• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen shot to death during home invasion

Drug use is an unenumerated right per the Ninth Amendment. It always helps to read the WHOLE document instead of just latching onto the Amendments you find personally convenient.

I'm sorry but how do you turn

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Into

"Drug use is a right; drugs can't be illegal."

?

The Ninth Amendment was put there to ensure that CONSTITUTIONAL rights are not the ONLY rights. It's funny how it's been interpreted to be the reverse of what was intended- now, apparently, all rights are Constitutional, and the judicial branch can make up any BS "right" it wants to and say it is "unenumerated". It even makes clear that the rights are "retained by the people"- not the Federal Government.

I understand the rationale against Federal drug laws, but for drug use to be a right that even state and local laws can't restrict?
 
The Ninth Amendment was put there to ensure that CONSTITUTIONAL rights are not the ONLY rights. It's funny how it's been interpreted to be the reverse of what was intended- now, apparently, all rights are Constitutional, and the judicial branch can make up any BS "right" it wants to and say it is "unenumerated". It even makes clear that the rights are "retained by the people"- not the Federal Government.

I understand the rationale against Federal drug laws, but for drug use to be a right that even state and local laws can't restrict?
Most notably, while the 9th states that there are rights other than those noted in the Constitution, it does NOT prescribe any degree of protection for those rights.

And so, while yo may very well have some right to use drugs, nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from restricting that right.
 
What he did was legal, but imo he used excessive force by jumping directly to lethal force when his life was not in danger.

Someone broke into your home...that doesn't mean you just pull out a gun and shoot them.

And why fight with the kid after shooting him? Shoot him again, damnit. Don't have a slap fight all around your property.
Ok. :neutral:


Why fight the kid after shooting him?
Gee, I don't know?
Maybe the kid called him dad after he shot him and said it in such a way that the guy could see the kid was just f'd up and knew his life wasn't in danger. ???
 
Ok. :neutral:


Why fight the kid after shooting him?
Gee, I don't know?
Maybe the kid called him dad after he shot him and said it in such a way that the guy could see the kid was just f'd up and knew his life wasn't in danger. ???
Why jump right to lethal force, though?

Was the homeowner not otherwise able to defend himself? I mean, did he have a disability or something?
 
Why jump right to lethal force, though?
From the story:

KEVIL, KY (KFVS) - A man was shot and killed in McCracken County after police say he tried to break into a family's home around 2:00 a.m.

The family woke to the sound of the alarm system, indicating the door to the attached garage had been opened. The homeowner went outside to investigate, when he heard his wife inside screaming.

He ran back into the home where his wife told him the intruder, later identified as 18-year-old Andrew Caleb Barnett, was inside their attached garage attempting to get into the home through a wooden door with a window, according to police. The homeowner reportedly yelled several times that he had a gun, telling Barnett not to come inside. However, Barnett continued to make advances toward the man

It doesnt sound like he jumped to deadly force.

Once you make it very clear that you have a gun and that you will use it, an advance towards you is a clear illustration that your life is in danger.
 
Last edited:
From the story:

It doesn't sound like he jumped to deadly force.

Once you make it very clear that you have a gun and that you will use it, an advance towards you is a clear illustration that your life is in danger.

Or that the guy is up on shrumes, thinks he's at home, your his dad, and wants nothing more then to go to bed and your life isn't actually in any danger at all.

Your quote of the story shoes that the home owner did jump directly to lethal force. If you disagree, then please tell me what non-lethal force the home owner used. Open hand soft? Closed hand soft? Open hand hard? Closed hand hard? Electrical device? Chemical deterrent? How did the home owner attempt to subdue and detain the teen?

I'm not contesting the homeowner's right to use lethal force, I'm disagreeing with his decision in this case.
 
Or that the guy is up on shrumes, thinks he's at home, your his dad, and wants nothing more then to go to bed and your life isn't actually in any danger at all.
No way to know that, and stupid to assume so. The homeowner gave clear, fair warning that he had the capacity to use deadly force -- and THEN the kid moved toward him.

At some point, you have to decide that your life is in danger, or its not. The homeowner decided that it was, and defended himself. His call, not yours.

Best to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 -- and, since charges are not expected against the homeowner, it appears the 12 arent going to be consulted.

And, lets be real -- does knowing that someone is on drugs mean your life is less threatened?

Your quote of the story shoes that the home owner did jump directly to lethal force.
Yes -- because warning the kid several times is clearly the use of deadly force.
 
Last edited:
No way to know that, and stupid to assume so. The homeowner gave clear, fair warning that he had the capacity to use deadly force -- and THEN the kid moved toward him.

At some point, you have to decide that your life is in danger, or its not. The homeowner decided that it was, and defended himself. His call, not yours.
What's your point?

Best to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 -- and, since charges are not expected against the homeowner, it appears the 12 arent going to be consulted.

I never said the home owner did anything illegal :confused:

And, lets be real -- does knowing that someone is on drugs mean your life is less threatened?

This is one example where knowing does make a difference, yes.

Yes -- because warning the kid several times is clearly the use of deadly force.

It's not the use of less than lethal force, either. A warning is not force at all.
 
Someone broke into your home...that doesn't mean you just pull out a gun and shoot them.
If someone breaks into my home, I will break out a gun and shoot him.
 
The target market would be more likely to utilize such a facility if- instead of touting "safety" as its main attraction- one made it really "fun". You know, lots of psychedelic stuff to look at and play with, cool music, trippy movies to watch, black light and body paint. Padded walls are fine; hell, put a moonwalk in there.
The "staff" would need to just sort of blend into the woodwork, unless needed, otherwise they'd cause inhibition and paranoia.

Actually, this is a very good idea. If hard-core drugs like psilocybin ever do get legalized, I think such facilities would be an excellent way to keep both the public and users safe.
 
\
Someone broke into your home...that doesn't mean you just pull out a gun and shoot them.
.




Excatly, I mean asking him nicely not to rape your wife or daughter or slaughtering you always works better! :ssst:
 
THIS WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF HE DIDN'T HAVE A GUN!!!:roll:


It works both ways.:2wave:

He could have done as much damage--if not more--with a baseball bat, butcher knife, end table, fists, bullwhip, lamp, chair, scissors, extension cord, brief case, computer keyboard, beer bottle, drinking glass, curtain rod, stereo speaker, circular saw, jig saw, utility knife, claw hammer, crow bar, screw driver, compound bow, crossbow, slingshot, blowgun, pellet gun, an all thread rod, a dowel rod, pneumatic nail gun, or liquid pumber. Gonna outlaw all those things, too???

The kid was getting ****ed up, no matter what. Bottom line is, had he not B&E'ed, it wouldn't have happened.
 
Last edited:
If someone breaks into my home, I will break out a gun and shoot him.

If someonje breaks into my home, there won't be any need to, "break out", a gun. A gun is within arm's reach, anywhere in my home.
 
If someonje breaks into my home, there won't be any need to, "break out", a gun. A gun is within arm's reach, anywhere in my home.

Wow, you must have a vast arsenal of guns.
Or else a very small home.
 
My point is obvious. My point is that when someone breaks into your home, it does mean you just pull out a gun and shoot him.

Not really, no, it doesn't.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Alternative phrasing: you're wrong.

We're all talking about opinions here so how could any of us be wrong?

***
You can use an AR15 for home protection, but you shouldn't due to over penetration. Hollow points would be much better. That's the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom