn't seem like a very good deal...
England had a very broad definition of the word "criminal." It could include people who were not able to pay their debts, or anyone who had been accused of insulting a member of the upper class by accidently bumping into them on a busy street.
It could also include female servants who had the audacity to get pregnant when they were raped by the upper class lords and their sons of the houses where the impertinent girls were employed.
It also included disgraced upper crust lords who had lost their fortunes, or those whose fathers lost the fortunes before the young men could inherit.
Not all those banished to Australia were killers and thieves.
GA Mimi
Yeah, some were banished to Georgia, as it was an "indentured service" colony at its initial colonization!
Now we actually HAVE a case of someone who successfully used a gun to deal with an intruder. Instead of the millions and millions and millions of such cases that supposedly happen every year that somehow no one who is not an NRA supporter hears about.
Byron--- do you have to be spoonfed everything?
Jessica - Love your idea about the place where druggies live among druggies. Certain areas in some cities are almost there, in that the cops won't even enter.
RT,
Your Pension was entrusted to be invested into certain markets to try and make money, knowing full well that it's a risky business, and you could possible lose money. A bad investment is not the same as theft of property. Go back to Obama School and find another class to try and vilify.
bart martin-3773750
First rule in using deadly force. ID the target As it could be a family member. I hope he did that
See they do report stories where a gun was apparently used legitimately in defense of home after all.
And to makesnosense who wrote "Oh and Eric, I would have loved to waste this guys life if he was breaking into my home." I say you don't belong in civilized society. Move to a third world slum someplace, leave you windows open with valuable goods in plain view and maybe you'll get your life's wish to "waste" somebody there.
Ah, yes. I wish it always turned out like this.
This raging liberal has zero problem with this shoot. This story as presented is pure self defense. I feel for the dead guys family, but he brought it on himself and the homeowner was completely within his rights.
When even yo' momma isn't surprised, I would say it was a long time coming. Anyone crawling through my window would meet the same fate. My family, my home, my possessions I will protect them all.
Does the "castle law" cover you if the cops come beating down your door, and you happen to either be hard of hearing or have your earbuds in listening to really loud music and you don't hear them declare themselves as cops? When they bust in your door, can you shoot them using legal deadly force against someone who breaks into your residence uninvited?
I bet your a$$ goes straight to the needle for capital murder of a police officer. This is where blind "split second" reactions with guns can get you in trouble. Good thing it wasn't the person's child coming in from an all-night bender!
Look, in this case, he happened to get a stranger intent on criminal behavior, so it was a good kill. I'm saying, next time, it may not end so well for this homeowner.
QE You shoot me with a rubber bullet and I will take the gun away from you and shove it up you a$$!!!
Devil's Advocate, That scenario happened in Georgia just a few years ago. Cops broke into a house on a drug raid. The elderly woman living there (alone) fired her pistol at the intruders. They returned fire, killing her. The warrant they used was completely false. They claimed that there had been drug activity at that address; it was a lie. You can't shoot at cops and expect to survive, even when they are illegally raiding your home...
At least two cops were convicted and sent to jail in the case fom Georgia...
Chalk one up for the good guys!!!
Oh well, think of it as culling the herd. Darwin's law strikes again. Tsk Tsk.
Heh heh!
　
Good point. We always climb in the window around my house. Doors are for sissies.
"It's a shame to waste human life no matter the cause." ... and Beeg wasted himself.
Eric-913730
I don't know about you, but my right right to life, liberty and property ARE absolute. 4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification
The US Constitution places limits upon the Government, not upon me. Having said that, should I violate the Rights of another, then the Government may then, after "due process" deny me Rights. But if I commit no criminal act, then my Rights are ABSOLUTE. Or at least they were until FDR loaded the SCOTUS, and started mucking up the works.
@ Cheetah,
damn it, I scrolled all the way to the bottom of this pile to say the same thing. ;-)
Well it is no wonder it cooled off here, and we are expecting blizzard like conditions here tomorrow. Hell froze over and MSNBC published a story of a man defending his home with a firearm. ;-)
Too bad the homeowner didn't cut the intruder's balls off before shooting him.
Why does NBC consider this a story? Bad guy loses, good guy does right thing. This happens a lot around the country, but the first time NBCNews has reported such! Maybe Obama thought that if he had a son, he would look like the bad guy! Then I would understand NBC's reasoning. \sarc
Here is what Obama would have recommended.....The homeowner should have politely invited this young man into his home and had a beer summit to calmly discuss this poor mans need to break into a strangers house. Later, when all around are singing "Koumbaya" the intruder pulls out his own gun and kills the home owner and then ransacks the home looking for valuables and drugs. This is what the police in Chicago should recommend the homeowners to do!
Mtm, I must have missed the part of the article that stated Obama's recommendation on this situation. Surely you aren't referring to the proposed gun control laws because that would show a huge lack of knowledge concerning the subject, since hand guns, shotguns, and rifles will still be legal to own even if all the laws pass. Just so you realize, in your metaphor you are making out Republicans to be the criminals since they were the ones invited to have a beer with Obama. It's funny how you Obama haters will criticize him for the drone programs saying he wants to kill Americans and then turn right around and give him crap for an imagined hypothetical in which he does not want to kill Americans. Why don't you just come out and say the real reason you hate everything he does, everything he doesn't do, and everything you imagine he does?
Eric, for what it is worth, I agree. All killings should be investigated. As this story reads, no rational person should have an issue with this shooting: A man was crawling in through the homeowner's window and he, the homeowner, shot him.
We're not talking here about conducting a Warren Commission style study, just a brief examination of the circumstances by the police to ensure they match the homeowner's story, which I'm sure they do.
I'm quite sure some on this site will loudly claim the slain man doesn't deserve it. But it is not done just for his benefit. It is done for us all, to ensure the true rule of law.
QE137
I to am highly trained,with both hand to hand and with a gun. One thing over the years of my life I have learned one thing for sure. I dont care how good YOU think you are at hand to hand,there is always gonna be one or more that can easily take you down.. Im sure for the most part you could handle most situations just as I can. Its that one time in your life when the odds are way against you,someone maybe even with a gun attempt to rob you or take the life of you or a family member and you are not close enough do be of assitance that another form of protection may come in handy... By they way I dont miss my target.
Such a shame to waste one's life this way. Bad choices lead to bad outcomes more often than not.
Nah, it would have been much more shameful if the trash had gotten away.
Would you say the same thing if this had went the other way? screw him and his "wasted life" he made the choices, he died, good riddance.
Where are all the people calling for gun control now?
Let's see, was he coming in the window to kill someone or just rob the place? We don't get to find out.
Still, you either see human life as valuable or you don't.
Eric, I value the life of the homeowner protecting his home and family over the life of a known criminal.
Eric, hes been in posession of controlled substance, if it was marijuana, fine. but odds are it wasnt. Most people I know taht smoke do not commit other crimes, they are too laid back. Odds are it was cocaine, or crack cocaine, in which case, he could snap at any moment. This is what is called Natural Selection... Do something stupid, well, we see the end result. It would be nice if we didnt need firearms to protect ourselves, but we do not live in that world. Some of us have to make that emotional and spiritual hit, in order to protect people. I dont want to ahve to kill anyone, but I wont hesitate to protect others.
So what're you saying, Eric? You think that Piece of chit's life was 'valuable?' Well, maybe to the maggots now. If anyone wants to attempt to break into my home or even threaten me on my own property, thankfully there's a law that gives ME the right to STAND MY GROUND and use lethal force if necessary - which I would in a heartbeat. People have value to me as long as they don't mean me or my family harm. Beyond that, totally worthless and more valuable DEAD.
This guy was a piece of trash. They showed his 16 pages of criminal history on the news here in Dallas. His sister was on the news crying and saying the homeowner should have given him a warning. I think the 16 pages of criminal history were warning enough for Pipkins. I am glad the homeowner owned a gun. One less criminal to worry about. He is lucky he lived as long as he did.
Eric's is right. This guy was no danger. He was just a junkie out looking to score a 40 and an 8-ball. The home owner clearly should have established a line of dialog with the intruder to determine his intentions. He could have cleared the whole thing up and sent him on his way.
Skup, it appears you have never tried to rationalize with a junkie high and out of their mind (if in fact that was the case here). There is no sane thought process. Their actions are agressive, abusive and can be harmful.
If you were being sarcastic, then my bad.
Ssimmons117
Where are all the people calling for gun control now?
-----------------------------------
It dose not matter where they are, something one way or the other will be done about guns being used in unjustified killings and it will happen without destroying the right to self defense with a firearm.
It will be a compromise position for both sides. People who want guns will have them but with perhaps more responsibility for them and those who do not like guns will still have to live with them being around. One thing is for sure, enough people have misused their 2ned amendment that something will have to be done to protect the right to life that is just as enshrined in the constitution as the right to have a weapon.
Skup: You feel that way because that's they way you want to be treated when you are on your next "buy" ? Why not see it from the homeowner's point of view ? Why see it from the criminal's point of view ?
this is what happened to a guy in michigan who got liquored up and threatened his wife.
when the cops showed up, he exited the house holding his lawfully owned gun.
he was so drunk, that when the cops REPEATEDLY told him to put his gun down, he refused and got more beligerent.
so they shot him dead.
you get wasted, and you might just find someone will waste you out of this life.
own it.
Eric-913730
Perhaps the homeowner should have stopped and asked the intruder what his intentions were. Some people live in fantasy land, don't they?
.... What's that? Oh, you're looking for a DVD player or a smart phone? Sorry, all I have is a cheap flip phone... You want to try breaking in over at the Smiths across the street... They have LOTS of digital equipment that you can steel and pawn... BTW.. they don't own firearms.. So your free to tie up the homeowner and rape his wife in front of him and the kiddies too. Just promise me it won't escalate into murder, ok pal?
People who say you should reason with someone breaking into your house...SEE HOW STUPID YOU SOUND ???
I'd rather hear BANG, then hear elevator music while I wait on hold for EMS picks up...
So, Skup - as a single mother with two teenage daughters at home, I'm supposed to ask him his intentions while he's climbing throught my window? Not a chance - shoot first, ask questions later. Don't mess with Texas moms - you don't know if you'll end up on the wrong end of a 9mm.
Peoople...
Skup was being sarcastic... (please tell them you were being sarcastic....)
ga Jack and Scooter
I'm for gun control. But that does not mean that no one should have a gun. The story we are commenting on is a great example of an appropriate use of a gun.
IReadyou.... I have a wonderful piece of ocean-front property in Omaha that's for sale.
29Again... did you see where gullible was removed from the dictionary? Seriously! Go look it up.
Skup... good job. P T Barnum would be proud of you.
This story is more proof that you can still defend yourself within the Second Amendment AND without an assault weapon or assault-type weapon.
What if he was an 16 year old boy with no record? I only ask because one broke into my house while I was at work once, they caught him trying to break into my neighbors. Instantly I thought, "thank god I wasn't home to shoot that stupid stupid little boy". That would have hung on my conscience forever... I know you can legally shoot someone breaking in, but it is always the right thing to do?
I completely agree. Karma finally caught up to this criminal and it came in the form of a bullet.
Thanks screminmimi, that was most definitely SARCASM. The only line of dialog that need to be established was established.
Where are all the people calling for gun control now?
I'm right here. I believe in gun regulation and think everyone should be screened before getting a gun. I also think if you want a gun to protect your property, then so be it. Problem with the right-wing, they think those of us who want gun regulations are actually out to take all your guns (it's called paranoia). But that's not the case. Protect your home, but also close the loophole in background checks.
That is a good point as well. Going back to the case in South Africa where the Olympian shot his girlfriend through the locked bathroom door, he claims he shot out of fear, thinking there was an intruder in the house. If that is true, he still committed a crime, not because of who got shot, but because of how he proceeded without due process (i.e. asking for ID and staying in a guarded position). If we expect our police force to act a certain way with guns, why aren't we doing the same with ourselves?
Well, now I feel silly. Thanks for that clairification Skup. :)
DC,
People do leave their homes. Many places like NY, CA, and Chicago it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get a carry license. Isn't that denying someone their right? I think people at gun shows should go through a background check, but what I don't get is the thinking that if there are universal background checks, that the left think criminals will all of a sudden comply with the law and get a background check. All it's doing is making it more cumbersome for law abiding citizens to sell their rightful property.
Also, Many Dems/Libs would vote for an all out ban on all weapons. Feinstein would. She even said she would. Obama also personally thinks it shouldn't be legal for people to own guns.
This is a local news article receiving national attention. The media machine is in full propaganda mode
Yeah I support gun control. This guy didn't need an assault rifle to protect his home, did he?
Many of you just don't get that it's okay to own a gun. But what kinds of guns are necessary for self-defense, and which guns are asking for a mass shooting? I think the homeowner did the right thing--he probably even told the guy to stop moving before shooting him. Either way, he needed to defend his home and most people don't have a problem with that.
Oh and yes, it is stupid to try to sit down and 'have a talk' with an intruder--although lives should not be taken if it can be avoided. Don't stereotype gun control advocates just because some of us are about as smart as members of the KKK who support the NRA.
Ok ... so one can protect his/her home without an assault rifle.
"NRA good - black men Bad" crowd needs to get a life. Nobody is saying the intruder didn't commit a crime or shouldn't have been punished. The original commentator is only trying to say that it was bad decision and he got paid for it.
stratocumulus, you defend your family with your choice of weapon, and I'll defend mine with my choice. Try to remember this isn't just about defending against a burgeler, in the case of civil unrest/rioting or tyranny, a 6 shot wheel gun wont go far.
While I agree with you, never forget that nothing beats a couple of well trained good dogs.
Yeah, why establish dialog and tell him to get back out of the window when you get to fulfill your dream to kill someone? That too was sarcasm.
So it is possible to defend against an intruder with something other than a military style assault rifle!!! Who would have guessed? Or you can do like I did, hit the guy over the head with a cast iron fying pan then call the police while holding the pan ready to strike in case the dude wakes up.
Yeah, let me know how your precious AK-47 does against that drone or that A10. The "tyranny" argument is always good for a hoot.
Good idea but the problem with dogs is they might not finish the job and then you'll get sued for the damage they did. If your dogs did not finish the job and you did then it becomes murder. Better to just shoot him dead and be done with it.
Yeah, why not try and establish dialog and take a chance that he's got his own gun and while you're trying to be a nice guy and "establish dialog" he just shoots your ass, cause he knows you're going to call the police, and, oh yeah, he's already got a record, and no, sir, he's not going back to jail.
"Establish dialog".... sure....
Jim do you see someone about that paranoia or do you just sit in a constant state of fear all the time?
ProFreedom-5130956
This is a local news article receiving national attention. The media machine is in full propaganda mode
last week a local story about the changing of park names in memphis got national attention.
Paranoia [ËŒpærəˈnɔɪ.É™] (adjective: paranoid [ˈpærÉ™.nɔɪd]) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.
Looks like the homeowner saved the taxpayers a lot of money.
Screminmimi- "Establish dialog" was a quote used from earlier. Quite certain "Freeze Scumbag" like what the cops use, is not a dialog; more of a warning.
Where are all the people calling for gun control now?
I'm right here too! I think that we need appropriate gun laws to make gun owners (from the manufacturer down to the end purchaser) RESPONSIBLE for their guns. That includes background checks, mandatory reporting if a gun is lost or stolen -- and jail time if you don't, and keeping the gun secured from children -- and jail time if you don't.
It seems to me that folks were crying out for JUST this sort of story when the mass shootings using "assault type" guns were in the news. Now you have this story and you're complaining?
Eric said: "It's a shame to waste human life no matter the cause."
Ummm...no it's not. Every single gang-banger, career criminal (defined as three or more convictions for felonies), rapist, and pedophile in this country should be rounded up and summarily executed live on TV for the pure, unadulterated enjoyment of all.
You liberals are ridiculous with your every life is precious bullsh!t. The fact is there are a considerable number of people in our society who just need to be put down like a rabid dog - period. Of course, it'll never happen because of the naive, bleeding-heart idiots in the Democratic party, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't.
Stay vigilant, America...
He should get a tax deduction for his contribution.
Are you SERIOUS?! This sounds like typical liberal hogwash. "If someone is breaking into your house, the first thing you should do is 'establish a line of dialog to determine his intentions'". Aren't his intentions clear? TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE! This is why citizens need guns, and this is why laws like this exist. What's sad is that a grand jury has to even decide ANYTHING here. The prosecutor should be able to look at this and immediately exonerate the homeowner. Establish a line of dialog... Gimme a break!
QE - if you want to stop guns used in unjustified killings, tell your saviour Obama to stop selling them to criminals... that would be a good way to start...
I wonder what the hell my state has as a law for this.Who cares,you're dead if you enter my house by my dogs! The bow-wow law.
Texas has the- castle doctrine
Florida has the- stand your ground
California has the- LAPD policy
@Brad M. Honey, all guns are assault weapons. That's what they're designed for. To kill other human beings. From the recipient's side, they could care less if the bullet ripping their flesh apart comes from an M4 or a Remington 700. Guns are dangerous, and need to be treated with respect.
The AWB is a complete deflection, trying to establish precedent to curb Second Amendment rights incrementally, by banning weapons based on utterly superficial characteristics.
@Eric-913730: If a person has transgressed from societal norms sufficiently to inflict his will on another, or to enter his property, you cannot second-guess his intentions. There are no doubt sociopaths itching for an excuse to legally kill under the Castle Doctrine, but the bottom line is, there would be no killing if the perp wasn't committing the crime.
There are way too many instances of perps sweet-talking their victims all the way to the grave, whether it be the 9/11 hijackers ("Stay seated, all will be fine!") or convenience store robberies where everyone in the store is marched into the freezer and executed. Dead men tell no tales. Particularly if the other party has any kind of weapon, there is no reasonable choice but to assume he intends to use it, whether you comply with his demand or not.
No time to read every post, sorry for any repeat. Re: "Media Bias". This story supports guns for protection. (Not the usual complaint.). Re: "Gun owners protecting their homes happens all the time". (Actually, since the NRA refuses to allow the gvt. to collect statistics on anything meaningful about gun violence, NOBODY KNOWS HOW OFTEN people protect their homes with guns!) Re: How can having a gun handy be bad? (Well, for starters, had the home owner not caught the burglar, the gun might well have been stolen-- and used in other crimes. Or, as has happened too often, the h.o. might have accidently shot his kid, sneaking in after cerfew. Or, the gun may still end up being used to kill someone in the household [murder by spouse, suicide, etc.]. Or, as often happens, somebody gets shot, by accident. Or, finally [?] the owner may get cut off in traffic, or p.o.ed at a neighbor, or angry at being fired, or when somebody cuts in front of him in line, [or any of the thousands of other truly lame reasons we have for killing each other in this country, every day] and start shooting people!)
One other possibility, favored by the NRA. The man gets pizzed at something the government does, like make it easy for somebody he doesn't like to vote, or raise the minimum wage, or ban rapid-fire weapons, or whatever he may imagine is "tyranny", and he starts shooting people. And, one of the people he kills is YOU (or, your spouse, or your kid, or parent). It happens in America EVERY SINGLE DAY! One of the reasons it happens is we are the people we are. We demand guns, and then wonder why they get used so often. Its because we are Americans, folks. The Swiss have about as many guns as we do (per person), but they don't often act this way. Other Europeans are much like us, but they choose not to have so many easily available guns, and there is nearly no gun violence there. But, we are used to it. We think that guns make one safe. And, both because we live in a society that we have made one of the most violent in the world, and because some of us make a living scaring the crap out of the rest of us, then sell us guns, so we feel safer, we are afraid to face life without guns for protection.
The cycle likely will not end (the current slight nudge toward sane gun control is likely going nowhere much) until we are much more heavily armed. Until there are far more gun murders (maybe 50 dead first-graders will be enough, or 100, but who can tell?), and the people finally realize that no amount of guns will make anyone FEEL SAFE, we are going to be the most deadly place in the industrialized world to live. Thinking that more guns will make you FEEL SAFER, is lunacy. Because your neighbor will also want more guns, and you don't trust him (nor does he trust you). Its called a "positive feedback loop" in audio, (like when the person starts to talk in the auditorium, and the microphone picks up the speakers, and you get that loud whistling drone). The gun violence culture in the U.S. is feeding on itself right now, and if we can't stop it with safe, sane and reasonable laws, it will get immensely worse, before it gets better, (if it gets better.)
Bruce-308647 - That was sarcasm direct at Eric's 2.4 comment. The 40 and an 8-ball didn't give it away?
Sounds like the goddamn Spanish Inquisition. Tell me, how many of you were just praying this guy came through your window so you could kill someone? That's what it sounds like to me. What a society, sheesh.
Big Ed,
You are right. America is doomed. You should hop the next plane to one of these utopian countries that you seem to prefer. I'm sure that you will find your rainbow of hapiness.
Rob
I don't think anyone "wants" the now deceased to crawl through their window. What you hear is the result of an unwanted intrusion into someone's private domicile, causing the perpetrator's demise.
Until you have had a gun shoved in your face and robbed, STFU.
Maingear,
Sounds like you do.... and that you may want to deal with your anger issues.
DCKEENE - go read some more of the news articles before you post. New York had already passed legislation that requires the guns under criticism to be turned in to the cops or shipped out of state. Missouri had just introduced legislation to do the same thing. If that isn't taking away the guns, what is?
Beth - let's make car manufacturers responsible when drunk crivers use cars to kill people. See how dumb your comment was?
I still think you should have to give a warning (if possible), and only if no weapon can be seen, if a weapon can be seen then shoot first.
The reason behind this is the sad story of a man who shot his son who was sneaking home after being out after curfew, if the father had given a warning the son may have been able to identify himself. The man climbing in the window may have caused no harm to anyone and if given the chance may have just run off.
Many people seem to hold life in such low esteem and seem to think being judge jury and executioner is OK.
As I said if they continue after the warning or have a visible weapon fire away!
Joe from (no surprise) Texas ...
They DO make us responsible for our vehicles when we own them. If a car is registered to you, and someone is driving it, they have an accident, guess who is responsible??? YOU, as the owner of the car. How are you NOT responsible? Only if you have reported it lost or stolen.
Maybe you should rethink your comment.
@Hatr_hurtr
The city in which I dwell had 3 shootings today alone. One such shooting was a driveby, taking out a pedestrian who was minding their own business. Just the other day an intruder was shot and killed in the home by the homeowner, very similar to this incident. And this story from Dallas gets national coverage; it didn't cross your mind that this story was being used for some illustrative purposes? A larger agenda? Otherwise, why is it any more special than the hundreds of other shootings that took place?
Your comparison between a friggen park changing its name vs people getting shot is hardly comparable and frankly insensitive. Your feeble attempt to be clever has unfortunately backfired. Enjoy!
ob·tuse (b-ts, -tys, b-) adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est
1.
a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect. b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark. c. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
2.
a. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt. b. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.c. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.
assault style weapons are almost never used in gun crimes, are not significantly more lethal than many other rifle types, and if they are banned, mass murders will just be perpetrated by criminals with other guns and lots of 10 round magazines just like they were during the last ban
people saying banning assault weapons or 30 round magazines will make a dent in gun crime in the US are being unbelievably stupid... they don't know the specifics of what they are asking for and they are falling for the oldest mass media and political trick in the book: feed the public a catchphrase, tell them it's bad, then get support to restrict human rights
habeas corpus, unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of speech, and now right to bear arms..... all remarkably weaker since 9/11
If they guy was a long way from you in the house, try shooting above his head (or is that a waste of a good window). Either he'll climb back out and run away, or he'll continue inside where, by Texas law, you can shoot to kill. And I say this because, even if it's a murder in self defense, the average homeowner (and average American, for that matter) are not in the habit of murdering people and it could come back to haunt them even if the law exonerates them. And for all those that would kill first, ask questions later, have you never heard of people that did end up turning around their lives? Plenty do. I'm just saying we shouldn't be in such a rush to be judge, jury, and executioner which is what I keep seeing written here. No one speaks of a warning shot if the danger isn't right upon you.
When referring to the term "assault weapon" it is generally meant as offensive/counter offensive, like in military or SWAT operations. Let's not pretend that all guns are the same lethality.
Now about your comment about curbing the Second Amendment, even Supreme Court Justice Scalia said last year that there are limits to the Second Amendment, in the sense of lethality. He used the rocket-propelled grenade launcher as an example of such limitations.
I wonder if the homeowner used a DOUBLE BARRELED SHOTGUN as recommend for home protection by the Vice President of the United States of America.
All kinds of opinions here. Let the jury decide.
Maybe you should re-think your opinion, Beth.
You anti-gun pu$$ies want to hold the gun manufacturers responsible when someone uses their product to commit murder. That's not the same as holding a car owner responsible, it's equivalent to holding GM responsible. And if someone steals your car and runs someone down, you are not responsible, but if someone steals my gun and kills someone, you think I should be.
You're obviously confused and you're shamelessly hypocritical.
Carry ...
It's amazing that you seem to feel I'm "anti gun".
As a matter of fact, I'm a gun OWNER and an expert marksman on several American (and German) weapons. And had you read ALL of what I had to say on the subject, you would see I would hold the gun owner responsible IF, and ONLY IF, he or she did not report the gun as stolen. If a person reports the gun lost or stolen within 24 hours, then no liability.
Before you start name calling ... read EVERYTHING a person has to say on a topic and not just what you want to read into it!
So, no thank you ... I'm not confused and I will NOT be rethinking my opinion.
Funny thing about self defense. You only have to defend it if you are successful. I think it's clear that the libs who suggest an alternative to what this homeowner did are living in lala land. Every cop will tell you that the longer you hesitate, the greater your chances of being killed. If you are one who thinks that it is wise to weigh all of your options in times of crisis, then I hope you do your family a favor and put in your will or a separate letter to your family that if you ended up getting shot it is because you knew you wanted to try to negotiate with your judge, jury and executioner rather than take a life that, although they wanted to take yours, you thought it was better for you to die than to make a hasty decision to defend yourself and your family. Better yet, just spell it out and say "I love you, but I would never defend you against someone who might try to harm you unless I am 100% certain that they intend to harm you." Actually, even better yet than that, spell it out before you get married and have kids. That way the person you marry will go into the marriage with eyes wide open.
I just want to take a few minutes here and a few pixels to explain a few things to you folks that may be overshadowed in the whole "guns are bad" debate. As a disabled war vet, having served 21 years for that measley piece of paper called the constitution and the chunk of cloth called our flag, I rever both of them. As some of you may recall from history, before being dumbed down by our wonderful media outlets and the propagandists, the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was arming the citizenry so in the need that the government needed to be replaced, the masses had the authority and the opportunity to do just that. You see, we replaced a tyrant, a monarch with a "representative" government, and when that government becomes tyrranical we have the means to keep control of OUR country. Which brings to bear the issue of firearm registration, which for the life of me can never recall a felon, or a killer bothering to register thier firearms. So truthfully, the only thing registration does is keep the honest people honest, the dishonest ones dishonest, and the government in your business.
If we talk about history and prohibition, that is what gun control is, prohibition, we know the criminal elements of society don't give 2 @!$%#s about the law. You see, they will have thier guns, whether they are bought on the black market, smuggled from some armpit country somewhere, or hell for that matter, any knucklehead with 2 braincells can look on the ole internet and see how to fashion a makeshift gun. Having served in terrorist central, I can tell you the one constant in human evolution is the ingenuity of human beings. Someone hell bent on harming you, raping you, killing you, will come up with a means and a way of doing it. I have seen some really nifty Improvised Explosive Devices kill dozens made purely of household chemicals available at any grocery store. I have personally seen the working end of a simple device made of fertilizer and seen and lived through what a truck load of animal @!$%# can do. The ONLY thing a gun will do is give you a "fighting chance" in the event THEY get sloppy or make a mistake.
Now personally I believe the only way you end violent crime is through a system of deterrence. OUR system is neither deterring or punishing. In crime U (what I call the jail) you learn what you did wrong and you get to learn from others how not to get caught in the future. You see we care sooooo much about the rights of those that don't give a @!$%# about the rights of anyone else (the murderers, the rapists, the thieves, the molesters) that we seem to forget, or are too damned stupid to realize these "poor poor souls" never once considered the victim. And so when we see the average 14 years of legal wrangling in capital punishment cases (where believe it or not over 85% of those appeals are not disputing GUILT) the victims of those crimes NEVER had thier day in court, never got consideration, or even a mention. No, they are a footnote lost in the whole "Jimmy came from a broken home, was poor, was abused" bull@!$%# excuses to somehow quantify the actions of poor poor jimmy that it isn't his fault he made the decision to rape, kill, steal or whatever, that WE send a message that crime DOES PAY. It pays in the NO ACCOUNTABILITY, in the Perks of Prison (the Club Fed nautilis equipment, the education opportunity, the free medical, the free roof over thier head, the 3 hots and a cot, not to mention the moronic dumbasses who take to the penpal romances, the congical visits, and the hey felon lets have a prison wedding garbage. Meanwhile, the victims continue to feed worms, suffer through the nightmares, the years of therapy, or what have you. Personally, I think if the 3 strikes law culminated in an automatic death sentence we would actually have a deterrent. Kill someone, get found guilty, you be swinging by weeks end. No more gurney trips, where you can have someone claim to be too fat, too frail to have lethal injection. Ropes and axes are reusable. And you sure as hell don't need to worry about sterilizing them, because the sorry bastard on the other end will be done, long before any "infection" can take hold....
QE137,
The point of the second amendment is to protect our right to life. So your anti-gun nut rant does not work here.
Beth - Falsely stating that you're a gun owner on this forum as a means of attempting to somehow add credibility to your anti-gun rhetoric is a tired ploy and it's been tried many times before.
Whether or not you actually own any guns is completely irrelevant to your anti-American stance opposing the 2nd Amendment.
Oh, by the way, my girlfriend had an abortion when we were in high school and because of my experience with this, I believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. See how that works?
Carryingconcealed
Beth is preaching gun CONTROL not gun banning, she is not opposing the 2-nd amendment. I agree people need to be more responsible with guns, from background checks to types of guns available.
Funny thing is guns AND people kill people.
Beth and Krestov: Before I say what I'm about to say, I'm not implying that either of you are liberals, but here are the facts around gun control:
1. It's estimated that there are approximately three guns for every man, woman and child in this country, so when it comes to the proliferation of guns in the U.S., that ship has long since sailed.
2. If we completely banned the sale of all firearms tomorrow, we wouldn't feel the intended effects of that for over a century, if ever, simply because of the millions and millions of guns out there now, attempted confiscation would start a civil war, and the fact that the black market would take over immediately and we'd still be armed, it would just cost more. (Think prohibition)
3. Criminals don't care about gun laws or any other laws, so if the intent is to disarm criminals I wish you luck.
4. Most gun owners, myself included, are in favor of common sense restrictions on gun ownership such as background checks (as long as liberals agree to comprehensive voter ID laws, proof of citizenship for driver's licenses, health care, education, etc.), limiting magazine capacity, and liability in cases where children are injured or killed, or they kill someone else, with an adult's gun that was not properly secured.
5. So why are we fighting any and all legislation when it comes to the 2nd Amendment? Because we know as surely as Barrack Hussein Obama is as unfit to run this country as any President in history, that if we give up a single inch to liberals on this issue, the assault will never end, and it's really that simple.
And let's be honest here, when was the last time liberals were willing to concede a damn thing when it came to their real (and perceived) personal rights? Uhhh...never!
So there you have it; there is no solution to the gun problem in this country other than to get better at identifying those individuals who would seem to pose the biggest threat. However, that's certainly not an exact science and people are too busy with their own lives to worry about what others are doing anyway, which brings us right back to where we are, doesn't it?
By the way, did you know that there are five theaters in Aurora, CO, and of those five, four of them allow concealed carry? Guess which one our Joker wannabe chose to go shoot up? Not the biggest one in town, and not the one closest to his house, but the only one that banned concealed carry.
See, even an insane person can figure out that gun control doesn't make us safer, it just makes us more vulnerable.
LOL If that's the BEST you can come up with ... then your argument is as fallacious as you are ridiculous! The last defense of someone who cannot refute a point is to throw out unfounded accusations so as to take attention away from the ISSUE.
I challenge you to show me where I OPPOSE the 2nd Amendment? By asking for a requirement gun owners to be RESPONSIBLE and report if their guns are lost or stolen? How does that OPPOSE the 2nd Amendment? I also challenge you to show me where I said guns should be banned.
And one final thing ... as to being "Anti-American" -- I donned a uniform for years to DEFEND America and the Constitution, therefore I don't feel I need to defend myself to YOU any further. You are not worth my time and energy.
"You are not worth my time and energy."
Well, apparently I am since you continue to slither back and spew your nonsensical pablum.
And a little piece of advice: don't use all upper case when you're trying to emphasize something; it just makes you appear so . . . ill equipped. Try italicizing...
beth: you may be a gun owner, but you are also a hypocrite. You want to make the gun manufacturers liable, for what? I have a feeling that it is not for a gun not shooting when the trigger is pulled. Other than that, there is no reason to hold a manufacturer liable. Of course, if you are truly logical in wanting to hold manufacturers liable when a gun is used to kill someone, then you also want to hold automobile manufacturers liable if a car kills someone and knife manufacturers liable if a knife kills someone, etc. And that begs the question, why should anyone be required to report something that they own as stolen? I can only assume that you believe that anything that could possibly be misused to hurt someone should be required to be registered. But, I don't think you really understand the extent to which you would require registration, if you were to be consistent. Do you really want everyone who buys a clothesline or fabric to be required to register their purchases? After all, they can be used to kill someone. The same goes for steak knives, hammers, screwdrivers, computers, pet rocks, and almost anything else one can think of. Do you really think the government should have the right to know everything that you own and everything that you do? Because, quite frankly, that is the essence of your argument. Thus, if you really think of it, why is it that you think the government has the right to know whether you own a gun or whether a gun you owned was stolen from you. It's because you think that it might cause harm to someone else! Well, everything I've listed and more MIGHT cause harm to someone else.
And, you are quite wrong about the ideals of being an American. To Americans who understand the concept of what it is to be an American, we understand that concept of freedom and freedom from government oppression is the basis on which this country was founded. How you find those concepts consistent with your argument that we, the people, must report everything to the government is beyond me or logic. Since you state, in a round about way, that you are in favor of the second amendment, then I ask you, what right does the government have to know what guns you own or what guns have been stolen from you or guns you have sold? I can only conclude that you are one of those "pick and choose" people. Obviously, the vast majority of Christians pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to believe in. You seem to want to pick and choose what part of the Constitution you think should be enforce. By this I'm referring to the fact that the Constitution gives the Federal Government limited powers. Not one of those powers gives the government the right to have reported to them the things that we purchase, the things that are stolen from us or the things that we sell.
Admittedly, Bill Clinton has become the true face of the Democratic Party. After all, it all depends on what the definition of is is. Which is why it is impossible to win an argument with a liberal. No matter what you say, they really don't care. They feel they don't have to back up their arguments because they aren't interested in logic or debates. And, why is that? Because most liberals know that they can't defend their positions, so they set up their own ground rules. When you can't out debate them, you call them names and radicals. It's the modus operendi of the left today. And, unless you can directly answer my points, then it is obvious that you agree.
Krestov and the others that think most of the posters are wishing that something like this would happen to them - they are not wishing that, they are just tired of criminals running around doing what they please with little or no consequences. Get caught, convicted and be back on the street to do it again in a few months is wearing on good decent people. I don't hold life in low esteem - I hold a habitual criminals life life in low esteem. They are nothing more than parasites and anyone knows what you do with parasites - you exterminate them.
"This story is more proof that you can still defend yourself within the Second Amendment AND without an assault weapon or assault-type weapon."
Brad, He used the same style gun, that was used in Newtown, but a different make.
Oh, and yes, hammers and knives kill more people each year than ANY kind of rifle.
"That is a good point as well. Going back to the case in South Africa where the Olympian shot his girlfriend through the locked bathroom door, he claims he shot out of fear, thinking there was an intruder in the house. If that is true, he still committed a crime, not because of who got shot, but because of how he proceeded without due process (i.e. asking for ID and staying in a guarded position). If we expect our police force to act a certain way with guns, why aren't we doing the same with ourselves?"
Umm... because it's our f-ing house? If someone breaks into a Police Station, do you think they're going to ask for ID? Additionally, the Police shoot people for 2 reasons: 1) The shootee doing something stupid, OR 2) The cop is on a power-trip. Sometimes both.
Sounds like he used gun control. None of the neighbors were shot! I don't know any gun owner that wants to kill someone. More people are killed every year with "blunt objects" than semi automatic rifles. Maybe we should ban any object weighing over half a pound. Sure I'll support thorough background checks. And stiffer penalties for crimes commited with firearms. Punish the criminals not the law abiding citizens.
Eric, we know he was entering an occupied domicile, uninvited, and through force. As to what his ultimate altimate intent was, I neither know nor care, nor should the home's occupants.
Once an intruder is in your home, anything can happen. Any person is absolutely entitled to prevent such an event though the use of deadly force. If the police find the circumstances are different than they appear in the story, I'll change my opinion, but as of right now I say cheers to the home owner and too bad for the perpetrator.
Tough way to end your life. But you make your choices and you live by them (or die from them).
I can't agree with the majority. I'm a gun owner and I believe in the 2nd amendment. I'm also vehemently pro-life (unborn and born). That said, if someone came into my house, I'd pull my gun on them and use if necessary. But I would at least give the person a warning first. You should kill only when absolutely necessary, even if they are a scum bag. If he was in the window he was likely in a vulnerable position. If he was warned and still proceeded to enter then yes, blow him away. But give the dirtbag a warning first. Despite being a dirtbag, he's still a human being.
the dirtbags warning was.....i'm sure somewhere along the way he heard that breaking and entering was illegal as well as commit a home invasion.
you do no have to shout a warning. if they are breaking into your house in a violent and tumultuous manner you are allowed to use deadly force.
this scumbag gave up his right to live as soon as he started breaking into the place.
I have over the years climbed through my own house's window. Before you shoot someone who has yet to threaten you be sure it ain't your own kin! I just stay outta Texas at any cost!
I think many people will take this law and think they can shoot and KILL just about anyone for anything.
Here in Oregon not long ago two guys got into a fight in the street in broad daylight. A passerby who had a concealed weapon pulled it and having decided for himself which of the fighters was in the wrong, he poked the gun into that guy's face and ordered him on the ground. Police were called and the guy with the gun was still standing there and the police thought he was the bad guy. I don't know if the guy with the gun planned to shoot it at some point, but he butted into a fight that wasn't his to butt into and almost got himself arrested.
or killed!
The burglar wasn't climbing thru his own window...
Sorry, but if I see someone coming into my house through a window or forced door, I WILL AIM AND SHOOT. No one has the right to intrude and jeopardize my family. What the hell is wrong with the law. You defend your home and your family and now they want to press charges.
If you climb in my window at night you better announce yourself or you going to get a load of buckshot in your a$$.
I'd venture a guess he would be coming in head 1st - so that buckshot in the a$$ would be AFTER I already filled his FACE.
It isn't responsible to fire on someone who is down and disabled. In my state you go from self defense to man slaughter when you do this.
Oh excuse me...He was twitching. I wanted to make SURE he was DEAD!
This is the problem with gun culture many Americans have.
Pragmatic,
How do you know he was disabled? In any gun situation you keep firing until the threat disengages or is neutralized, in other words, is no longer a threat.
I'm speaking very broadly about the folks who are talking about shooting a guy in the face, dragging him inside, then filling him full of lead. If you neutralize a threat, there is no need to keep firing. There are many ways to neutralize a threat, either scare the guy off, injure the guy, or kill the guy.
But if he's neutralized and alive, it is irresponsible (and illegal) to finish the job. The tough talk I was responding to advocates finishing the job. And I was noting that this is the kind of behavior sours public opinion on gun owners.
Speaking specifically about this homeowner in his situation, I have no idea what happened, but it sounds like he shot the intruder in the window and the intruder quickly died of his injuries. Note that after the intruder fell out the window, the homeowner didn't keep firing at the body on the ground.
FKit Prag....I'll empty a full clip on his worthless thug ass because maybe I was in FEAR and LOST ALL LIBERAL SENSES at that moment. Neutralized, in this instance isn't 'injured but alive.' No. Neutralized is most definitely DEAD. I just did you, the taxpayer (and me and every other one) A FAVOR. You should be THANKING ME - not saying I give legal gun owners a bad name!
thank you for wanting to kill people in as gruesome a way as possible instead of acting out of a sense of necessity.
Why would u climb in ur own homes window if someone was home ????
Prangmatic - Robber ound dead in window.
Many years ago, a dear old elderly and widowed lady, who lived up the road from us, had a similar situation. Her intruder was coming through her bathroom window. She grabbed the .45 out of her dresser drawer, called the police (pre-911 days, too), went into the bathroom, and dragged the culprit to the floor. She held him at gunpoint until the police arrived.
He's lucky he survived.
What he didn't know, was that years before (during WWII), she had been a guard at one of the local ammunition's factories. She hauled a machine gun everywhere she went. She could and would shoot anything that threatened her or her job (and she did). She was a crack shot and had no fear of firearms whatsoever. She would have shot her intruder, but she said that cleaning up all that blood is a nasty job. (She already knew!)
As it was, in this case, all survived. Had he fought or tried to escape, she would have settled the matter immediately, and then gotten out her bucket and mopped the floor afterwards. I miss Grayce, she went on to her reward a couple years back; but she was tough old bird.
I would do the exact same thing, and I'm almost the same age as she was at the time of this incidence. However, I may get the mop bucket out in the first place, just in case. Intruders--BEWARE.
Well ... a kid who had broken curfew ... or snuck out in the first place ... comes to mind.
A true situation where someone used a gun to protect themselves. Please note that shooter was not wandering the neighborhood following kids around.
Pragmatic -
So, you're going to let the intruder sue you? Because that's what he'll do if you leave him alive. And the ACLU will take the case as they don't care that he was in the wrong, just that you shot him. In the end, you let the criminal win again by allowing yourself be victimized by the perpetrator a second time.
No single person in our society has the right to be judge, jury, and executor. The cost of incarceration should be the furthest thing from your mind when you are defending your home and your family from those who would do you harm. If a thug happens to die while breaking into your home, well that's a hazard of breaking and entering. But unloading onto somebody who is down and out is not only cowardly and illegal, it makes you no better than the thug who was gonna blow you away for your flat screen TV. Having a sense of virtue and moral right is what separates good guys with guns from bad guys with guns.
Public perception of the gun owner is essential to keeping gun control advocates in check. Shaking the perception of the responsible gun owner plays right into the hands of those who would limit your rights. You're proving you shouldn't be trusted to do the right thing with the responsibility you have. That gives ammunition to the gun control advocates, who are trying to convince the public that many gun owners are unhinged, ticking time bombs who will become cold-blooded killers at the drop of a hat.
Tammy,
The criminal's family can still sue you for wrongful death if you kill them. You'll win a case of self defense if you injure and not kill in cold blood. You're gonna lose if they can prove you disabled the perp and killed them in cold blood.
And to clarify a point, even if you kill an intruder, you're a lot better off if it doesn't look like you injured them first, they tried to get away, and you kept firing. But anybody anywhere has a right to sue you at any time for any reason. You just hope the judge looks at the case and determines there is zero merit to it without inconveniencing you too much.
I can scarcely believe I am having this discussion.
Pragmatic - Many years ago, our local sheriff was having to deal with an increased crime rate caused by urban families moving into sub-divisions that were built out in the county jurisdiction just outside the city limits. After a failed attempt to break into a home on my family's property while the resident was home, late one night, the sheriff informed the residents to shoot first and ask questions later, and if they needed help dragging the body in the house, to give him a call. The one distinction in my family's case is that the fence line was marked every 25 feet with no trespassing signs. The idiot came across from the back of the property by jumping a fence.
AvgJoe,
I still see a stark difference between shooting an intruder and shooting an intruder, dragging them closer, and executing them. You're describing the former, not the latter.
Tammy, another point,
If you're going to kill somebody, no matter who it is, because you're worried about a lawsuit, that is the "premeditated" part of "premeditated murder." Using the castle doctrine as a shield for immoral (and illegal) acts does an enormous disservice to everybody who rightfully defends their home. And all the crap I said about public perception.
Which brings me to a final point. This discussion has been terrifying. Some of the loose and flagrantly wrong morals on display here are exactly what gun control advocates ("gun grabbers") are talking about. Good citizens do the right things for the right reasons and deal with the consequences of their actions. But we've been talking about opening into a neutralized threat and keeping people from suing you. Just wow.
That's ridiculous, why would you pull a gun on two guys who are fighting each other, let alone think about shooting either of them? They weren't using deadly force against each other, yet you want to use deadly force to break them up. It's easy to see who shouldn't have a firearm.
lilarose,
Your example just won't work in this instance. It's one thing to protect your property and family and quite another thing to pull a weapon on someone in public. Especially if you are NOT being threatened.
Rich, you are partially right and partially wrong. You have a responsibility to help in the defense of another in the event of a violent crime. The circumstances dictate what is considered reasonable force, thus if you are in a convenience store that is being robbed, you may act with force sufficient enough to protect the clerk from getting knifed, shot or what have you. In the case of sexual assault, you are well within your rights to use force to stop the rape. In a simple fist fight, deadly force is not "justifiable".
So really, the circumstances and that not so common sense should dictate what is "reasonable" use of force. I for one would not sit idly by and do nothing in those circumstances I mentioned above.
Lila, if it's your house and you know people are home and own a gun, you could try knocking on the door or the bedroom window. Or hey, you could use your cellphone to call them and communicate with them before you BREAK IN!
Don't shoot yourself climbing through your own window!
In New York State, I would think the homeowner would be indicted for murder. The homeowner wasn't anywhere near iminently in danger of being hurt. While I totally agree this Pitkins fellow was CLEARLY breaking and entering, is your property THAT important that you have to take a life?
Yes it is. The man had no business entering a private home without an invitation. He got what he deserved.
I agree with Tommy. I would feel like I was in danger if someone was breaking into my home. You don't know how crazy they are and I want to be the one standing.
More interesting to me is that this man was walking the streets despite a lengthly criminal background.
Yeah I might have shot to injure and not to kill. But in the dark at an awkward angle (climbing through a window), you're gonna hit the biggest target, which is the abdomen.
The criminal must have thought it was worth his life to break into someone's house. The criminal made the choice, not the home owner.
How do you ascertain the man's intent without putting yourself in danger?
It'd be different if the guy was wandering around his back yard and he went out and shot him, but the guy was coming through his window into his house.
When someone is coming through your window, I hope you don't try to ask them what they're doing and end up getting hurt, or worse, your family gets hurt.
The penalty for breaking and entering is anywhere between 2-10 years. But you all seem to think it should be the death penalty. Sheesh.
Gloriajean, I dont mean this to come across as abrasive towards you, but until you are in that situation, you wont know how you will react. We can all imagine what we might do, but when panic and adrenaline kick in, your thought process goes out the window (no pun intended) and survival instincts kick in. Been there, done that...
With all of the reports of home invasions in which the perps rape your family, torture you etc, I would be quick to draw my firearm too. It goes beyond just protecting property these days, unfortunately.
For all we know, they homeowner might have intended on wounding the guy. Again, when you are in panic mode, you dont stop to think "well... maybe he just wants my TV, so let me shoot him in his hand or something.. or maybe he just wants some jewelry so I'll just trip him when he comes through the window and hog tie him and curse at him severely until the authorities arrive". It's sad, but its the world we live in... or at least its the world that the media has us believing that we live in..
"Just when the perp was starting to turn his life around". Yeah, let's feel sorry for the scumbag who apparently was a career criminal.
Would you be willing to take the chance R.M. Fields? Would you be willing to put your families life in danger?
This guy was already breaking in and who knows what else he would do once in got in. That's a big chance to take. He could do a lot of damage before the police even got there. I think people here value their life over the life of a criminal.
You don't know the homeowner's history either. I've been the victim of a break-in (while I was home) so I'd possibly be more trigger happy than someone else. That was a nightmare I wouldn't want to revisit.
"The criminal must have thought it was worth his life to break into someone's house. The criminal made the choice, not the home owner."
EXACTLY.
Breaking and entering isn't something you accidentally do.
Hey glori-guess we should stop and ask all inturders if they intend to harm us before we engage them? I live in NYS and your statement is pretty out there.
The guy was breaking into the house. I have no idea why. Theft.....rape....? I also don't know if he has a gun or not, and I'm not going to ask him. He put him self there. His crime=his death.
In Iowa, we don't have the Castle Doctrine. A man can come into your house, steal your TV, start rummaging through your stuff, and you can't use your gun, which arguably would include drawing it. I can fight with him, and if he resists, I can then draw and use my gun. Now here's the rub, if I'm fighting him, I really don't want to be in a fight with my gun because now I've dramatically increased my odds that the attacker will take it from me and use it against me. That is why I support the Castle Doctrine.
In this case, my recommendation would have been to phone the police first, but in that moment, I can't really fault the homeowner. A man is entering my house illegally, god only knows what he intends. I would like to think I'd have called the police, and called out to the man from the other room that I was armed and had already called the police. But with laws being so iffy, I don't know if even saying I'm armed in my own house is "brandishing" or legal.
I personally I would have assumed he was after crack money - I would have said hi and then helped him in and offered him some money and therefore diffused the situation - I do not live in fear of people trying to kill me. I would have been friendly and got his name, some personal details and a really good description to give the police later on. It would have frightened me for sure and I may have spent the next few years waking up at the exact same time in a cold sweat - but that is how the cookie crumbles - we live in a terrible world right now but at least I wouldn't have a murder on my soul. xxxx h
If it was just me, yeah fine a basebat to the head a few times. But if my family was home, why take a chance? How about this, would you rather be safe or be the fool that couldn't protect your family? Oh and by the way, at least the mother told it as it is instead of being delusional like some mothers, that can't fathom their grown arse kids criminal activities.
ok so if this occured in NY state the home owner would have most likely been charged with murder. in texas you are allowed to protect your home and property. id be willing to bet thats why New york's crime rate is much higer than Texas.
Texas law states that you can use deadly force to protect both your family and your home. Your life need not be in danger to invoke the "Castle Doctrine". Like it or not, it is what it is. He shouldn't have been there and even his mother knew he was a criminal. I have no sympathy for him.
gloriajean, I DO mean this to sound abrasive to you-- what an idiotic thing to say. So, this homeowner should have had interviewed this scumbag? Uh, excuse me, sir, are you armed? Are you dangerous? Oh, you're just here for my TV set? Well, carry on.
Asinine, asinine, asinine thing to say.
The only requirement is that you FEEL that your life is in danger. You do not need to prove that the person had a weapon if they have entered your home - only that you feared for your life.
What an idiot (RM Fields). I suppose you would invite him in, offer him a drink, a meal? How about NOT! If some CRIMINAL, who wouldn't think twice about respecting MY PROPERTY would break an entering and be SO DUMB to not even know that the homeowner COULD be inside waiting to protect his/her life with a gun - screw that. Come into my house through a window with mal-intent - and you're going to DIE. PERIOD! No 2nd thought for me. These liberals....I swear. It HAS to be a DISEASE!!!
What this article does not state is that the homeowner had been the victim of many breakins. Chances are Pipkins had been there before.
Gloriajean, dont be so naive. Do you really thing that reason and dialoge would work with this guy? 16 pages of previous convictions? How successful was the "system" at getting through and rehabilitating him?What positive could have happened if he did get inside with no resistance. What if the homeowner was a pretty young female? Do I need to go into details as to what could have happend then.
Helena HS, what is this guy was a convicted sex offender. Would you have made freinds with him then?
You have the option of not shooting to kill, but, you may as well use your "tool" for the purpose of which is was purchased. Guns are for killing.
Marla is Rambo.
" but when panic and adrenaline kick in, your thought process goes out the window (no pun intended) and survival instincts kick in".
And here IS the problem. You admit you lose the ability to think, let alone think rationally, when you find yourself in a less than desirable situation. Yet you just can't understand why people take issue with those such as yourself, possessing guns? You admitted here, in full public view, that you lack the ability to stay rational and think clearly and instead you panic and freak out. So do tell, where's the difference here? What is the difference between the criminal committing a crime, and the "innocent" who is completely freaking out unable to even think while wielding a gun?
Shellie Shellie Shellie! Great point.
And had I been asleep when he entered, and he bashed in my brains, raped me and my children, and burned our house down, would it have been just as important? Yeppers, he's dead meat. I can't be held responsible for the criminal actions of others. I can be responsible for protecting me and mine.
Shellie "What is the difference between the criminal committing the crime and the "innocent" who is completely freaking out and unable to even think while wielding a gun?"
If that's the type of gun owner you would be, then it really is better that you never own one. You would likely do more harm than good. You should be careful not to project your inadequacies onto everyone else though. The "innocent" person in this instance had enough of their faculties present to ensure that they did not become a higher level of victim. The overwhelming majority of us legal gun owners hope like hell that we never have to use them. We do however take umbrage with libs like yourself that expect us to share your warped belief that it is morally superior to have one's family attend their own funeral rather than have the perp's family attend theirs.
Its because of the criminal that the situation exists. I would rather have a way to protect myself and children (Maybe panicking and freaking out) then to rely on calling 911 or hope someone hears my screams for help.
If there were no criminals, there would be no story.
is your property THAT important that you have to take a life? Yes, it is. It disturbs me that some people in this country even have to ask such stupid questions, shows how little regard people have for private property. I am surrouinded by communists!
I'm all for gun rights. But I feel sorry about it. Wish people would make smarter choices.. get to live life a second chance.
It seems to me like this fellow had many second chances. He has a lengthly criminal history.
A second chance is to turn your life around, not climbing through people's windows in the middle of the night.
Archer32 you are an idiot. You feel free to go around and pick up all these scumbags, put them in your house and give them a second chance. This guy had a 16 page criminal history. His second chances were used up. He is lucky he lived as long as he did, being from Texas.
Perhaps you misunderstood Michael. I am for gun rights. I was making a statement that I wish this guy had made better decisions. Shove it up your ass.
LMAO! ^^^Archer32 +1
How many 2nd chances does this career crimal get? How many chances is he going to give a teenage girl he finds asleep in her bed? Maybe if he finds your daughter, you'll ask him to climb off her and offer him a second chance.
He HAD a second chance to decide at every step he took towards the house. With each one he made the wrong decision.
JUSTIFIED !!!! Perhaps this will teach intruders a lesson.Armed or not this young man was where he should not have been and you know he was up to no good..Who knows what he may have done.I would hate to get beat by someone...
Yes, perhaps. I mean hell it's been really effective up to this point. Crime has all but come to a screeching halt because armed citizens have taught the criminals a lesson! Pfffffft
Ya and all those rules about not killing or stealing from others have really brought crime to an screeching halt as well. Chicago, thats like the model city for the world to emulate to reduce crime right. I would like to Pffffft on your Pfffffft. You can't legislate morality. Crime has and always will exist as long as humans exist and interact with each other. The most important thing is for people to be able to defend whats theirs. That includes their life, family members, and property. Guns are an effective way to do that. Scratch one scumbag criminal off the list of many who won't be let out for B&E in another year to do the same thing again.
Shellie, if you actually look at the trend, as the numbers of uns are increasing in the country, the violent crime rate (despite what the media would like you to believe) is going down.
I would think that once an intruder gets into your home the homeowner is at a definite disadvantage. Don't know whether the intruder is going after your 'stuff' or your 'being'. If it were me I wouldn't want to take any unnecessary chances.
Exactly, and I'm not going to wait to find out. Not to mention you probably won't know if a buddy of theirs is already in the house. It's not safe to hold one at gun point if they have a friend already in the house. You can be sure they wouldn't think twice about shooting you.
The best reason in the world to own a gun is defense of home and family.........
I think this is a judgement that has to be made based on an individual circumstance. I live in an area where breaking and entering is something that happens once in a generation and usually as part of a drug deal gone wrong. Stay away from that crowd and you're safe. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not.
But if you live in an area where this kind of thing happens a lot, there is no sensible reason not to defend yourself.
And I think this is where the difference of opinion on gun issues comes into play. If you're coming from my perspective, you might think people are paranoid. If you're coming from the perspective of this homeowner or one of his friends, you'd probably think people like me are irresponsible or nuts.
And for those that want to require guns to be locked up at all times, consider this...how long does it take to locate the key to a trigger lock or to operate the combination lock on a gun safe. Fifteen second, 30 seconds, 45 seconds? How long does it take for an intruder to get inside your home? If it ever happens try asking the intruder to wait while you unlock your firearm.
Peace-322,
Good God! You're not suggesting that someone defend themselves, family or property by "running, hiding or fighting with a pair of sissors", are you?!! Especially not running because they suggest saving yourself. A lot of good that will do for the wife and kids!
napalitano forever!!! America's worst nightmare!
Joe - silent open fingerprint activated safe, if you can afford it, if not, a combination lock behind the trigger on most handguns will suffice.
We live and die by our choices. In this case he lost his life doing a choice he made. Thank God the homeowner was not harmed. Sad but true our world is becoming more violent, less respect for life, and daylight or night time home invasions are becoming more frequent.
"Sad but true our world is becoming more violent, less respect for life"
Well, there were times in our history that humans can enslave other humans, and wars broke out every year. But that's all history I guess, just saying.
Don't watch or care to learn about the rest of the world, do you 'punisher'?
That's everyday life in some parts of Africa and the Middle East.
If you don't want to get shot dead don't break into some one else's house. ITS THAT SIMPLE!
Sounds like this guy had a large criminal history. Justice was served.
The homeowner did was right!, if someone is trying to come in my house I will shoot that MTF!!! This well teach other stupit MTFs a lesson!!!!
Wishful thinking. People who break into another person's house aren't thinking things through. They won't be deterred. They're thinking that they can get away with it.
This one will be deterred.
Deterrence requires thinking about consequences. This guy isn't thinking about anything anymore.
So all you nay-sayers...what was the homeowner supposed to do, wait until the guy was inside and raping his wife? Killing his children? HELL NO! He removed the threat. A ghetto thug crawling into his home through a window under the cover of darkness got what he so well deserved!
I don't think anyone knows just what they would do in any situation. I believe I would have told him to stay where he was and called the police. If he moved I probably would have shot him. It would not be easy for me to pull the trigger on another Human Being.
Hey Granfpa, please turn you gun in.......
Pipkin made his decision!. When he decided to enter through that window to access that home through force, he acknowledged the risk of what could happen. No one twisted his arm to enter!. HE GAMBLED!, and he lost!. not the home owner. I'm tired of hearing about how accountability for a person's actions become null and void when committing criminal acts. Had the home owner not been armed, he may have very well been the dead one in the end.
Why press charges? Another POS that the state does not have pay to house, feed, and give medical care to.
The home owner more and likely saved someones life, as this guy was going nowhere except the next step to murder anyone who got in his way.
Question: Why did you shoot the intruder 6 times? Ans: That's all the gun will hold. What was the home owner supposed to do? Invite him in and ask his intentions over milk and cookies? Oh, you only wanted to steal everything of value, okay help yourself. Yeah right.
How about shooting him in the leg? I guess you ALWAYS SHOOT TO KILL.
Damn right you do. Wounding them only allows them more time to retaliate and puts you into further danger.
I think Sam you watch to many movies, you miss once then he is on you. You shoot at the large part of the body and you continue to shoot until the threat is removed. The same dumb AZZes that use a gun to scare somebody and then it gets taken away and shot with. If you are not willing to use it then don't have it but for those of us that will protect our "castle" it is multiple shots to the main body mass until the threat is removed. If you shoot a leg, tell me how do you know if he then doesn't take out his gun and shoots and not worry about wounding you??????
If you 'wound' them, they sue you. If you exterminate them, that final. I don't aim to 'wound'...
I've been lucky, and hope that luck continues. I've never aimed any of my guns at a living target. I like knowing that should I ever have to defend myself or my family, I am capable of doing so. I'd never rely on the police or others for my own safety.
DM57 is absolutely right; that's why police are trained to shoot center-of-mass. Shooting to wound is a dangerous practice, and more likely to miss, possibly injuring someone across the street, or give the bad guy the chance to attack or go for his gun. You don't shoot unless you are justified and prepared to kill.
sam adams,
This is where you lack of knowlege shows. You dont shoot to kill or shoot to wound. You aim center mass, as to minimized the risk of missing and having your shot go where you dont want it to go or risk hitting someone else. When you pulse is up to 160 bpm a shot in the leg is not a sure thing. You shoot to stop the immediate danger. Whether the bad guy lives or dies is not the intent, then call 911 if they have not already been called and let them know to send an ambulance. This is taught by almost all firearms training classes
sam -
And allow him to turn around and sue the homeowner? No thanks! Being the victim once is enough!
Oh, and if you don't think the homeowner is the victim in this, it is you who are nuts!
Sam - even the cops don't shoot at the legs. It's too hard to hit them. Center of mass is where they teach you to shoot.
Always. Only an idiot would shoot to wound. The only time I'm pulling the trigger is when I and in fear for my, or my family's life. If that's the case there is only one way to be assured to survive. Kill the other guy. (If he can no longer fight back before he dies then you stop and that's OK too.) He can't shoot back dead. (At least the odds are astronomical against it...) Shooting to wound opens a whole new can or worms no one needs in a life and death situation.
A secure area is a neutralized area.
Forensics are very good at determining the angle of shot and the distance shot. It is highly recommended that you shoot center of mass as many times while the perpetrator is in the vertical position. Once the perp is down, the forensics and detectives could determine that excessive force was used if you continued to perforate the perp.
Inspired, so you are saying to shoot until you neutralize the threat? Sounds good..
db-
That's EXACTLY what I am saying. Perforate until they drop. If you take a look at some of the shootings that law enforcement are involved in; they don't stop with just one shot. They continue until the threat has been neutralized.
Great times, in Fayettenam; do you have any of Mr. Cooper's cash I can borrow?
>;-)
Or, in the case of the LAPD and the bright blue pickup, you shoot until you run out of bullets, or you kill the 2 violent newspaper-delivering criminals!
Even his mother did not seem surprised.
And that says a whole lot.
I just hate hearing about people throwing their lives away... I am glad the homeowner is okay, though.
Probably the saddest part of the whole story. She didn't seem surprised or angry. Just resigned.
Gneisenau - I thought the same thing...
Good. Beginning, middle and end of story. In less than a minute probably.
Very good.
But some people here wanted more dialogue. I think it holds up well as is.
The dead guy is probably the same guy from the bed intruder song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TALKING POINTS
NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Dealers
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.
Private Sales
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.
Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]
Gun Shows
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.
A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from "street/illegal sources" or "friends or family."
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]
Prosecutions
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4]
"Universal Background Checks"
While the term "universal background checks" may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly "universal" background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.
According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of "universal background checks" depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.
Bet there's a heck of a line to buy this guy a beer, or sure as hell should be. Kudos and good shot to the homeowner.
Much better headline than Homeowner found dead, attacker still at large.
When you do stupid things then more than likely bad things will happen to you. Considering his long criminal record I wonder why he was still running around freely to begin with. As far as those saying the homeowner was not in any imminent danger...how do you know that? Also, how do you know he did not feel his life was being threatened. If you break into someones home you just might get shot. I guess he didn't consider that aspect of his crime ridden life and it finally caught up with him.
This is an actual legitimate castle doctrine/stand your ground case. Now if the intruder had been climbing into his neighbor's window across the street and he left his home and went out of his way to shoot the guy, that is not a legitimate castle doctrine/stand your ground case...unfortunately it's been used for the latter on a few occasions by individuals (including George Zimmerman) who felt that such laws are a free-for-all license to kill.
George Zimmerman claims that he was acting in self defense. He was a member of the neighborhood watch which gave him legitimate reason to follow the punk. Now the issue boils down to was the punk attacking Zimmerman when he shot or not. If so, any person has reasonable action to defend himself. Especially like that Martin thug.
The duty of the neighborhood watch is to observe and report suspicious activity. He was under no duty to follow or confront.
And this is where things get sticky. Let's disconnect from the incident and put you and I in a similar incident. I am following you around because you're walking through my neighborhood. It is dark. I am armed. After following you for half a mile, you decide I am probably a thug who wants your wallet and I'm just waiting until you walk into someplace with fewer witnesses. You stand your ground and pull out your firearm. I stand my ground, counter-attack with my firearm and kill you. Who was right?
There were no witnesses. There is no forensic evidence of any attack. Both Zimmermen and Martin had a right and a reason to be there. Why, then, is Martin a "punk" and a "thug"?......and dead? I believe that this case of the intruder in Dallas, well, nice shot home owner! I think that a real quick "investigation" will rightfully result in no charges at all to the Dallas homeowner...maybe even result in a commendation, seriously. But the Trevor Martin incident is a coldblooded, premeditated, racially provoked murder. Well, at least that is my opinion after reading up on the incident.
Pragmatic, You can create all the hypothetical situations you want with fourteen different variables and you still will have gotten no where with yourself. For your other comments: How are watches supposed to "observe and report" if they aren't able to see what the potential perp is doing? I will spell it out for you - They FOLLOW them. And - No, they shouldn't "collect all kinds of data about firearms."
But Zimmerman was a resident of that community, he had every right to be there and to follow anybody he wanted to. If memory serves, he DID watch, observe and report the activity. If there was a strange person in my neighborhood, I would have politely asked them if they needed any help (since they obviously don't belong there). It wasn't until Trevon felt threatened that he turned on Zimmerman.
Catfish Dave, did you read anything on the story? Zimmerman's nose was broken and he had cuts on the back of his head and neighbors saw Martin on top of him. I am not taking a stance on right or wrong but how can you comment that there was no forensic evidence or witnesses? BTW, it is Trayvon Martin.
Neighborhood crime watch is NOT there to follow and confront. And this particular crime watch group was NOT to be armed. Zimmerman said he was on his way to Target when he spotted Martin. He was NOT in his crime watch role. Doesn't matter if Zimmerman lived there or not, unless Martin was on HIS property he had NO RIGHT to approach or question Martin. If Zimmerman skulked around and followed Martin and approached him, Martin had EVERY RIGHT to level Zimmerman based on the stand your ground law. Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. I will bet you my life savings that had he not had a gun on him he would have done just that.
And chuck, when one of your kids is over at a friends house and a strange man follows them in his car then gets out and starts questioning them do you teach them to stop and answer all questions being asked by this stranger? If your answer is yes, then you are complete failure as a parent. If you answer is no, then you are a hypocrite suffering from an overblown ego.
steelers,
"Hello police, there's a suspicious guy and I think he's up to no good. Here is what he looks like and here is his location." The perp is on foot, there's only so far he can go from that phone call. Then alert your neighbors to watch for this character and be prepared. Anything beyond that is vigilantism and puts you in a grey area.
Then enjoy all the broken, ineffective, stupid legislation that is going to come out of politicians reacting to knee-jerk emotions of their irrational and uninformed constituants. Without any information, it's all just guess-work and anecdote.
Pragmatic-3918582
For your other comments: How are watches supposed to "observe and report" if they aren't able to see what the potential perp is doing?
"Hello police, there's a suspicious guy and I think he's up to no good. Here is what he looks like and here is his location." The perp is on foot, there's only so far he can go from that phone call. Then alert your neighbors to watch for this character and be prepared. Anything beyond that is vigilantism and puts you in a grey area.
First off Prag...I'm going to borrow from your name, though you don't seem to understand the logic it possesses. In the real world, the ends often "justify the means". We live and breathe in a world where we must often over-reach...simply because we are often in a position of responsibility and do not know what will work as far as achieving a safe neighborhood, home etc... You place far too much faith in police, neighbors etc... that doesn't work so well in a gated community where you are responsible once you discover suspicious activity. Always remember, police show up AFTER the crime, very seldom BEFORE the crime occurs. Zimmerman could not just sit and wait for the cops or someone else to report on the perp HE was supposed to watch.
It is quite possible Martin would have disappeared by the time authorities arrived since he lived near the gated community, and the entire incident would have not occurred(whether that's good or not, I would not claim to know for sure), but it's likely Martin would be in possession of more guts to pull of something bigger or more worse later on. I would infer from this incident that legislation requiring (2) individuals to constitute a neighborhood watch would be in order. And therefore an additional witness.
Now that is WHAT is known as GUN CONTROL. He hit what he was aiming at, and that was a punk, whose intentions won't be known, but it obivious to anyone, he was intent on stealing things he NEVER worked for. Whereas, the home owner, (good shooting partner), did WORK for those items, and he protected them.
Keep printing news stories about home owners protect their kin and their property. It's time to send a strong message to these punks who feel they can steal your things without punity.
And to people who don't believe in guns, please place a sign that says "gun free zone" in your front yard. I will post one that says "my new neighbor doesn't believe in guns." Guess who will get broken into first?
I have a better idea. Make it legal to collect all kinds of data about firearms. That's the only way sensible legislation will come forth. Anecdotes aren't a substitute for good data.
Pragmatic; you can find data to show that states that have strict gun control has the highest crime rate and homicides, you can see that during a recession crime rates with weapons increase and continue higher as the nation struggles with high unemployment rates and inflation. Now for those states that have Castle doctrine and concealed carry permits, crime rates are substantially lower. Recommend do an advance search using site:.gov or look me up on Facebook, I have it all posted.
Please define. What is sensible in this case? Banning guns (especially those that are rarely used in crimes)? Close the so called "gun show loop hole" (i.e. private sales of weapons which can't possibly be regulated or controlled)? Registration? Confiscation? Better background checks (to which criminals won't submit to anyway)? You tell me. What is sensible?
Ban criminals.
Chuck, if you need someone else to define "sensible" for you then your problems are much larger than you think.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Sounds pretty sensible to me.
@Shellie-657180
Lest you forget, this country had a President, who was also a lawyer, that asked what the definition of "is" is.
So yes, please explain "sensible legislation".
ed,
The problem with this type of approach is you can't prove whether strict gun control is causing higher crime rates or a reaction to high crime rates. And what about edge cases, such as my state, where there are both very strict gun control measures AND a castle doctrine law? What about states, such as LA, where there is a castle doctrine law, concealed carry, loose gun control, and a high crime rate? And are these laws causing a high crime rate, or a reaction to a high crime rate? You see, it isn't easy to look at these data, especially when it is incomplete.
It is illegal to gather and publish different kinds of data on firearms. There are some data out there, but nowhere near the level of data that is collected for car accidents, disease, poisoning, and any other way to die.
chuck,
I don't know what sensible is. Because the data of what works and what doesn't aren't available! Blindly groping in the dark to see what works and what doesn't is not only a violation of our rights, it is a waste of time.
I agree 100%.... To those of you who think the homeowner should be charge, i said this let the next victim be you and maybe then and only then you will think otherwise. Its too bad we may never know what the man's intention were but I would not have endanger any one else life in my house whole. once again the criminal has ALL rights and innocent do not. Is this A$$ backward or not????